(01-27-2020 09:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  But the Constitution outlines the legal way to elect the president. Are you saying the Constitution is unconstitutional?

I didn't say anything about the constitution or even profess any opinions. I was just stating facts.

(01-27-2020 09:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  A very technical and hair-splitting argument.

The best kind! Isn't that what political and policy discussions are for?

(01-27-2020 09:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I would argue that the voters DID decide 2016 and every other Presidential election by voting for the electors pledged to a given candidate. It the voters did not elect the electors, then who did?

A fair point. The counter-argument is that the electors are not bound to vote for the candidate chosen by the voters in their state.

(01-27-2020 09:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  This old tired argument about the electoral college is like one football team with two touchdowns complaining because the victory was awarded to a team with no TDs, but 5 FGs, on the grounds that TDs are what should count. If you don't like the game, or cannot play within the current rules, change the rules. Legally.

Again, I didn't make any arguments about the value or merits of the electoral college system or the popular vote. So while you may think the argument old and tired, I wasn't making an argument about the system used to elect the president in this country.

(01-27-2020 10:18 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I mean I like that state by state electors provide a firewall against fraud that could steal an election. As it stands now, Democrats in Illinois can stuff the ballot boxes all they want, and it only affects the electoral votes for Illinois. Same in Nebraska or California. And the party liable to be doing the stuffing in those states would probably be getting those electoral votes anyway. But this way, a stuffed ballot box in Massachusetts or Tennessee does not rob voters in Texas or Vermont, as would be the case if the President was elected by popular vote.

Yes, I know electors are not bound, and that is why we saw tearful democrats exhorting them to not vote for Trump and screaming that this is THEIR America
But the electors are pretty honorable people, and I expect nearly all would cast their votes according to the wishes of the people who elected them.

I guess, but there are ways to make the system more reflective of the population without abandoning the electoral college. Have each state's electors allocated based on the percentage of the popular vote in that state (rather than winner take all or dividing by congressional district). Or make it so the number of electors in each state is more proportional to the population of the state (or the number of registered voters). Both more fair than the current system and I have no idea if either of them would have changed any of the recent elections.

(01-27-2020 11:06 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  Debatable, but not dumb reasons to favor the electoral college would have included:

• Ensuring that rural areas are adequately considered and represented in presidential elections
• Because it tends to give an advantage to candidates who align with my views
  

1. If this is a good way to ensure rural voters are adequately represented in presidential elections, then it should be a good way to do the same in Gubernatorial and Senatorial elections, and other statewide elections.

2. Don't see this. It does seem to help underdogs, but underdogs do not always align with my views, or yours.

That the Electoral College provides a firewall to voting fraud is indisputable. That this is a good thing is indisputable.

If we went to direct voting, then every losing candidate could allege voting fraud in any place in every state, and a full recount would be impossible. Think Florida 2000 times 1000.

I think there are plenty of good reasons to keep the EC, and even to expand the concept to statewide elections.

(01-28-2020 02:20 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 09:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  But the Constitution outlines the legal way to elect the president. Are you saying the Constitution is unconstitutional?

I didn't say anything about the constitution or even profess any opinions. I was just stating facts.

(01-27-2020 09:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  A very technical and hair-splitting argument.

The best kind! Isn't that what political and policy discussions are for?

(01-27-2020 09:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I would argue that the voters DID decide 2016 and every other Presidential election by voting for the electors pledged to a given candidate. It the voters did not elect the electors, then who did?

A fair point. The counter-argument is that the electors are not bound to vote for the candidate chosen by the voters in their state.

(01-27-2020 09:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  This old tired argument about the electoral college is like one football team with two touchdowns complaining because the victory was awarded to a team with no TDs, but 5 FGs, on the grounds that TDs are what should count. If you don't like the game, or cannot play within the current rules, change the rules. Legally.

Again, I didn't make any arguments about the value or merits of the electoral college system or the popular vote. So while you may think the argument old and tired, I wasn't making an argument about the system used to elect the president in this country.

