MoreCoffee -
Of course, you are choosing to evade and ignore that the campaign of both Trump and Clinton was focused on one singular goal: winning the 271 votes of the electoral college. Good reason: for 240 years, that's how our country selects our president. For 240 years, that's how our Constitution directs us. That's the rules ALL play by. BOTH Trump and Clinton accepted the rules going in, BOTH of them played by those rules, BOTH of them conducted their campaigns in that way. No one has anyway to know how the national vote might have gone if the rules were different, if the campaigns were different. That's why the national vote is irrelevant - NO ONE sought to win the national vote, NO ONE ran a campaign to win the national vote. For me in California - the most populous state in the USA - this is obvious because neither candidate ran much of a campaign here.... both knew Clinton would get all the electoral votes here, so neither wasted much time or money here. What if they had? We have no way to know..... it's not the campaign that happened because it's now how we select our presidents. Thus, your noting the national vote just shows your ignorance of the Rule of Law in the USA.
You can claim that the process we use is not democratic enough.... and frankly, you wouldn't get any argument from me.... but it is the law of our land. And I find your spamming on this to be hypocrisy since it's much worse in your country, neither Elizabeth or Malcolm (or anyone) serves because they won the majority of a national vote in your country! "Physician, heal thyself." You have a LOT more to do in your country in this regard than we do in the USA....
- Josiah