She didn't lose.

they would be able to deny a person the presidency
In the event the people elected a nut job that sure didn't work. I think I read that only Republicans have benefited from the EC.

A vote in a rural state (predominantly right wing), thanks to the Electoral College, is worth more than a vote in a more populated state. Look at the two people in recent history who have occupied the White House after losing the popular vote.
(So much for the theory that the Electoral College will keep out someone who's unfit).

THAT NEEDS TO END!!!!!

Can you cite any studies?

the EC. Why is that? Inquiring minds want to know.

One person, one vote should be the way all elected offices are filled.

...Electoral College did.

Blame them!

1.) Something that never seems to get mentioned enough - Hillary was the victim of a 25+ year smear by the Republicans which, in the end, should be considered to have been highly successful. They were able to ding her enough to sway an election. That there was a lack of pushback and not taking the smear seriously from our side should never have happened.

2.) The EC. Getting that rescinded/removed from the Constitution will be a very high hurdle to cross. However, there is nothing in the Constitution that limits the number of reps in the House. What does limit it to 435 members is the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 which pegs the membership at 435 members. That should be a lower bar to cross. Given the population growth and shifts in the last 90 years, rescinding, amending or modifying that act to better reflect population dispersion/demographics should be a more attainable goal. If the seats in the House was more reflective of the actual population, the smaller population states would lose a lot of their power. Then again, without changing the Constitution, the Senate could still be a problem for obvious reasons, but it would be a start.