Assuming an election isn't rigged fixed hacked hijacked wouldn't winning by having the most POPULAR votes be fairer?

Yes, it would and since we are no longer in the 18th Century, it is time to disband the Electoral College, gerrymandering and elect officials by popular vote.  At the very least, if the Electoral College is to remain, the electoral votes should be based on the percentage of votes which the candidate received, not all of nothing as happens in some states.  

No the electoral college is there to protect the nation from the rule of more populous states.

Clinton did win the popular vote but the margin of votes all came from 1 state...California. If we count all the other states....Trump wins both electoral and popular vote. Why should CA get to choose for the rest of the country?

If it were strickly popular vote candidates would only campaign in states like CA, NY and TX the rest would not matter.  States do have the ability to divide their electoral votes any way they decide. By popular vote, all or nothing, by district...etc. Most choose all or nothing because it makes them more valuable in an election. If they went by popular vote most split fairly evenly so there would be not need to bother trying to win their votes.

Life isn’t fair. We aren’t a democracy. We are a constitutional representative republic. The electoral college ensures every state has a say in elections. Otherwise three our four heavily populated areas would decide rhe fate for the country. I believe in our current system and will continue to do so no matter who is elected president. Each state was intended to and given say so we are all represented.

Poeple only cry and complain when their candidate of choice loses.

If the federal government, including the president, didn’t have so much power it would be less frustrating and dangerous when someone is elected president. This post was edited by Rizz at September 3, 2018 5:42 PM MDT