“I fail to see how you can acknowledge that the Three-Fifths compromise was a concession to the South but the electoral college, whose composition is arrived at in the exact same way, was not.”
Because there was very little written about adopting the Electoral College as a means of providing Southern states with power and a wealth of information written about demagoguery. Consider Tocqueville, who wrote explicitly of American democracy:
“If it be admitted that a man possessing absolute power may misuse that power by wronging his adversaries, why should not a majority be liable to the same reproach? Men do not change their characters by uniting with one another; nor does their patience in the presence of obstacles increase with their strength.”
During those times, literacy and education were quite low — there was very good reason to fear the power of a mob. And political parties weren’t commonplace — so there was very good reason to fear a race with multiple candidates resulting in a contested election that needed resolving. And the Great Compromise was already accepted as a means to provide balance between state’s power and the popular vote, which was essential in the creation of the Legislative branch — it only made sense to extend that to the Executive branch (and made evident by accounts of the Constitutional Convention). This isn’t to say that it wasn’t a concession to Southern states, but simply that the preponderance of evidence supports the creation of the Electoral College as primarily a defense against the tyranny of the majority.