the archaic Electoral College.

We must be the only country on earth who has a system that sometimes allows a loser to go into office.

She won. Period.
The best we can hope for now is a truly disastrous Trump administration which might make people re-think how our system allows tyranny of the minority.

every Orange Mistake should be vetted with "Hillary would have handled that differently" and "if Hillary were POTUS, this would not have happened" and so on. Add the "popular winner, Hillary" to every mention of her and the the Orange Error referred to as the "EC winner," not "the winner."

Gotcha-politics and "shut up and eat your peas" thinking makes for tyranny.

In some cases, the self-righteous minority forces their views down the gullets of those who don't want to be forced to do things.

In other cases, the self-righteous majority forces their views down the gullets of those who don't want to be forced to do things.

Good democracy isn't majoritarianism.

We only seriously object when we're the subject of the compulsion. When we're doing the compelling, it's called "enlightening the population".

That the results would have been the same under a popular-vote system. We have no way to know that.

My wife and I were bowling (poorly) and she won by five pins. I said "if we had been playing golf I would have won"

"If we had been playing golf" said she... "I would have brought different shoes."

Hillary won the popular vote, had there been no EC she would be POTUS. Orange Ass is only the "EC winner" and we should call it that every time. One man one vote. I see no reason people would have voted differently than they did individually had there been no EC.

Hillary won the popular vote, had there been no EC she would be POTUS.

That simply doesn't follow... because both sides knew that the EC was the whole ball of wax.

Could Clinton win TX or Trump win CA? Of course not... but both could get LOTS more votes if they had campaigned there (which they assuredly would have done in a popular-vote system)

I see no reason people would have voted differently than they did individually had there been no EC.

From news a few days ago, would you agree that the cast of Hamilton cares a great deal about elections? Did you read that story that many of them haven't voted in years? It isn't hard to recognize that this isn't because they aren't good citizens... it's because there was no way that their vote was going to matter. Their Representative was going to win by more than 2-1 and Clinton couldn't possibly lose NY.

But there's no question that they would show up in a popular-vote-driven election.

If not for electoral college, democrats would have been able to win easily, considering two largely democratic states with large populations (Ca and Wa).

to places like Wyoming.

Based on population of Ca compared to Wyoming, Ca, should have close to 200 electoral votes compared to 55 it actually has.

I am from a state whose leaders would have been concerned at the beginning of the Republic. My vote counts more than a New Yorker's does. And we are not rural (Delaware). Small colony leaders were worried about being run by Virginia and Massachusetts.

But people these days do not really care about their state. No longer is a presidential candidate guaranteed his and his running mate's states - it is more the blue/red divide.

This is why Biden could be on the ticket. I used to think it would never happen, since Delaware only gets you 3 votes. Obviously Palin and Biden could not have been picked had the state thing still been an issue with most voters.

People barely know they have a state government now, they think the POTUS "runs the country."

That's eight of the eleven largest states.

Your claim implies that small states control the election in an EC format while large states control in a PV format... except that Trump won most of the largest states and performed exactly opposite that assumption.

Not so many years ago... it was Florida that decided the election... then it was Ohio... this time it was PA/MI... none of which are small states.

Better to say that the EC favors swing states (regardless of size/composition), while the PV would favor large cities (regardless of the state they were in).

Electoral college favors small states.

"The Electoral College favors smaller states that Republicans tend to carry and gives an advantage to the party. It generates winners who are unable to carry the will of the nation."

http://www.dailytexanonline.com/2016/11/17/small-states-unfairly-benefit-from-use-of-electoral-college

(and today that means population wise, that would include physically large states like Alaska) - there seems to be no reason we should be favored. Not in modern times.

It was designed to prevent just a handful of states from electing a President and it did just that. If they got rid of the electoral college, the USA would never elect a republican President again---do you honestly think that the republicans are going to allow that to happen?

Except for Dubya term one and Orange Toxin the Rs who won got their popular vote. Don't see why they would believe they would never win again.

Pretty sure that goes for everyone who is in any meaningful way progressive.

what the hell happens if she winds up with more than 50 percent of the total vote??? The Electoral College is a damned fraud, and Trump's regime is wholly illegitimate.

US clings to archaic systems. No other country in the world has anything like our electoral college.

and should have been before now. Whatever reason for it is gone.