God damn its sounds like Sosa 2014 flow <| sep |> I ' ve thought of a great new season finale for Corrie . <| sep |> But did it taste good ? <| sep |> Saw lots of these in Portugal when I was on holiday . Lovely wee birds with a pleasant trill . <| sep |> So , I have an argument for this a lot of people complaining , saying the founders put the electoral college in place and it ' s what makes us a republic . However , many of these commentators seem to forget a basic history lesson . The electoral college system is based on how many representatives and senators there are from each state . The current discrepancy arises from the House of Representatives and its apportionment , so I address that . The original apportionment , in 1790 was 33 , 000 persons per representative including the 35 th ' s compromise which is where that was important , however , today that would yield over 9 , 300 representatives . Slightly unwieldy . the current number , 435 , was actually set in 1913 we ' ve mucked around with the electoral college since it ' s inception quite a bit , actually it is not the same apportionment or system that the founders designed . In 1913 , the US population was less than 13 of what it is today . Many seem to forget the great compromise that created our bicameral legislature . Small states wanted their voices heard at an equal level , especially when we were far more of a federated union than a singular nation , hence the Senate , where each state has equal power regardless of population . The House of Representatives was the compromise to provide voice to those with more people , meant to be proportional to their population . This is contrary to the belief that all of congress was meant to curtail the power of large states . Now , if you set the base number for a representative to the state with the lowest population Wyoming , and then extrapolated , we would have approximately 547 representatives , still fairly manageable by today ' s standards , and much more fair , y apportioned not only in congress but in the electoral college , far more in line with the original system put in place by the founders . It is always worthwhile to note that , regardless of personal politics , this election has yielded the highest disparity between a popular vote and an electoral college outcome , which is rather historic , and a highly unusual outcome which begs further discussion and consideration . As it was not meant to be a system that discards the people ' s selection by the literal millions , regardless of who wins that election . That is not a government by the people or for the people . Edit I did the math It should also be noted that even if you adjusted the electoral college to more fairly represent the population distribution of the county as above Clinton would have still lost There would likely be 545 Representatives , 100 senators , requiring 323 electoral votes to win , Clinton , in our winner take all system for most states , would have gotten 278 votes if they voted exactly the same way , still losing the election in the EC , take that as you will either as the electoral college is becoming increasingly unrepresentative of the country given our urbanrural distribution of population cities tend to vote together , rural areas tend to vote together as compared to whole states , or that this is the fair result of the institutions of our representative democracy I will say parliamentary style voting with proportioned electors would be the fairest approximation of the popular vote , akin to how Maine proportions its electors versus our winner take all system .