>> "We’ve had free and fair elections and we’ve accepted the outcomes when we may not have liked them and that is what must be expected of anyone standing on a debate stage during a general election. " -- Hillary Clinton (before she changed her mind)

In fairness I think HRC has distanced herself from the recounts. But the absurdity of the current posturing is clearer when you compare to the United Nations. Every sovereign state has one representative to the UN. According to latest ideology, this is totally unfair because it should be done on population tally. But the problem with that, is that countries like New Zealand and Australia no longer can expect a representative at all, while China and India between them can control the whole thing.

If it were done on population, there's no point for NZ or the USA to participate if you're immediately overwhelmed by other states whose interests are different from your own. The Union of Nations would turn into the Hegemony of Asia before falling apart.

Ditto for the electoral college not being purely on population: what reason for Flyover states to be in a union whose coastal populations can impose their own interests over yours? Texas in particular is not obliged to put up with that sort of malarkey.

This focus on guaranteed state representation rather than population tallies may not be perfect and it causes frustration e.g. when blocs of minnow countries can be incentivized to vote perversely in the UN- but perfect is the enemy of good.