[dragonwriter]

> Actually, it appears that voters and politicians have zero interest in improving this situation, seeing as the current administration is making every effort to demoralize and defang the CFPB

The current administration was elected with fewer votes than the leading opponent, so it certainly reflects a subset of voters and the politicians comprising the administration, but hardly is a basis for concluding that voters in general have zero interest in issues simply because the administration evidently does not.

[smilangalang]

While I agree with your stance, I don't think using HRC as an example, nor her supporters is an accurate example. She got played trying to play the GOP's own games. Now if you had said Bernie specifically...

[stevenwoo]

Although comforting, the having a majority of the votes is a misleading metric in some ways, the electoral college is skewed so that voters in states with lower population have more power so each vote is not equal. This effect carries over to the Senate where a similar outcome with lower population states having more power so one person's vote is more powerful depending upon their geographic location.

[dragonwriter]

> Although comforting, the having a majority of the votes is a misleading metric in some ways

In some ways, perhaps, but not when the question is whether the actions of the person elected can, based on the election results, be taken as proof that the voters collectively have zero concern for an issue.

> the electoral college is skewed so that voters in states with lower population have more power so each vote is not equal.

True.

> This effect carries over to the Senate

No, it's a carryover from the Senate: electoral college representation is identical by state to Congressional representation in both houses combined.