Disclaimer: I want to take this towards a serious discussion. Let's forget the results of the election and focus on ideas that can make the way we elect presidents better for the future. This thread is open for everyone, regardless of which country; I'd love to hear your thoughts / bring in your experiences as well. The EC has both flaws and benefits. Electoral voters / Faithless voters can be seen as a flaw, while representation for less populated states as a benefit. Faithless voters obviously aren't bound to vote for the candidate the people of his/her state chose, unless restricted by the state law. This, thus, can take the meaning of a person's vote away from the people. For example, if Californians vote Clinton but one Electoral Voter disagrees with this and wants Trump, he / she can vote Trump, even though he was technically supposed to vote for Clinton. Popular vote, on the other hand, is a flawed way of judging the presidential candidate. As has been mentioned in other threads, candidates would have to focus on large, metropolitan areas - NYC, LA, Chicago, etc. / the states with these big cities to win the election since urbanized areas are more populated. This doesn't ensure equal representation. We could set up a system where majority ECs + majority popular vote will grant victory, and since it's a rare case when the ECs and Popular votes support agree with each other, we could have the House vote? What are your thoughts on this subject?