Well, my bottom line is that the voters went to the polls, and through their votes elected a president.

Your bottom bottom line is that the voters did NOT select a president.

In the absence of any other action other than the voting, I would say and do say, the voters selected a President. If not the voters, then who?

The only argument here is Electoral College vs. direct election. The EC is in the constitution. Direct election is not.

(01-28-2020 02:23 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 10:18 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I mean I like that state by state electors provide a firewall against fraud that could steal an election. As it stands now, Democrats in Illinois can stuff the ballot boxes all they want, and it only affects the electoral votes for Illinois. Same in Nebraska or California. And the party liable to be doing the stuffing in those states would probably be getting those electoral votes anyway. But this way, a stuffed ballot box in Massachusetts or Tennessee does not rob voters in Texas or Vermont, as would be the case if the President was elected by popular vote.

Yes, I know electors are not bound, and that is why we saw tearful democrats exhorting them to not vote for Trump and screaming that this is THEIR America
But the electors are pretty honorable people, and I expect nearly all would cast their votes according to the wishes of the people who elected them.

I guess, but there are ways to make the system more reflective of the population without abandoning the electoral college. Have each state's electors allocated based on the percentage of the popular vote in that state (rather than winner take all or dividing by congressional district). Or make it so the number of electors in each state is more proportional to the population of the state (or the number of registered voters). Both more fair than the current system and I have no idea if either of them would have changed any of the recent elections.

I think awarding one elector to the top vote getter in each Congressional District plus two based on statewide results could be a compromise. You still would have candidates screaming about not getting more votes because they won District 1 by 80,000 votes and lost in District two by 7,000.

But any such change would akin to changing the rules of football to award only 2 points for a FG. Let's play the game according to the rules we have and not go around saying, "We would have won if the rules were different".

(01-28-2020 08:21 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 11:06 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  Debatable, but not dumb reasons to favor the electoral college would have included:

• Ensuring that rural areas are adequately considered and represented in presidential elections
• Because it tends to give an advantage to candidates who align with my views
  

1. If this is a good way to ensure rural voters are adequately represented in presidential elections, then it should be a good way to do the same in Gubernatorial and Senatorial elections, and other statewide elections.

2. Don't see this. It does seem to help underdogs, but underdogs do not always align with my views, or yours.

That the Electoral College provides a firewall to voting fraud is indisputable. That this is a good thing is indisputable.

If we went to direct voting, then every losing candidate could allege voting fraud in any place in every state, and a full recount would be impossible. Think Florida 2000 times 1000.

I think there are plenty of good reasons to keep the EC, and even to expand the concept to statewide elections.

To the bolded - what election, besides presidential, does not do direct, first past the poll, voting?

All US House and Senate races match that description, yet we don't have Florida x 2,000...

It's undeniable that the electoral college does create a process that helps to dilute the potential effects of ballot box stuffing, but let's not get carried away with the idea that the EC is some savior of a problem that doesn't seem to exist.

(01-28-2020 08:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 08:21 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 11:06 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  Debatable, but not dumb reasons to favor the electoral college would have included:

• Ensuring that rural areas are adequately considered and represented in presidential elections
• Because it tends to give an advantage to candidates who align with my views
  

1. If this is a good way to ensure rural voters are adequately represented in presidential elections, then it should be a good way to do the same in Gubernatorial and Senatorial elections, and other statewide elections.

2. Don't see this. It does seem to help underdogs, but underdogs do not always align with my views, or yours.

That the Electoral College provides a firewall to voting fraud is indisputable. That this is a good thing is indisputable.

If we went to direct voting, then every losing candidate could allege voting fraud in any place in every state, and a full recount would be impossible. Think Florida 2000 times 1000.

I think there are plenty of good reasons to keep the EC, and even to expand the concept to statewide elections.

To the bolded - what election, besides presidential, does not do direct, first past the poll, voting?

