Hardly any pundit saw it coming. An autopsy of Trump’s victory reveals that the establishment – political, economic, financial, social, artistic, pollsters and mainstream media – was pummelled and stunned by the revolt and anger of the white working class against globalization and trade deals, the elites, disappearing industrial jobs, rising inequality, fading hopes, uncontrolled immigration, and even multiculturalism, diversity and lost pride.

However, Trump also took the White House because of the anachronism of a voting system that is not based on direct popular democracy where each vote counts equally. In the final analysis, this is probably what mattered to secure him victory

In the early morning hours after Election Day in 2012, Donald Trump famously argued that “the phoney electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation”; and “the electoral college is a disaster for a democracy”, after he thought that Barack Obama had won the Electoral College while losing the popular vote to Mitt Romney (which turned out to be untrue). He even urged for a march on Washington to decry the Electoral College.

Immediately after his victory on Nov 8th, 2016, believing that he had more popular vote than Clinton, he stated that “I would rather see a system in which if I get 100 million votes and somebody else gets 90 million votes, and I win” Little did he realise that he would be the greatest beneficiary of an electoral formula that he characterised a “disaster for a democracy”.

When he recognised that he was behind in the popular vote, he suddenly changed his stance and posited that “I was never a fan of the Electoral College until now”. With counting still going on in a few States, Clinton is leading Trump by a very wide margin of over 2.2 million votes and this huge chasm is likely to grow once the process is over.

The voting system to elect the President of the most powerful country in the world is replete with aberrations and flaws. It is not a direct democracy and it is unique as it does not exist anywhere in the democratic world to choose the Executive President of a country.

There are at least five glaring anomalies with this indirect system of choosing the US President (see table).

Anomaly one: Trump lost the popular vote but won the election

This is the most reviled flaw. It sounds bizarre that the victor in a presidential election is not the person who has more popular support. Hillary Clinton will not be the next president of the US despite, as shown in the table, having collected by the 26th November 64,654,483 votes to Mr Trump’s 62,418,820.

This has happened twice since 2000, first with Al Gore and now with Hillary Clinton, and it seems to penalise one party. While Gore won by a margin of around 540,000 votes, the lead of Clinton is around four times that number and constitutes a staggering record in US history.

It should be clear that such an anomaly cannot simply happen in France, Brazil, Philippines or Ghana where the winner of a Presidential election is always the candidate with more votes in the whole country. The race to the White House is not about winning more popular votes, as the president is chosen not directly by voters but indirectly through an Electoral College which is a very archaic, ambiguous and flawed system.

The number of electors in the college corresponds to the seats a State has in the US Senate and the House of Representatives, plus three electoral votes allotted to Washington, D.C. The candidate that reaches at least 270 Electoral College votes out of 538 is declared the winner irrespective of what happens to his share of the popular vote. Essentially, the US holds 51 separate elections that determine an Electoral College vote count.

The Electoral College was introduced in 1787 when women and non-whites did not have the right to vote. In those days, wealthy landowners were the only ones who were allowed to participate in the election system. There was no “one person, one vote” as it exists in the presidential election of all countries. The President was chosen by the elite establishment that constituted the Electoral College.

Worse, if people voted against the wish of this small group, the Electoral College delegates could veto the will of the people and choose their own candidate. That is why there is no constitutional obligation by the Electoral College representatives to vote according to the wishes of the people in a particular State. Some founders wanted the popular election of the President but many others didn’t trust the masses. They feared that the electorate was too ill-informed to make the decision themselves.

It was argued that “ordinary Americans across a vast continent would lack sufficient information to choose directly and intelligently among leading presidential candidates” and hence “a small number of persons, selected by their fellow citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to make that choice”.

As such, the Electoral College is not only unfair but profoundly undemocratic as it negates the sacrosanct principle of “one person, one vote”. Under such a system, it is better to win by a small margin in many States than by a landslide in few ones. This is exactly what happened. Trump won several key swing States such as Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin very narrowly, while Mrs Clinton won big majorities in some States like California. It explains why she has more votes and still loses the election. In Michigan, Trump won nail-bitingly on 47.6 % of vote compared to Clinton’s 47.3 % while in California, Clinton captured 65 % of the popular vote to Trump’s 33 %. While in France, the 32 % margin of Clinton in California would have counted, it is totally irrelevant and useless in the US. There has been several attempts to modify the Electoral College system to make it more democratic. It was nearly changed in 1969 after Nixon won a tight election. The amendment was to introduce a formula that relied exclusively on the popular vote. The candidates who received the most votes would win the election. The Democrats failed to earn enough support in the Senate. It died and was never brought back up again. If that amendment had passed, Hillary Clinton would have been elected president in 2016.

