two things can be true at the same time. the notion of justice is sometimes independent of the law, which is one reason why we employ judges.
clo and i accept the rules and their result. we can also ask a different question. should the rules be changed in future elections to reflect a newly revealed problem, which the system, as devised, did not contemplate?
it is reasonable to ask, in consequence of a result like this, what is the purpose of the electoral college if it doesn't procure an outcome which reflects the views of the largest number of voters? should the system be changed in future? should electoral college voters be permitted the freedom to exercise their powers in the interest of the ideal of democratic "justice"? after all, the irreducible us constitutional idea is that the will of the people is sacrosanct. who but the electors can right the glaring contradiction of an election such as this?
i remember mcenroe defeating borg on points scored but he lost wimbledon. the difference was two points. so close that it didn't matter. but 2.8m isn't a small number. is there any harm in people knowing this fact? it might foster humility in the winners.
i agree that you cannot undo a result after the event. but maybe an additional rule can be written for future elections. if a candidate secures at least 1% more than any other, they shall be president without regard to the results of the electoral colleges. heck, it might mean the candidates will visit a few states other than those in swing territory.
although he will be president, the system, as designed, casts a cloud over trump's presidency. he doesn't have a clear mandate from the people to tear down the government. and yet this appears to be his plan.
| 