All US House and Senate races match that description, yet we don't have Florida x 2,000...

It's undeniable that the electoral college does create a process that helps to dilute the potential effects of ballot box stuffing, but let's not get carried away with the idea that the EC is some savior of a problem that doesn't seem to exist.

Without the electoral college, any recount would require be the entire nation be recounted. Not just the one jurisdiction. I think that is the point OO is making.

Not just that, but the ability to cherry pick 'precincts that went bad' would jump dramatically.

No other offices match the description of a nationwide vote. You are missing the point when you refer to 'first past the finish'.

(01-28-2020 08:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 08:21 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 11:06 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  Debatable, but not dumb reasons to favor the electoral college would have included:

• Ensuring that rural areas are adequately considered and represented in presidential elections
• Because it tends to give an advantage to candidates who align with my views
  

1. If this is a good way to ensure rural voters are adequately represented in presidential elections, then it should be a good way to do the same in Gubernatorial and Senatorial elections, and other statewide elections.

2. Don't see this. It does seem to help underdogs, but underdogs do not always align with my views, or yours.

That the Electoral College provides a firewall to voting fraud is indisputable. That this is a good thing is indisputable.

If we went to direct voting, then every losing candidate could allege voting fraud in any place in every state, and a full recount would be impossible. Think Florida 2000 times 1000.

I think there are plenty of good reasons to keep the EC, and even to expand the concept to statewide elections.

To the bolded - what election, besides presidential, does not do direct, first past the poll, voting?

All US House and Senate races match that description, yet we don't have Florida x 2,000...

It's undeniable that the electoral college does create a process that helps to dilute the potential effects of ballot box stuffing, but let's not get carried away with the idea that the EC is some savior of a problem that doesn't seem to exist.

And of course, every election you describe is many orders of magnitude smaller than a national election, of which we have only one.

As has been said before on certain economic issues, things that work well in small doses often do not work well in larger doses. Communism works quite well on a farm with 30 people.

Thanks for the vote in the bolded. I particularly like the word "undeniable". Be sure to tell your buddy Fountains what you think. He might call you stupid, but you and I know you are not.

If by a problem that doesn't seem to exist you mean localized ballot stuffing affecting national elections, then thank you EC.

But the discussion started between Big and I as to whether or not the American people made their will known. through their votes. I will temper my statements by saying that whatever happened in 2016, the Democrats are afraid of it happening again, and that is why we have an impeachment.

(01-28-2020 08:27 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 02:20 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 09:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  But the Constitution outlines the legal way to elect the president. Are you saying the Constitution is unconstitutional?

I didn't say anything about the constitution or even profess any opinions. I was just stating facts.

(01-27-2020 09:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  A very technical and hair-splitting argument.

The best kind! Isn't that what political and policy discussions are for?

(01-27-2020 09:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I would argue that the voters DID decide 2016 and every other Presidential election by voting for the electors pledged to a given candidate. It the voters did not elect the electors, then who did?

A fair point. The counter-argument is that the electors are not bound to vote for the candidate chosen by the voters in their state.

(01-27-2020 09:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  This old tired argument about the electoral college is like one football team with two touchdowns complaining because the victory was awarded to a team with no TDs, but 5 FGs, on the grounds that TDs are what should count. If you don't like the game, or cannot play within the current rules, change the rules. Legally.

Again, I didn't make any arguments about the value or merits of the electoral college system or the popular vote. So while you may think the argument old and tired, I wasn't making an argument about the system used to elect the president in this country.

Well, my bottom line is that the voters went to the polls, and through their votes elected a president.

Your bottom bottom line is that the voters did NOT select a president.

In the absence of any other action other than the voting, I would say and do say, the voters selected a President. If not the voters, then who?

The only argument here is Electoral College vs. direct election. The EC is in the constitution. Direct election is not.

