No, actually, it isn’t.
The federal government was designed as a nation of individual governments, not a singular one. As such Senate was the main representative body for those states, and the House of Representatives was to balance that body with the vote and will of the people. As a government of governments the offices of POTUS and VP are functions of the government of governments and as such are elected by said governments, leaving how that state chooses to decide that p to each state individually.
That is the design in the original constitution. Not one of proportional representation of the people. To illustrate this let us consider a modern corollary — the U.N. it isn’t quite the same but close enough.
The U.N. is a government of governments. We the people have no say in it whatsoever. We have ambassadors — think of them as senators in this case. There is a Secretary-General, the president in this comparison. But there is no House.
What would happen if the UN decided in the way you propose the POTUS to be? China has about 20% of the population, India comes in second. So between these two nations you have almost 40% of the control of the U.N. does that sound good? Does that sound like good representation? Should Beijing have so much say in the lives of those in Arkansas?
Fortunately that isn’t how the U.N. operates. Nor should it be how the U.S.A. operates, nor was it designed to — for good reasons. The founders were aware of the danger in democracy, and designed a way to minimize it. We’ve screwed it up by trying to be less in accordance with the design. The solution isn’t to double down on the negatives, but to pull those slivers out.