Trump’s critics have been angered by the election results and have demonstrated in several cities. They also want to do away with the Electoral College. Several million people have signed a petition to urge the electors of the Electoral College to ignore their States’ vote and cast their ballots for Clinton as she has won the popular vote by a wide margin. There are also many calls to reform the electoral system to provide for “one person, one vote” so that the winner of the popular vote becomes the President.

Last week, California Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer stated that she will introduce legislation to abolish the Electoral College as it disenfranchises millions of voters. However, all these initiatives are unlikely to happen as the Republicans who control all levers of power will not change a system that favours them.

Anomaly two: Trump won without a majority of vote

In many countries, the Executive President needs at least 50 % plus one vote to be elected as he simply cannot be returned on a plurality of votes. This is the case in France, Brazil, Kenya, Seychelles, Afghanistan and even Moldova.

In the USA, there is no obligation to have a majority of vote to win the election. Trump took only 46.5 % of the vote. In France, Austria and Portugal, there would have been a second ballot between the two candidates with more votes if no one takes an absolute majority in the first round so that the winner emerges with at least 50 % plus one of popular suffrage.

Anomaly three: Winner takes all in each State and 49 % of vote has nothing

To add to the absurdity of the arbitrary system of the Electoral College, the candidate who receives even ONE vote more than his opponent in a State takes ALL that State’s electoral votes. For example, if a candidate gets 50.1 % of the votes in Florida, he takes all 29 of that State’s electoral votes while the one with 49.9 % has nothing at all.

In 2012, Republicans who controlled legislatures in swing States that supported President Barack Obama – Pennsylvania and Wisconsin – did consider changing laws that give the winner of a State’s popular vote all of its Electoral College votes. They instead wanted Electoral College votes to be divided proportionally as they believed that Mr. Obama would have lost. They are unlikely to change today as they have benefitted from the system.

Unsurprisingly, it is the democrats who are calling for changes in the way the Electoral College votes are apportioned. Since some time, two small States, Maine and Nebraska, have moved away from a winner-takes-all system to one that allocates electoral votes based on a congressional district basis which is a fairer reflection of the popular will.

Anomaly four: A vote in a small State is more important than one in a large State

The Electoral College system further distorts the one-person, one-vote principle of democracy because electoral votes are not distributed according to population. Every State is entitled to one electoral vote for each member it has in the House of Representatives and it also obtains two additional electors representing its two senators.

It gives small and rural States more influence proportionally than large ones. For instance, an individual in very small Wyoming has more than triple the weight in electoral votes as someone in very large California. The result is that the combined voting age population of the seven least populous jurisdiction carries the same voting strength in the Electoral College as New York which has three times more people.

There is not much that can be done as Congress has capped the total number of electoral votes at 538. Therefore, a vote in Wyoming and South Dakota, which are traditional Republican territory, will continue to have greater clout than a vote in California and New York, which are Democratic strongholds.

Anomaly five: large States have almost no say in the election campaign

The aim of the Electoral College was to ensure that all States have a voice in national election. However, under the current system, candidates can ignore reliably Republican and Democrat States, and dedicate all of their attention and resources on a small group of battleground States. Therefore, candidates have no reason to focus on issues that matter to millions of Californians.

The current system artificially divides the country into red, blue and swing States. New York is a victim of this system despite ranking 3rd in the country, with over 13 million eligible voters. It is almost last in Presidential campaign spending. Even a very small State like New Hampshire does better.

Conclusion

While the Brexit narrative may have found an echo in the US elections, it is clear that Trump has benefitted from the flaws of the Electoral College system, which is completely out of date in this age of mobile technology, social media and instantaneous news. Many are thus calling for people to choose the President directly so that the vote of every citizen would hold equal weight and significance.

But we are very far from such a direct democracy in the richest country on earth. Especially as Trump has now changed his tune on the Electoral College which he says is a genius after calling it a disaster.