common misconception. we have the electoral college because even among free citizens the right to vote was subject to different requirements, some requiring property ownership, some requiring a tax to be paid, some allowing free black men to vote, and new jersey even extended the franchise to unmarried women property owners. so a state which extended suffrage would have comparatively more votes to count in a system where more votes wins. it didn't exactly encourage democracy in the way that having a direct election would have encouraged the states to extend the franchise much faster than than did, but that's not antidemocratic.
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_719.asp
keep in mind that many states didn't adopt winner take all in the electoral college (which makes it much more antidemocratic) until the second competitive election in 1800, and in the first party system you voted (if you did, some states the legislatures just picked) for an elector, not the person at the top of the ticket.
anyway, the original system was so dumb it was axed after just two competitive elections because *of course* political parties were going to emerge.