Many people are outraged over the fact that the presidential candidate who lost the popular vote by nearly a million votes is the winner of the 2016 Presidential Election. I have seen so many people post things such as, "What is the point of living in a democracy if the candidate with more votes loses?" or "I thought it was 'power of the people.'" Lack of education surrounding the American government system is what leads to questions such as these.

The infrastructure of the American government was formed on the foundation of "majority rule, minority rights." The founding fathers had to find a way for the minority to have a say in our country, so that the majority would not have the opportunity to impede upon their rights. Thomas Jefferson summed it up when he stated, "Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%." Thus, the debatably flawed electoral college system was created.

The electoral college is designed to protect the rights of less populated states. The system does so by ensuring every state starts off with two electoral votes, and then more votes are added depending on the state's population. The electoral college houses a total of 538 votes, 100 votes are evenly distributed, 435 votes are distributed by population, and 3 votes are allotted for Washington, D.C. Through our current system, a state like Wyoming, which has the smallest population in the Union, gets 3 votes. In contrast, Wyoming would only receive 1 vote if the electoral college system was based on population only. If our democracy were solely based on population, heavily populated states like California and New York would drown out the voices of less populated states.

Some people pose the question, "What is wrong with a democracy?" Plato once had a response for this highly sought after idea when he stated, "Dictatorship naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme liberty." Complete power of the people will lead to chaos. Unregulated passions lead to irresponsible financial decisions. When the money runs out, people become more vulnerable than ever. People then become desperate for a leader, and the majority of the time that leader will take advantage of their vulnerability. So, perhaps it is best the United States is not a direct democracy.

But there has to be a better system than the electoral college, right? Both candidates can get millions of votes in a state. However, if a candidate gets one more popular vote than their opponent, that candidate goes on to win the electoral college vote for that state. If that happened in California, the winning candidate would get 55 votes. That doesn't seem very fair. Well, why doesn't every state do what Maine and Nebraska does? They distribute their electoral college votes proportionally, then the two non-population-based votes go to the majority winner. Well, that would only make sense.