Whining about it now is kinda like crying that you lost a game of Chess even though you took the most pieces.
I really like your Chess analogy.
Fact is Clinton did not have her priorities in order and she lost because her choices did not result in her doing the work to win. They did result in a large pop vote total though.
Sure seems to me this is a discussion on how best to run a campaign that offers up a compelling VOTE FOR proposition to win, rather than a "let's ditch the EC" conversation.
-----
Edit, due to rate limit, intended for comment below.
You are right. It's not!
So then, those people looking to be leaders should take the rules in play at the time we are making the democracy happen pretty seriously right?
I think so, which is precisely why I authored the comment above. Doing the work to win the election involves working the process as it is defined at the start of the contest, not what one may wish were true at that time.
Secondly, should we change that process, and I'm not opposed to doing that, should we not change that process based on actual problems, not contrived ones based on poor judgement?
I will read any response with great interest -->Tomorrow. The rate limit is not a negative thing. Time to move on to better things. Cheers all!
What would happen if you rally all the assorted fringe groups that are currently dispersing their votes and unite them with all the mainstream voters who are holding their nose as well as all the couch potato nonvoters and came up with a candidate a truly comprehensive electorate would really end up picking?
You'd probably throw both Drumpf and Hillary out and put in (another) Hollywood megastar or some charismatic Bible thumper.