The Point is one shouldn't throw stones when you live in a glass house. I want to remind people in countries with parliamentary systems that your processes aren't exactly "democratic" either. The only reason we heard from them, is because they're upset that Hillary didn't win because of the electoral system. It was about Hillary, and who won, not the system that concerned them. The argument about popular vote was just a ploy. Their systems may be more undemocratic than America's.
No one is throwing stones, stop making everything personal. And why are you still talking about Hilary? The election was 3 years ago, the discussion has moved on. Hilary and Obama are not in any elected office, they are history. That particular battle in the culture wars is over.
Inadequacies in systems are pointed out, that's what discussions are for.
In any case, I partly agree with you. I can understand not liking the Electoral College system, but fighting gerrymandering and voter suppression might be a better use of people's time, complaining about the Electoral College is probably not fruitful. It may be ok as part of a discussion of constitutional amendments maybe, but there are more immediate ways to insure fairer elections.
Not to mention election funding reform. Allowing unlimited funding is a threat to your republic, many people feel. Would your "founding fathers" have been ok with what you have now, do you think?