But that's not how it works. It's constitutional if the constitution allows it. Holding a vote of the people is allowed, hence constitutional, but it isn't required. If there's a clear choice available, the fact that most people have chosen one option does not convert that into a mandate.
Holding a vote is common sense only because we are used to it. The founder's method is also common sense, if you approach it from their perspective. It's the states choosing the President, through the medium of appointed electors. A popular vote for President was not the idea.
And as I've pointed out before, you're counter argument isn't a legal argument. It's just what you think makes more sense. But the case we're discussing here is a legal one, based on the constitution.
“But the case we’re discussing here is a legal one, based on the constitution.”
So, by 1824, which is not too distant from 1789, 75% of the state legislatures could not see what you so easily perceive, that by appointing electors according to the majority vote in a state, they were not electing a president according to the Constitution?