I'll point back to you saying this:

the electoral college picks presidents for us like kings

Which is, for lack of a better way to put it, simply bullshit.

I'll also point to you saying this:

I don't care how the system works to vote for president.

Which sounds like willful ignorance about the election process. I don't think that's a position to be proud of.

You ask why we even have electors at all, as if that's some sort of big "gotcha" monent. I already clearly stated that I don't think it's a particularly good system, especially coupled with FPTP and winner-talke-all. What it is, though, is the system we have, so understanding it is pretty vital.

Technically speaking, no, you do not directly vote for a presidential candidate in the general election. In practice, your vote almost certainly will be represented by the electors you vote for if your chosen candidate wins your state or if you live in Nebraska or Maine. Certainly, the electors could be removed entirely from the process while electoral votes remain. That would remove one unnecessary part of the equation, but would it solve anything?

Here's the real fun: winner-take-all. It's more damaging than indirect election. Let's pretend you live in one of three districts that vote for (electors pledged to) Alice, one in a landslide and two hotly contested. But the other two districts in your state elect (electors pledged to) Bob. The statewide popular vote is close but slightly in favor of Bob. Congrats, all seven of your states EC votes go to Bob even though your district overwhelmingly supported Alice, and she won 60% of the districts. Who needs faithless electors when your vote can truly not count for anything? This is how WTA is worse for democracy than electors.