I agree with your last sentence, but this is very clearly the intention. Small states threw a fit when they were writing the constitution so now we're stuck with this bullshit.
That’s not strictly true; the original intention was for slaveholding states to have a roughly equal voice in presidential elections without letting slaves vote. Smaller states threw a fit about counting slaves as full citizens for the purposes of representation, which is how we arrived at the Three-Fifths Compromise.
The Connecticut Compromise created the Senate, not the electoral college. The explicit purpose of the electoral college was to give more power to slaveholding states without enfranchising slaves.
The Three-Fifths Compromise is intrinsically related to the electoral college, because it instructed how to count slaves when determining how many House seats a state would get.
I'm not sure if you're aware, but the senate is the reason the electoral college isn't democratic. Every state gets two senators and because of that 2 bonus electoral college votes. That's why Wyoming gets 3 times as many electoral college votes per person as California. Without the senate the electoral college is just a popular vote. The 3/5 compromise doesn't even exist anymore because slavery is now illegal.
> I'm not sure if you're aware, but the senate is the reason the electoral college isn't democratic.
That’s one of the reasons, but not the only one. Another problem is that electors are allocated to the winner of the state popular vote no matter how close it is.
> Without the senate the electoral college is just a popular vote.
Even if you didn’t count Senators for the purposes of electoral votes, you could still end up with one candidate winning the popular vote and another winning the electoral vote.
