[Ed. – It’s a good point. Hillary’s 570K-vote advantage in the popular vote is less than a quarter of that, and is entirely accounted for by your pick of three states (any one; each is extremely populous AND lopsided): California, Illinois, and New York. That can’t be said to reflect a broad-based popular mandate — and it’s exactly WHY we have an Electoral College. The one-sided political dynamics of California should not dictate terms to the rest of the country. The purpose of the Electoral College is not to frustrate the people but to empower the states, which in fact do have different political atmospheres and identities. Emphasis in original.]
To argue that Hillary’s popular vote win diminishes the legitimacy or decisiveness of Trump’s overall triumph is to argue that the rules and constitutional framework — recognized and agreed upon in advance — do not, or should not, matter. Furthermore, to complain that the electoral college system is ‘undemocratic’ is to cherry-pick a grievance based on an undesirable result. Buried at the very bottom of this USA Today piece highlighting that Senate Democrats also won the non-existent nationwide “popular vote” in their 2016 races (more on that in a moment) is this little nugget:
Republicans captured the majority of the “popular vote” for the House on Election Day, collecting about 56.3 million votes while Democrats got about 53.2 million, according to USA TODAY calculations. With a few races still undecided, Republicans so far hold a 239-193 majority for the next Congress.
House Republicans won the (truly nationwide) “popular vote” by roughly three million votes.