>>>Already looking bad IMO. Interesting that Clinton has polled more votes than Trump . The electoral college system seems unnecessary in a presidential race. Why do you have it ?
>>
>>Nicholas, the reason goes to the very heart of the objectives of the framers of the Constitution, in trying to strike a balance between pure democracy and a free republic.
>>
>>As James Madison write, the electoral college was a measure to see to it that “factions” of citizens with a common interest don’t harm the nation as a whole.
>>
>>We do not have a national election per se. We have 51 separate elections. When citizens cast votes, they are doing so for "electors," who then cast votes for president. In nearly all cases, the candidate who wins the state's popular vote winds up with those electors. (I say nearly all cases, because Nebraska and Maine have a few nuances)
>>
>>The number of state electors = Congressional representation in the House.
>>
>>The fact that HRC currently holds about 170,000 vote lead out of 59 million. In our system of government and politics, that is far less compelling than looking at the overall electoral map, and that Trump won in states where he was given zero chance.
>>
>>Had Trump won the popular vote and HRC the electoral vote, I'd be saying the same thing. The electoral college, while not perfect, is far better than a purely popular vote in this country
>
>But the system has failed then in this case. The population majority are now effectively unrepresented as the Republicans have won everything.

You don't get to question the rules after the game is over.
That's it.

We had a real case, however, when the supreme court appointed GW Bush.
That had nothing to do with popular vote vs the electoral vote.
They went down straight party lines and appointed him.
I think Gore made a mistake by accepting that so blithely.