[@Vilageidiotx]

The margin of error in this case is an example of how utterly negligible 2% or so of the entire United States population is skewed. This is such a relatively insignificant number, the point was to show this is not an issue of "majority vote" and "minority rule". It is a comparison that it has not enough of a factor to be weighted as extreme or important and there was not even a close race. The fact that the Trump administration won 46% of the popular vote to the Hillary campaign's 48% shows there's not a significant enough difference to bring issue here, hence the 2000 election example used which was closer by both popular [i]and[/i] electoral vote; there's no issue at all here. Had the 2008 election been 52% to 45% with an electoral victory for the McCain campaign despite [i]massive[/i] losses under popular vote, there might be an argument; that never happened however.

You can still use that concept in this comparison, because it shows that the system works as designed.

As for my argument for the electoral college, that is not at all what I stated. I stated that based upon the representatives of my state, that even my "minority" is represented because where I would be - in this hypothetical. If my state is a Deep Red state but I am a blue member and my community is blue, they put forward their votes accordingly. However, if the majority of the state is red - as it is - this will generally lead to that being a Republican collective vote. I was represented, fairly at that, even if I did not win; which is true, because while my district skewed for the Trump administration, the general blueness of the state that represented more of it superseded my little island. That is entirely fair that my minority did not win but was allowed to have a voice in the system. 

And no, it is not that easy to communicate or sway voters because of density alone. It is far easier to influence 100,000 people in a single city than it is across an entire county of 100,000 people. This might be the 21st Century where this is easier than ever, but that does not solve the issue of concentration, because availability isn't the issue; mass is easier to market to. Getting more people together in a single place is easier to pander to and talk to their collective situation rather than make pock marks across multiple areas, especially when those people are predisposition to be more sympathetic or interested in your platform or product. This is generally true with just about any marketing.

The system already is a product of legitimacy. It is written, codified, documented, and implemented, no less it includes a history to base itself on that is not part of the modern era. This is not a new process, neither is it one that is not in part a representative democratic process. It is meeting its own criteria, with people crying foul now only because they lost, not because there seems to be any legitimacy to the argument. It is continuing to behave and be validated by its design and its historical track record. 

People [i]are[/i] undisciplined. If the general population is so hopeless that they cannot be bothered to cast their vote if they win or lose, they more or less lose the right to complain about it. I still voted for the Romney campaign despite the fact I knew the Obama administration was likely to sweep the electoral and popular vote again, which it did. That is discipline and execution of duty. My vote "might not have mattered", but I exercised my right and did what I was supposed to do, regardless of my feelings on it. I do not accept the thought that "peoples votes do not matter". They do, especially en masse.

The electoral voters are supposed to represent their people in ideology. Again, if I was a voter for my district, as much as it would hurt me to vote for the Clinton campaign personally, my objective is to represent the interests of the area I am responsible for as unbiased and impartial as I can be. I have a duty to perform, not a moral obligation to challenge what is "unjust". I would be out of my lane if I did that.

While this time I believe the electoral vote to have been in my personal favor, again I cannot fault it for the previous two elections which I Was strongly against. It did what it was designed to do and I resigned myself to going on with my life and keeping tabs on what I hoped would be a turning tide; which it was. This is not a matter of "technicality", this is a matter of the system doing exactly what it was meant to do. If anything that [i]should[/i] legitimize the system because it worked as intended. Again, if the Trump administration had lost by 5%, they might have an argument, but this is a clear cut case that the United States' approach to voting for leaders works within its design. The popular vote was relatively close, especially if we look back to recent events and then further back. A 2% win of popular vote is very, very little.