I think this is one election where the Electoral College did it's job. One of the big issues Trump made this election was globalization. You know who benefits from globalization? People who live in metropolitan areas. Who pays the bill? People who live in small-town America. We are a federalist republic for this very reason -- to limit the ability of the majority to shoehorn the minority.

False, "blue states" largely pay the bill. For every dollar I get taxed in California, I get less than a dollar in Federal Government services. Florida gets over $4.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-st...

I meant a figurative bill, as in the socio-economic repercussions of globalizing manufacturing and low-skill service jobs. Why do you think low-income states need so much help? Because any industry they had closed down years ago.

Just no. The US economy relies on Urban areas. This is where the vast majority of wealth, innovation, and knowledge is created (at a much greater rate per capita, than rural areas). This is only increasing in part due to how knowledge is created/shared with agglomeration effects (in cities) and due to globalization (small factories could support small towns, with the loss of these factories, small towns die.)

Small towns do not pay the bills. (Do you seriously think that small town America could afford to build and maintain the Eisenhower 4 lane highway that runs through the town? They can't.)

There is practically zero evidence that "Small town America" isn't dying a painful death these days. You don't have to like it, I certainly don't. (I live in a state that was "Small town America.") But wake up, small town America is dying, and there is almost nothing that can be done to fix it. But trying to somehow "punish" Urban areas certainly doesn't make any sense.

And finally, do you really believe that it's better that a minority has the ability to "showhorn" the majority? Why?

Sorry, I mean the figurative bill. Small town America is dying exactly because of the socio-economic repercussions of globalization. That's the "bill" I was referring to.

> But trying to somehow "punish" Urban areas certainly doesn't make any sense.

It's not about punishing urban areas. It's about the direction we want our economy to take -- one that's increasingly focused on producing wealth in a small number of cities for a small number of people or one that provides for the greatest number of American citizens. We should be especially conscious of this divide as part of the tech community -- for all their economic weight Google/Apple/Facebook hire an incredibly small number of people compared to traditional American megacorps.

> And finally, do you really believe that it's better that a minority has the ability to "showhorn" the majority? Why?

A popular minority, yes. Population-wise the country would effectively be run by the Northeast and California who's needs and desires are not necessarily the same as the rest of the country. I believe direct democracy does not work in a country as large as the United States which is why we're (supposed to be) a federal republic.

Sure, but the rules of the game were set before the candidates started playing. You can't lose and then retroactively change the rules to give yourself the victory.

If the rules are bad, change them the next time around.

That's what people are talking about?

Nobody is seriously saying, "let's change the rules now so Hillary wins!" Some people are calling for electors to not vote for Trump, but at least that's part of the original intent for the electoral college (and it's not likely to happen anyways).

But lots of people are saying, "This system is obviously broken since the will of the majority was not enacted, let's fix it."

So nice strawman, but I think I just burnt it down.

Which is exactly what's being proposed.

Even this justification for changing the rules next time around has little merit.

In this case, it would be like the soccer team picking a really bad goalie, so they want to change the rules so goalies have less effect on game outcome.

If the DNC were correct about their assumptions, they should have won by a landslide. This should not be about changing the rules, it should be reevaluation of our beliefs and course corrections.