I dare say I am not mistaken. I know you mean the above sincerely, but it is so muddled in what you hope to be that you seem to have lost all concept of what actually is. And I mean this seriously. I respect that you mean every word, but is wishful thinking. Now, those words could be made reality, but there is process to do that. However, just stating these positions in a post means zilch.
What I write below is something I suspect every Hillsdale student knows:
To begin, the Founding Fathers would whole-heartedly agree with you that, “[My] 60 per cent number has nothing to do with the will of the people by any stretch of the imagination” because they set up a republic of sovereign states, not a republic of individual people. The government set-up document is called the Constitution of the United States, not the Consitution of the United People. This is key because the Constitution sets up a federal government and states with their own sovereign governments.
Specifically, the Constitution has purview over 51 different governments - 50 state governments and 1 Federal government. All states governments are equal and independent in that no one state can dictate to another state, regardless of population or physical size. California cannot tell New Hampshire anything about how to run NH, even though CA is some 30X more populous and much larger in landmass. The equal power of the States is preserved by each state having two Senators, with all senators bestowed with equal powers.
You misrepresent, even if inadvertently, what I wrote in my post. I did not write that the 60% majority represented the will of the people. I clearly wrote the 60% represents the will of the states. But, that is what the vote should represent because, given that it is the Constitution of the United States and each state is sovereign, our system is set-up for the states choose the president. The president takes an oath to defend the Constitution, not to defend the people who voted.
Therefore, all the popular vote talk is empty because there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution about a popular vote for president. The Founding Fathers discussed and determined for several reasons, with a main reason being to preserve state sovereignty, that the states should choose the president, since the Constitution governs the states and the federal government. And given that the president is the executive of the federal government, it is proper that the entities he governs, i.e., the states, be the ones which choose him. Hence, the electoral college. In simple english, the president does not govern the people, which is so erroneously believed by ill-taught students and people. The people actually are governed directly by their state governments.
What you seem not to understand is the will of the people is designed specifically to be expressed locally, which gives each person the most power, i.e., voting for their congressional representatives and their state government. For example, a person voting in NH has the same power over how the state governs him as a person voting in CA because the larger voting bloc in CA is constitutionally irrelevant to NH governance and thus cannot override any voters’ wishes in NH. Without this set-up, the progressive ideas of the coasts would be controlling public policy in all states. However, with sovereign states, CA and the coasts are free to be uber-progressive and other states are free ignore and be undisturbed by them.
The end result is two-fold: state sovereignty is preserved and, by proxy, the voters in each state have votes that have the most power to directly affecting their lives. Therefore, when voting for president of the United States, it is the states, and by proxy, the people in each sovereign state which decides who they want to represent their state as president at the federal level.
The beauty of the system is there could be 100 million people in CA with looney ideas of governance, but the rest of the states are not forced to follow that looney approach simply by their collective populations voting for other presidential candidates. And when the states’ votes are tallied, you can get what we just got this past year - 30 states choosing a particular candidate over the 20 more populous states.
And as for the 10 million more Senate votes, totally irrelevant because there is no national senatorial vote tabulation in the Constitution for anything because the states, by definition, are sovereign. So why make up meaningless correlations as if it applies to something? It is futile exercise in nothingness. A senator who receives 30,000 votes in his state is equal to the senator who receives 3 million votes in his state. Population size is irrelevant; thus, the number of votes garnered by senators collectively is irrelevant.
So, you can go on about the national popular and senatorial votes, but it is a disservice to students (and others) around the country because that is not part of our Constitution. And, it borders on abusive to make them think that something went wrong, when everything worked exactly as intended.
Students should be taught properly that, per the Constitution, the states choose the president and that there is no place in the presidency for tabulating a popular vote other than at the state level. If you do not like it, then draft an amendment and do the hard work of changing it instead of saying and complaining about something that has never been part of our system and acting like it means anything in our current system.
And the answer to the result does not represent the will the people, there is an easy solution given that the states are sovereign - the people unhappy with the results should move to a state that is more aligned with their beliefs and which is governed that way, instead of thinking they should be able to force their beliefs on everyone in every state.