They envisioned the mob (popular vote) as being susceptible to demigogue's. Because theoretically the popular-vote population has a lower mean intelligence than the electoral college participants. And, would therefore protect the democracy from legitimately voting in authoritarian power.

This pov has been taken from dialogue in the federalist papers, I believe. But, there are probably other sources as well to back up this framer rationale.

It's interesting to note that there is something called the wisdom of the crowds where aggregated/collective decisions are better than one person, or smaller groups making decisions. The degree of interaction between decision participants, in this case an election 'process', and the diversity of the people making those decision facilitate the 'wisdom' of that decision (the flip side being group think).

In our current Democratic process the popular vote would seem to be facilitating a better choice for President, than the electoral college. That's another non-fiction narrative but imo is absolutely true through generally accepted complex social system principles.

Although that case could change in the future, I don't see how right now but it would have to be left open as a possibility.

Can we change it? I think it would be an amendment to the constitution, which would require a 2/3 affirmative vote by the American population. Not the voting population, but the American population.