That is disingenuous. Of course you elect a President via plebiscite. It's just that your electoral zones are distributed to prevent larger states dominating the political process, in exactly the same way ours is. You must win the most seats, not the most votes, to be elected. It is a fairer system than the alternative. We've had many Prime Ministers who scored fewer votes, but a majority of seats.
I regret that I must once again explain the English language to you.
Definition of plebiscite
: a vote by which the people of an entire country or district express an opinion for or against a proposal especially on a choice of government or ruler
1 The direct vote of all the members of an electorate on an important public question such as a change in the constitution.
We could doubtless have a longish conversation about a darker (but strictly connotative) usage you seem to have adopted in this thread; but on a forum such as this one we would rapidly get the discussion into such thinning air that Fash would need to issue oxygen masks to everyone. So I'll simply observe that comparisons of the two-tiered US electoral college system to the original Roman advisory
uses of plebiscites is highly flawed, both de jure
and de facto