Not at all. I'm questioning the, largely unquestioned, premise that the will of the majority is an inherently good thing; that accurately reflecting the will of the majority at any given time should be the goal. I don't think it should be. The goal should be good government.Why is the popular vote the whole point?The point being, it would mean that whoever did win the pop vote would also win the election. As is the case right now in every country except the United States and Pakistan. And that's the whole point here.
Why?
"Why" what?
Because it is. What is this, some kinda trick question?
If you purport to hold a "vote" --- on a candidate for office, a proposition, where to go to eat, anything at all ---- then by definition you're following the will of the majority. If you're not, what's the point of a "vote"?
That makes no sense ---"where do we want to eat, and if the majority don't agree with my choice we're going there anyway"?