This debate highlights one of the downfalls of the EC, that a pretty sizable margin of votes can essentially be wiped out. But like most things, pros and cons exist.

(01-28-2020 09:03 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  This debate highlights one of the downfalls of the EC, that a pretty sizable margin of votes can essentially be wiped out. But like most things, pros and cons exist.

Well, of the 2.9 million plurality margin in the 2016 presidential election, 4.9 million of it came from 2 states (CA 3.4 million and New York 1.5 million). So Trump won the popular vote plurality in the other 48 states plus DC by 2 million votes.

That is not a downfall, but rather the purpose of the EC, to ensure that one or two states don't drown out the rest.

(01-28-2020 08:56 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 08:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 08:21 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 11:06 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  Debatable, but not dumb reasons to favor the electoral college would have included:

• Ensuring that rural areas are adequately considered and represented in presidential elections
• Because it tends to give an advantage to candidates who align with my views
  

1. If this is a good way to ensure rural voters are adequately represented in presidential elections, then it should be a good way to do the same in Gubernatorial and Senatorial elections, and other statewide elections.

2. Don't see this. It does seem to help underdogs, but underdogs do not always align with my views, or yours.

That the Electoral College provides a firewall to voting fraud is indisputable. That this is a good thing is indisputable.

If we went to direct voting, then every losing candidate could allege voting fraud in any place in every state, and a full recount would be impossible. Think Florida 2000 times 1000.

I think there are plenty of good reasons to keep the EC, and even to expand the concept to statewide elections.

To the bolded - what election, besides presidential, does not do direct, first past the poll, voting?

All US House and Senate races match that description, yet we don't have Florida x 2,000...

It's undeniable that the electoral college does create a process that helps to dilute the potential effects of ballot box stuffing, but let's not get carried away with the idea that the EC is some savior of a problem that doesn't seem to exist.

And of course, every election you describe is many orders of magnitude smaller than a national election, of which we have only one.

As has been said before on certain economic issues, things that work well in small doses often do not work well in larger doses. Communism works quite well on a farm with 30 people.

Thanks for the vote in the bolded. I particularly like the word "undeniable". Be sure to tell your buddy Fountains what you think. He might call you stupid, but you and I know you are not.

If by a problem that doesn't seem to exist you mean localized ballot stuffing affecting national elections, then thank you EC.

But the discussion started between Big and I as to whether or not the American people made their will known. through their votes. I will temper my statements by saying that whatever happened in 2016, the Democrats are afraid of it happening again, and that is why we have an impeachment.

If you notice, Fountains said that preferring the EC as a voting method BECAUSE of this fact was stupid. Not that believing that the EC helps to reduce the impact of voter fraud is stupid.

I probably fall closer to Fountains in thinking that favoring the EC for this particular reason is fairly superficial and misses the major, foundational reasons for the EC existing.

And Big still has a very valid point, which you seem to want to minimize or skirt, which is that the nation place multiple million more votes for Clinton, than Trump. So saying that the nation made their will known is a step too far. It was not a clearly landslide election in either popular vote or EC vote.

(01-28-2020 09:13 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 09:03 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  This debate highlights one of the downfalls of the EC, that a pretty sizable margin of votes can essentially be wiped out. But like most things, pros and cons exist.

Well, of the 2.9 million plurality margin in the 2016 presidential election, 4.9 million of it came from 2 states (CA 3.4 million and New York 1.5 million). So Trump won the popular vote plurality in the other 48 states plus DC by 2 million votes.

That is not a downfall, but rather the purpose of the EC, to ensure that one or two states don't drown out the rest.

A better, less biased way to evaluate the influence of outliers would be to remove outliers from both ends of the spectrum, not just one. My guess is that if you remove the outliers that went Republican, you'd be a lot closer to a 50/50 split.

Regardless, what you highlight is that smaller states hold more weight and drown out other voices, which is a distinctly and obvious downside to the EC. I mean, in order to make sure smaller states are heard, you inherently have to water down the voting power of larger states.

