If he won the popular vote by over 2 million but lost in the EC.

Trying to figure out our reward for being so well-behaved.

He campaigned in the Rust Belt. He knew what he was doing.

No point in bemoaning what is passed. Dems and Hillary FAILED to connect with the voters they needed in MI, PA, and WI. And in all three, many Dems failed to vote or they voted third party. This was a self-inflicted wound. Enough of the whining and blame game. It is as times like these bemoaning and whining will not do. Look honestly at mistakes made by ONESELF and FIX IT! FAIL to do that, and one DESERVES to LOSE!

tossed a couple letter bombs into the election. That's why Hillary didn't win the electoral college in addition to the large popular vote win.

She didn't FAIL. She was cheated by an unethical FBI director who ignored official Justice Department policy and precedent.

When they wrote the constitution, white men were the only people voting. So there was no need to conspire and design the system the way they did to go against minorities. Women and minorities didn't vote. They didn't even have political parties at that time. The reason we have the electoral college has nothing to do with racism.

Today, we've got two major political parties and a rural-urban divide. The Democrats have consolidated themselves in the urban centers. Democrats win 70% of the vote in the major cities. The Republicans are spread out and have a more stable structural array in rural areas. It's also a republic form of government. It's not supposed to be a straight democracy. So even if the highly populated regions go for one candidate, the rural areas are guaranteed to have a say in the government. This is all actually shielding the Republicans against unfavorable demographical changes since they and white people are maintaining majorities in the rural regions.

The Republicans may never win the popular vote again. But regardless they have a level of historic power right now.

The simple reality is that the Republicans know how to play the electoral systems to their advantage better than Democrats. It is what it is.

So it's not a coincidence that it favors white people now.

http://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/

At the Philadelphia convention, the visionary Pennsylvanian James Wilson proposed direct national election of the president. But the savvy Virginian James Madison responded that such a system would prove unacceptable to the South: “The right of suffrage was much more diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.” In other words, in a direct election system, the North would outnumber the South, whose many slaves (more than half a million in all) of course could not vote. But the Electoral College—a prototype of which Madison proposed in this same speech—instead let each southern state count its slaves, albeit with a two-fifths discount, in computing its share of the overall count.

Virginia emerged as the big winner—the California of the Founding era—with 12 out of a total of 91 electoral votes allocated by the Philadelphia Constitution, more than a quarter of the 46 needed to win an election in the first round. After the 1800 census, Wilson’s free state of Pennsylvania had 10% more free persons than Virginia, but got 20% fewer electoral votes. Perversely, the more slaves Virginia (or any other slave state) bought or bred, the more electoral votes it would receive. Were a slave state to free any blacks who then moved North, the state could actually lose electoral votes.

If the system’s pro-slavery tilt was not overwhelmingly obvious when the Constitution was ratified, it quickly became so. For 32 of the Constitution’s first 36 years, a white slaveholding Virginian occupied the presidency.

SNIP