Countries typically do not directly elect their chief executive by a simple plurality vote. There is usually some mechanism to force an outright majority. In parliamentary systems this is done by a majority of members, sometimes requiring a coalition of parties in parliament. In other countries like France the president requires a runoff vote so that a true majority of the vote is needed. Even in the US there are cities like Chicago and states like CA that have two rounds of voting to insure a majority is reached.
The US Constitution left it to the EC to create a majority, and if they couldn't come to a majority the selection would go to the House and they would need a majority of the states - a blending of popular vote and state vote. But in both rounds an outright majority is required. The defect of the NPVIC is that it permits the election of the national executive with a simple plurality of the vote. If the process included a provision whereby another round of voting would be required if no candidate for president got 50% of the vote it would be more consistent in terms of electing our chief executive.
This seems like a pretty silly critique when the Electoral College can elect candidates who don't even win a plurality of the popular vote. The "Electoral College majority" is just an artificial method of creating a so-called "majority". Electoral College majorities would still exist under the NPVIC, they'd just be meaningless.
There are examples in parliamentary democracies where the winning party did not win a plurality of the vote. Like the EC this happens when the more popular party is overconcentrated in relatively few districts. I could argue that the EC is a substitute parliament that exists for only one task - selecting the president.
