Wow, I think the above post ranks right up there with "dumbest thing I ever hear" or in this case, read.

Could you please explain how gerrymandering had anything to do with a presidential elections?

And of course the Electoral College won him the White House, that's how the president gets elected. Popular vote has nothing to do with anything, election campaigns are not conducted to win the popular vote, they are conducted to win the Electoral College.

And just to be clear, Hillary won her "popular vote margin" in Kalifornia and New York. Once you step out of those states, Trump won the popular vote in the remainder of the country. In Kalifornia they issue driver licenses to illegals and they have motor voter laws. Anybody can vote in Kalifornia, as long as it's for Democrats, of course.

If the election of the president was done by the popular vote, the campaigns would be different and the Republicans who still like in Kalifornia and New York would actually go and vote, knowing their vote actually counted for something and the numbers would be totally different.

If you think other countries do it on a popular vote, you would be wrong many times. For instance, in countries like Canada, you do not vote for the president or the prime minister, you only vote for the member of parliament in your riding. Then whichever party has the most MPs selects the prime minister, usually the MP that is the leader of the party. Of course, they have already selected the leader of their party by election time, but he or she still needs to be elected in their riding.