Alright so the election is over. The votes are in and the winner has been announced but there is one part of this that still doesn't add up. Weather you voted for Trump, Clinton, Stein, or Johnson, you have to face the fact that Trump didn't win the popular vote. Meaning most of America didn't vote for Donald Trump, they voted for Hillary Clinton. The numbers aren't in yet but her tally is projected to be around two million more votes than Donald Trump. How did this happen you ask? Two words, Electoral College.

If you're confused by the final outcome of this election, know that you're not alone. The Electoral College is a confusing and convoluted process that our country has used for about 229 year, since the Constitutional Convention of 1787. So why are we still using this method of election if it’s not representing the people’s choice. Let’s first figure out how this process works.

Okay, so there are 538 electoral votes split up between the 50 states and Washington D.C.. To win the election one candidate must get 270, the majority, electoral votes. If no candidates are able to get the majority then the House of Representatives would decide the president with each state delegation casting one vote. Then the Senators would choose the Vice-President, with each Senator having one vote.

As stated before there are 538 electors. This number isn’t random, although it certainly does seem so. It comes from the 435 Representatives and the 100 Senators and the extra three electors given to Washington D.C.. This number isn’t completely set in stone, but it’s pretty final. It took an amendment to the constitution to get District of Colombia the three electoral votes it has.

In theory the electors are allotted to states depending on their population. So every state gets two (for the two Senators that represent their state) and then at least one for their how many representatives they have in the House of Representatives, which is also based on population. On average states are given one electoral vote for every 565,166 people living there.

There are some flaws in this plan. Let's take a state with a smaller population. Like Wyoming. Wyoming has thee electoral votes (the least amount you can possibly have) and they only have 532,668 people that's an electoral vote for every 177,556. So the people of Wyoming have something like 318% more say then the rest of the states because the electoral vote vastly misrepresents their actual population. This is why the electoral college is said to favor smaller states.

While larger states are pretty debilitated by this system. I mean the three states that have the fewest electoral votes per citizen are California, New York, and Texas the three most populated states.

It just seems silly to cap the number of possible electoral votes at 538. If this system is to work shouldn't that number grow with the population of it's country. That way electoral votes can be allotted to states as the population grows. That way each state has a say in the election that is directly based on their population.

There are so many other reasons why Trump one the election when Clinton was the favorite to win the election. The massive turn out of middle and working class in rural areas, is one. Lately the middle and working classes have felt very unsupported by the current government and Trump promised, as an outsider, something new and better for them. Nobody foresaw this outcome because the pre-election polls were usually in places that have a historically high voting turnout. Which tends not to be these rural areas. Don't worry this actually does tie into the Electoral College.

States like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, that have been relatively reliably democratic voting states, were red states in this election because of unsatisfied citizens.

The Electoral College was chosen for many reasons, and a lot of them were specific to the time it was instated, 1787. One of the biggest arguments for the Electoral College is that without it candidates wouldn't bother going to places like North Dakota, South Dakota, Delaware, or Wyoming. Instead they would cater to just larger states with the larger California, New York, Texas, and Florida. That candidates wouldn't look at all walks of life, and would focus on what was best for these very populated places. Usually, the electoral college does go in favor of the candidate with the most votes. In all of American history only four other candidates have lost the election with the popular vote: Andrew Jackson (1824), Samuel J. Tilden (1876), Grover Cleveland (1888), and Al Gore (2000).

It just seems silly to cap the number of possible electoral votes at 538. If this system is to work shouldn't that number grow with the population of it's country. That way electoral votes can be allotted to states as the population grows. What if each state actually had electoral votes that had been drawn up for them using actual math and real facts. That way each state has a say in the election is directly based on actual population they have. And smaller states wouldn't be left out of the fun. Best of both worlds.

People are told to 'get out there and vote!' and to 'have your voice heard' and to 'take their chance to make a difference'. They were told over and over again that their vote counted. But, the truth of the matter is nearly two million votes didn't count. Two million voices went unheard. It's like they didn't matter at all.