But it doesn't and that's the point.
You don't get to change the rules after the fact and claim you won or should have won the game based on those rule changes.
The manner in which a person plays a game is critically contingent on the rules for winning said game. If you won Presidential elections via popular vote the strategy employed to win those elections would be vastly different than it is based on the EC model. It would make sense for Republicans to fight for every vote in CA and NY, unlike now because while they might not win the majority of the votes in the state those votes go toward winning the overall national election. It would also likely change who and how many people voted. Is there any doubt that a significant number of conservatives don't vote in CA because they figure it doesn't matter? And I'm sure that can be said of more liberal voters in other states that typically lean Republican.
Democracies have notoriously not survived long and have committed some horrible acts. The whole 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner analogy. That is one of the reasons we are a republic and not a democracy and for the EC. The only body of our government that was originally voted on by popular vote was the HoR. Senators were originally chosen by the state legislatures, and were much easier to recall and far more accountable to the population than they are currently IMO.