Slight discrepancy in popular-vote totals

[catographer]

It blows me away that in the 21st century we literally do not know exactly how many votes each candidate got. Haha

Given how many votes were cast, it's impossible to know with 100% certainty.

Which is exactly why we shouldn't have a national popular vote.

We could solve the problem by banning write-in votes, perhaps. Many countries successfully use popular votes to elect public offices and they work fine. Heck, we do it for all 50 governors. If we can elect governors statewide successfully by popular vote, I see no reason why we can't upgrade that to the national level.

Yes but what if your candidate loses after these reforms are made?  What reforms will you propose then?

Nothing. Idc if my candidate loses, I'm not in favor of this because my candidates lose while winning the popular vote, I'm in favor of these changes because I think in a democratic system, representatives should represent the will of the voters.

[catographer]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not true. It makes it slightly less likely that the majority "oppresses" (a bullsh**t synonym for 'governs') the minority.

[catographer]

I'm talking about countries with our population and granted there aren't many of them.  The Electoral College lets rural voters have a say.  Otherwise, the winner of the few biggest cities would always win. 

If "have a say" means that they get to vote, and their vote is equal to everyone elses, then a popular vote system by definition gives rural and urban voters "their say." In fact, the US electoral college makes less-populous states' voters more powerful than more-populous states' voters, which makes a mockery of the notion of equal voting rights. What is fair about a system that favors some voters over others? In a straight popular vote, each vote counts just as much as each other one. If your issue with that is that the candidate with the most votes wins, maybe you don't like how "democracy*" works.

*democratic republic