Why does it not make sense that each person have one vote? The rural, low population states already have disproportionate power in the Senate and I am not arguing against taking that away, but the people should have equal say in the president. The EC also tends to disenfranchise black and hispanic voters because they tend to live in more urban areas. And your argument that the unpopulated states won't think a direct democracy very democratic, I'm not quite sure what to respond to that. It seems far more democratic to me than our current republic structure that gives them more of a voice than others. I don't think of them as "uneducated boobs," but rather recognize that those rural areas are statistically poorer and less educated - which is a huge problem (and obviously not the fault of the people who live there). There are obviously incredibly smart people there, but many are unfortunately victim to totally inept school systems. Look at recent political breakdown of people with college degrees.
I'm not convinced that college degrees make people smarter or more open minded - only better able to justify their prejudices.
The senate being regionally balanced is to the point, but it's part of the legislative branch, and it balances out the congress which is based on population. So in the legislative branch the way they balance the population and the regions is by having two houses. One which reflects each of those. In the judicial branch that balance is captured in other ways.
Within the executive branch, unless you are somehow going to have two presidents which is probably unworkable, there has to be another way to try and balance the weight population against making sure each region also has some balanced input into the decision. Otherwise the executive branch is always going to chosen by the most populated parts of the country and can afford to ignore or piss off the less populated parts. In a system that's supposed to work on the balance of powers that's a serious problem, it would be permanently biased toward the interests of the populated metropolitan regions.
The point of the electoral college is to try and split that difference, so it reflects both population but also regional interests.
Why would any smaller state agree to a system where they have no effective influence in voting within one of the three branches? It's like asking Luxembourg to agree not to have any influence in EU decision making because, after all, they are tiny and most people live elsewhere. They'd be crazy and within their rights, not to mention obligated to their citizens, to have nothing to do with it.
But you are absolutely right in that last paragraph when you say that the election of Trump didn't come out of nowhere. People want to feel seen and understood, and they don't by the typically cold and coiffed politician. It is ironic that they got Trump as their anti-politician politician, for he could not care less about the average man or woman, but here we are.
Finally, I am genuinely curious about your last few sentences. What do you think Biden should do, if not go back to business? If you mean that he needs to reach out and represent the whole of America and not just those who voted for him, he has affirmed that standpoint numerous times (unlike Trump). If not, what do you mean by that?
Does he mean that, however? Do you really see him making the necessary changes, or that he would be allowed to? Is any of that reflected in his platform? It's pretty straight up Democratic same-old.
If the party takes Biden's election to mean they can continue to carry on as they have been the last 50 years, people will make the Trump choice again as soon as one appears. And the next one might be a lot less benign.