> However, it's still not mob rule, by the virtue of the fact that mob rule is necessarily non-legal, while the electoral college is the essence of "legal".

Okay. I'm not attached to the particular semantics of "mob rule," but if you define it deliberately such that it doesn't apply in this scenario, then of course it doesn't apply. I just meant, very simply, that it's rule by someone other than who the people expressed their desire to be ruled by.

> I just meant, very simply, that it's rule by someone other than who the people expressed their desire to be ruled by.

That's not what the term means. It's practically the opposite of one of the meanings of the word, which is a pejorative for majoritarian rule. An absolute autocrat is about as far as you can get from mob rule, and yet it's "rule by someone other than who the people express their desire to be ruled by".

You’re not really grokking “mob rule”. “Mob rule” can easily even be putting someone in charge that a majority of people want. The point is that it’s done outside of the legal system.

The "mob" in "mob rule" does not refer to a mafia. Perhaps that's the source of this confusion?

Indeed, it comes from Latin “mobile vulgus”, which means roughly “easily swayed common people”. “mobile” is of course the origin of the English word “mobile”, but the thing being easily moved here is the crowd’s feelings and opinions. “vulgus” is source of the English word “vulgar”, but less pejorative - the masses, the crowd, the common or ordinary people, the non-elite