If the govt wins 70% of the popular vote, while the president won only 35%, who would have the more legitimate claim to possessing the moral authority to act on citizens' behalf?
Why should a president who only had 35% support possess power to check on a govt elected by 70% of the people?
With the changes, the Elected President scheme has become a bit of a joke, really. It is nothing more than an Ivory Tower club reserved only for selected elites who twist and turn the scheme in such contortions that it has banned everyone else, except the very elite of the elites, from qualifying.
In short, it has no relevance to the average citizen at all.