No, the whole reason there's a points system is to lure in the Great Unwashed into thinking there's something exciting going on, and to force the teams to turn up to every race even when they have no hope of winning.
The simple reason for having a problem with Driver A winning twice as much as Driver B but losing the title to Driver B for faults that are not his is, I would have thought, so blatantly axiomatic as not to require explanation. Driver A is better. It's back to comprehensive schools again - nobody is allowed to excel, we've all got to be anonymous clones.
But you're conflating the issue of the way wins are valued vs other competitive finishes vs DNFs, with the question of problems outside the driver's control.
Rosberg lost a win on Sunday because of a car problem that wasn't his fault. He wouldn't have been beaten by Ricciardo otherwise. He also lost the race lead to Hamilton because of something that wasn't his fault (the slow left front tyre change). Things happen all the time that aren't the driver's fault and cost him wins. So even if you have a system that only counts wins and ignores everything else, drivers will continue to lose wins through no fault of their own and, when that happens, another driver will reap the benefit and rack up a win which he wouldn't otherwise have got.
So although we happen to have a situation at the moment, the way the F1 results have gone so far this season, where the driver who has performed best (EDIT: out of the two WDC contenders) isn't leading the championship, and he has won the most races, that doesn't mean that only counting wins would make everything fair in all circumstances. There will still be lucky wins and unlucky failures to win. And it's only lucky or unlucky from a driver-centric perspective. If you view it as a team sport, which is what it is, in the end it's the team's and the driver's joint responsibility to make sure they're there at the end.
Plus, drivers do of course fail to finish and fail to win because they've binned it. A traditional points system punishes that to one degree or another whether the driver crashes out of the lead or out of fifth or tenth place. The winner takes all system only punishes mistakes if you crash out of the lead. Many people feel that would amount to an unwarranted failure to attach appropriate value to consistency.
Plus, if nothing except winning counted, would Rosberg have been willing to settle for second in Bahrain? Or would he have adopted more of a "let me by or we crash" attitude? We might have had different results in that case.
Edited by redreni, 11 June 2014 - 22:17.