Hence why the EC isn't perfect. Why should Californian votes matter less than, say, Nebraskan votes? It's an imperfect system, but I don't think there is a perfect system out there that exists.

(01-28-2020 09:03 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 08:27 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 02:20 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 09:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  But the Constitution outlines the legal way to elect the president. Are you saying the Constitution is unconstitutional?

I didn't say anything about the constitution or even profess any opinions. I was just stating facts.

(01-27-2020 09:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  A very technical and hair-splitting argument.

The best kind! Isn't that what political and policy discussions are for?

(01-27-2020 09:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I would argue that the voters DID decide 2016 and every other Presidential election by voting for the electors pledged to a given candidate. It the voters did not elect the electors, then who did?

A fair point. The counter-argument is that the electors are not bound to vote for the candidate chosen by the voters in their state.

(01-27-2020 09:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  This old tired argument about the electoral college is like one football team with two touchdowns complaining because the victory was awarded to a team with no TDs, but 5 FGs, on the grounds that TDs are what should count. If you don't like the game, or cannot play within the current rules, change the rules. Legally.

Again, I didn't make any arguments about the value or merits of the electoral college system or the popular vote. So while you may think the argument old and tired, I wasn't making an argument about the system used to elect the president in this country.

Well, my bottom line is that the voters went to the polls, and through their votes elected a president.

Your bottom bottom line is that the voters did NOT select a president.

In the absence of any other action other than the voting, I would say and do say, the voters selected a President. If not the voters, then who?

The only argument here is Electoral College vs. direct election. The EC is in the constitution. Direct election is not.

This debate highlights one of the downfalls of the EC, that a pretty sizable margin of votes can essentially be wiped out. But like most things, pros and cons exist.

This debate highlights the upside of the EC, we are still nominally a nation of states. States each and to their own right a sovereign. Much to the chagrin of most liberals.

(01-28-2020 09:26 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Why should Californian votes matter less than, say, Nebraskan votes?

They don't.

(01-28-2020 09:26 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 09:13 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 09:03 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  This debate highlights one of the downfalls of the EC, that a pretty sizable margin of votes can essentially be wiped out. But like most things, pros and cons exist.

Well, of the 2.9 million plurality margin in the 2016 presidential election, 4.9 million of it came from 2 states (CA 3.4 million and New York 1.5 million). So Trump won the popular vote plurality in the other 48 states plus DC by 2 million votes.

That is not a downfall, but rather the purpose of the EC, to ensure that one or two states don't drown out the rest.

A better, less biased way to evaluate the influence of outliers would be to remove outliers from both ends of the spectrum, not just one. My guess is that if you remove the outliers that went Republican, you'd be a lot closer to a 50/50 split.

Regardless, what you highlight is that smaller states hold more weight and drown out other voices, which is a distinctly and obvious downside to the EC. I mean, in order to make sure smaller states are heard, you inherently have to water down the voting power of larger states.

Hence why the EC isn't perfect. Why should Californian votes matter less than, say, Nebraskan votes? It's an imperfect system, but I don't think there is a perfect system out there that exists.

It is only a downside when you take a giant piss on the concept of state sovereignty. Which you seemingly really think is a decent idea when you start down the 'how unfair' mantra you invoke above.

(01-28-2020 09:26 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  A better, less biased way to evaluate the influence of outliers would be to remove outliers from both ends of the spectrum, not just one. My guess is that if you remove the outliers that went Republican, you'd be a lot closer to a 50/50 split.

Different? Yes. Better or less biased? Not exactly.

If you took out all states that went for Trump, and all states that went for Hillary, the count would be 0-0, with I suppose is arguably a 50-50 split. Short of that, you'd have to remove quite a few Trump "outliers" to have the impact of NY and CA. So maybe they aren't all "outliers."

And by the way, for what reason do we want government by outliers?

