Sir,

 It is popular among some theses days to complain about the election results because Clinton beat Trump in the popular vote.  However, the strategy of both candidates was based on the rules in place now, that is, to gain the most electoral votes.  Who can say how many more votes Trump would have won had he bothered to campaign in California?

Furthermore, if only the popular vote mattered, small states (by population) would be inconsequential.  This map illustrates the point: http://www.redstate.com/prevaila/2016/11/18/electing-president-via-popu…  

The Founders knew about the tyranny of the majority and strove to protect the rights of the minority in small states by developing the Electoral College.  Otherwise, the president would be elected by the people of California, Texas, Florida and New York.   

To be fair, though, the founders did not foresee the population explosion that came with the industrial revolution. In the late 18th century, the electoral college was at least proportional. Now, because the electoral college is pegged to congressional representation--and not to proportion of the population--smaller states are over-represented (or, to be more precise, areas with larger populations are under-represented).

This is just the way things are, though, and will remain. It's not a red or blue problem...it's a "who lost?" problem. While the democrats are complaining this time, this debate happens whenever this anomaly occurs, and the complaints are always aimed at the side that the electoral college favored. 

Mr. Wheeler,

The Electoral College has served this country well for over 200 years.  I, for one, would not encourage replacing it with a simple popular vote.  The Presidential Election is not a popularity vote, it is the selection of the President of the most powerful country in the world -- this decision should not be based solely on that person's popularity.  This is not high school.  It is obvious by your comments how you voted and I, sir, find it offensive that you would use this forum to vent your frustration of your candidate loosing.  As previous commenters have expressed, this anomaly happens but it happens infrequently.  It is an outlier but it is still a data point and all data needs to be considered when assessing the population.  The "unheard" citizens of our country spoke very loudly in this election.  Whether we like the outcome or not, it is how our process works and has done so since our constitution was ratified.

Perhaps a lesson in Civics rather than Statistics is warrented.

The point is the process, not the result.  Is it right that over 20 million republican votes were discarded?

Any process that systematically discards over 40 percent of the votes is a problem crying out for a solution.

The solutions may not be perfect, but they could be more equitable.  Whatever happened to one person, one vote?

Majority rule? Really? Our elected officials take an oath of office to uphold the Constitution; NOT the opinion of the majority. The Electoral College was created so that each of the states would have a voice in who would become president. This was to ensure that the states with larger populations could not simply impose their will on the smaller states. Take a look at the election maps. Simple majority rule would practically ensure that those people living in the rural counties across this country would have almost NO voice. I find the idea of simple majority rule very concerning, especially since it can often sound great...as long as the majority is your group.

We are clearly not a one person one vote Democracy.  The Electoral College is a long standing mechanism for electign the proesident but it really isn't being implemented as the foudnign fathers intended either.  The critical intent that is missing is that the Electoral College doesn't vote for whomever they deem most fit - which was the intent.  to protect us from ourselves.  The electors now vote for whomever their state voted for.  This is quite different from the original intent.  

The founding fathers did not anticipate the bloom in education adn media that informs (and misinforms) the populace.   they did nto anticipate teh rise of industrialization over an agrarian society.  We should also remember that over the years we have moved away from the founding fathers original intent by amending the constitution:  we now allow all citizens of the US to vote including African Americans and Women.  They were excluded from the original process by the founding fathers...times change, the consititution changes with it...

I see nothing wrong in debating the place of the Electoral College for future elections.  (although perhaps this publication is nto the appropriate place for the debate)

I think the last point is the best...we can (and probably will) debate the merits of one person, one vote v an electoral college system that gives states a larger voice. I'm happy to do that. But this is not the place.