The EC performed to spec in my opinion. Nobody, myself included, likes that outcome, but the truth is Clinton didn't do the work needed to win the election.
Now, she had a number of challenges, but she was also running to sell the world on the idea of her being the leader too. No excuses. I feel strongly about that.
The primary reason I feel that way is she flat out could have won.
A shift in campaign strategy, something her own staff urged her to do many times as they saw the numbers, would have sealed the deal. Visit Wisconsin, do some real work in the Rust Belt, and talk about jobs, not just education, or other similar things that put the fault on those who are expected to vote, and she would have won easily.
What actually happened was a run on popular vote totals. I'm told that was to increase the legitimacy of her win, and lay the foundation for a mandate type win. Ok, that's all fair, valid, reasonable, but for the fact that the basic work all that is predicated on simply was not done.
The EC more or less forces that work to get done too.
I'm fine with the EC as it exists today. An awful lot of the EC discussion is driven by a bad outcome, and I am just not sure that makes sense, or at least it does not make sense without a super honest, raw analysis of what actually did happen.