Soon after Donald Trump was announced as The U.S's next President, we learned that he actually did not win the popular vote. Hillary Clinton received 59,755,284 votes, while Donald Trump received 59,535,522. (Note: numbers seem to be static and different resources site different numbers, but with Clinton still having the lead. These numbers taken from CNN.

The Electoral College is slightly confusing. Basically, when we vote, we are really voting for a group of electors in each state-not the President directly. Voting directly for the President would be the Popular Vote. The popular vote, however, is not the number used to determine the winner of the election-otherwise, Clinton would have won this year's election. Then, after the election is actually over, the members of the Electoral College will vote for the President. This sometimes deters people from even voting-why should they vote if their “real” vote will not even count?

With many people upset with this elections results, people are now beginning to question the Electoral College. People are turning towards the idea of simply using the Popular Vote, and therefore letting citizens directly choose the President. This claim makes complete sense. Why can't we decide the President, when we decide our other politicians and legislatures directly? An online petition has even been floating around social media, surprisingly not asking the Electoral College to be abolished, but that they accept the Popular Vote and therefore vote Clinton as President. (You can sign the petition here.)

The Electoral College has been around for long time-it was originally established by the Founding Fathers. One of the main goals of the College was to make sure that smaller states with smaller populations would not be overlooked and properly represented. However, the Electoral College actually gives smaller states more power.

To clarify this, the Huffington Post explains that under the Electoral College structure, smaller states have enormous political leverage. Wyoming has a population of 584,153 and has three electoral votes, which means that each Wyoming elector represents 194,717 voters. California has a population of 38,800,000 and has 55 electoral votes so each elector represents 705,454 voters. So each vote in Wyoming is worth 3.6 times more than each vote in California. Other smaller states such as Rhode Island, Montana, North and South Dakota, Nebraska and Idaho also have exalted political power. (Source: Huffington Post).

Of course, it is hard to make such a large system in our country perfect. Some things, despite decades of changes, still are not perfect. But maybe it is time we just give the Popular Vote a try? Maybe it would be fairer, and the only way to tell is to try in four years for the next Presidential election!