It's not the electoral college that protects us from that. It's decentralized power, different branches of government with different powers, states rights, elected representatives, the constitution, etc. We can have still have all of that if we directly elected the president. Getting a bare majority of the popular vote is no more prone to tyranny than getting a bare majority of the electoral votes. It's still ONE person being elected by getting the most votes - the only difference is that the electoral college adds a layer of abstraction which results in some peoples votes counting more than others. Even just switching to proportional allocation of electors instead of winner take all would be an improvement.
Wolves = Urban population centers
Sheep = Rural/agricultural areas with smaller populations.
The wolves and the sheep have very different ways of life. Different standards of living, different needs and different values. The urban population centers, even the ones on different coasts are going to have more in common with each other than they will with the rural/agricultural areas and the same with the rural/agricultural areas.
In a popular vote, the urban areas will end up with more representation. That representation will priorities their needs. The urban areas are going to be more likely to vote for the same things and things that the rural/agricultural areas don't want, need or even things they won't tolerate.
And just so you can understand how far back this goes, 10 years before the Civil War, if you asked the average American in what direction the country would split should there be some kind of conflict, the answer would have been East (settled/urban) and West (frontier/rural) not north and south.