[rubberstamp]

Popular vote doesn't matter. The presidential candidate that wins in a state gets the vote of the state(and so all the votes from that state). If it was by popular vote then votes from California, New York etc will get more weight than other states.

[jmanderley]

I don't think you understand the term "popular vote". In a popular vote system, every vote is of equal worth, no matter where you live.

[rubberstamp]

Yes, I know what popular vote is. Am just saying that US presidential electoral college system works correctly as it gives each state in the federal system equal weight in choosing the president. It was never designed to be by popular vote of individuals. So it doesn't matter at all.

[inimino]

> gives each state in the federal system equal weight in choosing the president

That is not how it works at all. California has 55 electoral college votes, Wyoming has 3.

[rubberstamp]

Electoral votes = senators + congressmen. All votes from a state goes to winning candidate as it is winner takes all. So Trump won. Does popular vote mean all votes from US tallied together as a whole or is it winner takes all votes from that state and then tally each state? My argument was based on the understanding that its the later one.

[inimino]

> Electoral votes = senators + congressmen

Yes.

> Does popular vote mean all votes from US tallied together as a whole

Yes.

The popular vote means the vote of the whole people nationally, exactly as if state boundaries did not exist.

The electoral college vote is weighted in a way that relates to the population of each state, but which favors smaller states. The relationship between the popular vote and the electoral college vote is further complicated by the winner-take-all system, and by the fact that voter turnout in a state does not effect the number of electoral college votes.