(01-28-2020 08:35 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think awarding one elector to the top vote getter in each Congressional District plus two based on statewide results could be a compromise. You still would have candidates screaming about not getting more votes because they won District 1 by 80,000 votes and lost in District two by 7,000.

I think this is a great idea OOwl. Nebraska and Maine actually allocate their electoral votes this way already. In 2008, Nebraska's 2nd district sent a single electoral vote to Obama.

(01-28-2020 09:58 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 08:35 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think awarding one elector to the top vote getter in each Congressional District plus two based on statewide results could be a compromise. You still would have candidates screaming about not getting more votes because they won District 1 by 80,000 votes and lost in District two by 7,000.

I think this is a great idea OOwl. Nebraska and Maine actually allocate their electoral votes this way already. In 2008, Nebraska's 2nd district sent a single electoral vote to Obama.

More recently, in 2016 Maine 2nd sent a single Maine electoral vote to Trump.

In fairness, I have zero issue with how any single state *chooses* to select electors. It is the state's prerogative. Period.

In all fairness, if a state chooses to maximize its singular influence and send every elector one way --- that is their choice. Or, if a state chooses to become a non-participant and go with sending a slate based on a national vote --- so be it; that is their choice to exercise.

But notions of 'fairness' are kind of garbage. It is only 'unfair' to those ignorant on how and why this Union was formed.

(01-28-2020 09:18 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 08:56 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 08:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 08:21 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 11:06 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  Debatable, but not dumb reasons to favor the electoral college would have included:

• Ensuring that rural areas are adequately considered and represented in presidential elections
• Because it tends to give an advantage to candidates who align with my views
  

1. If this is a good way to ensure rural voters are adequately represented in presidential elections, then it should be a good way to do the same in Gubernatorial and Senatorial elections, and other statewide elections.

2. Don't see this. It does seem to help underdogs, but underdogs do not always align with my views, or yours.

That the Electoral College provides a firewall to voting fraud is indisputable. That this is a good thing is indisputable.

If we went to direct voting, then every losing candidate could allege voting fraud in any place in every state, and a full recount would be impossible. Think Florida 2000 times 1000.

I think there are plenty of good reasons to keep the EC, and even to expand the concept to statewide elections.

To the bolded - what election, besides presidential, does not do direct, first past the poll, voting?

All US House and Senate races match that description, yet we don't have Florida x 2,000...

It's undeniable that the electoral college does create a process that helps to dilute the potential effects of ballot box stuffing, but let's not get carried away with the idea that the EC is some savior of a problem that doesn't seem to exist.

And of course, every election you describe is many orders of magnitude smaller than a national election, of which we have only one.

As has been said before on certain economic issues, things that work well in small doses often do not work well in larger doses. Communism works quite well on a farm with 30 people.

Thanks for the vote in the bolded. I particularly like the word "undeniable". Be sure to tell your buddy Fountains what you think. He might call you stupid, but you and I know you are not.

If by a problem that doesn't seem to exist you mean localized ballot stuffing affecting national elections, then thank you EC.

But the discussion started between Big and I as to whether or not the American people made their will known. through their votes. I will temper my statements by saying that whatever happened in 2016, the Democrats are afraid of it happening again, and that is why we have an impeachment.

If you notice, Fountains said that preferring the EC as a voting method BECAUSE of this fact was stupid. Not that believing that the EC helps to reduce the impact of voter fraud is stupid.

I probably fall closer to Fountains in thinking that favoring the EC for this particular reason is fairly superficial and misses the major, foundational reasons for the EC existing.

And Big still has a very valid point, which you seem to want to minimize or skirt, which is that the nation place multiple million more votes for Clinton, than Trump. So saying that the nation made their will known is a step too far. It was not a clearly landslide election in either popular vote or EC vote.

Well, the foundational reason still exist, even without me enumerating them. Somehow, an "only" has crept into this conversation, as in "Favoring the EC only for its firewall properties..."

If the voters did not elect Trump, who did?