Did the Electoral College work the way it was meant to?

One of the advantages of having lost a huge percentage of my soul by working in Washington D.C. is that I got to know a lot of smart people in politics. Most of them hate me now. Because you’re not supposed to speak poorly about the party after you’ve worked for the party. Meanwhile, others turn out to be beneficial in such times to help understand why we need the Electoral College.

But a data head friend of mine, Patrick McGuinness, made an analysis that shows how isolated Hillary’s support was.

The notion promoted by the Left is that “my side didn’t win, so the system must be messed up.” And the Electoral College is often panned as a result.

Is it time to get rid of the 50 states?

There are 3,141 counties in the United States. Trump won about 2600 of them. Clinton won 400. In California, Clinton won 8.2 million to Trump’s 4.2 million; so 4 million more for Hillary. But in the other 49 states, Trump beat Hillary by 2 million votes.

And when you go dive even deeper, most of Clinton’s victories in California came from Los Angeles and San Francisco. 

Hillary had a lead from LA, Chicago, San Francisco and some areas of New York City that added up to around 4.8 million. In the roughly 3,000 counties beyond the hundred largest, Trump trounced Clinton by 11.5 million votes.

You cannot live in a country that you call a “United States” when you allow a handful of counties to make decisions for the entire country. You can’t be a united country that way. That’s why we have the Electoral College.

The Electoral College worked.

And the Democrats said before the election that if their side lost, they would live by the results. Now they are challenging the results.

As always, please listen to the full audio clip for complete context.