He was, in fact, chosen by the people in accordance with our voting system. Both parties win with it, and nobody who's won ever tries to change it... leaving suggesting it's "unfair" to the realm of people who are just upset that they lost.

I definitely would like to see it improved, I think the two party system sucks, and our voting system guarantees it, and the fact that my vote doesn't count for much because I live in a blue state annoys me a bit.

But the people did, in fact, select Donald Trump to be President. A penalty, that at times, is exactly what our society deserves. :/

> Both parties win with it

As far as I can tell from Wikipedia, only five elections have ever been won by someone lacking a plurality of the popular vote. Three of those cases happened before 1900. If we look only at the more modern examples, the Republicans have won the presidency but lost the popular vote twice (2016 and 2000) and the Democrats have never done this. In fact, this is a true statement over all of time, but once you get back more then a century the political parties are so different as to make the comparison meaningless.

That is to say: the Democrats have never had a presidential election that they won without winning the popular vote. I do not love the two party system either, but in this case it doesn't feel fair to say that both parties are currently equally benefitting from the Electoral College.

Yea, and that's not a statistical fluke, either. So long as the political allegiances are close to what they are today, a Democrat will never win without the popular vote. Via our electoral college system, a vote in a lower-populace state will have more power. There's a lot of low populace flyover states that consistently vote Republican. So a Republican winning the popular vote almost automatically leads to them winning the electoral college.

Our electoral college and Senate system is designed to occasionally let the minority get stuff they want. The coastal cities have all the money and all of the media, they aren't hurting for power. The slight tip to the "flyover" states is an attempt to balance the mega-steamroller of coastal wealth and power.

The two party system moves slowly which at times like this looks like a feature to me. In a parliamentary system it is easier for extreme views to advance their agenda.

This is probably the one big upside to our system being glacial. I am glad Obama couldn't do more than he did, and the damage Trump could do with less controls is terrifying.

Trump read the rules and was selected by the will of the people as we define it in our electoral system. If plurality of votes was relevant the strategy would have been completely different and so we cannot know the outcome in that case.

Are aware Lincoln didn't win the election with majority of votes?

> Lincoln didn't win the election with majority of votes

He did, however, win the popular vote in both the 1860 and 1864 general elections (39.8% to the runner up at 29.5% and 55%, respectively) [1].

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_history_of_Abraham...

The electoral college, like it or not, is the law of the land. I don't think anybody is truly claiming he was chosen by the people- it would be hard to make that argument in good faith given the obvious facts.