If there was no Electoral College, would the Republican Party be finished?

Actually, that was not the question. I think close analysis of the demographics as they fit in the electoral map McG so kindly brought is required before constructing an accurate answer.

Foofie wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:

The Electoral College has allowed for the "mischiefs of faction" to prevail in this election, something for which it was implemented to avoid, ironically.

Where was the "mischief"? The country is "right of center" and can vote in an election if voters think the issues warrant their vote. There were issues that resonated with conservative voters, especially with upwards of three Supreme Court justices possibly being replaced in the next few years. Where's the mischief?

A minority faction won the vote.

How do you get those numbers from that link?

Apparently turnout was 58% with 134,302,600 (approx) voters. Total eligible voters was 231,556,622. It is estimated that 8.4% of voters were actually ineligible (felons, non-citizens, etc).

I am looking for data regarding urban v rural vote counts.

The government is in Republican hands. Let them deal with him. Democrats can spend four years raising heirloom tomatoes, meditating, reading Jane Austen, traveling around the country, tasting artisan beers, and let the Republicans build the wall and carry on the trade war with China and deport the undocumented and deal with opioids, and we Democrats can go for a long , brisk walk and smell the roses.

You dont need corporations to get elected.

In this election, their vote was of greater value than that of Democratic voters, who just exercised their right to vote as well, in the Electoral College.

I believe none of us yet knows what kind of President Trump may be. Indeed history teaches us that initial impressions are very often wrong. Consider the sometimes slavish adulation that accompanied Obama's ascent. I believe the judgment of history will be very different from that.

A public official may not appoint, employ, promote, advance, or advocate for appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement, in or to a civilian position in the agency in which he is serving or over which he exercises jurisdiction or control any individual who is a relative of the public official.

- an Executive agency;

- an office, agency, or other establishment in the legislative branch;

- an office, agency, or other establishment in the judicial branch; and

- the government of the District of Columbia

almost as a passing mention in the D.C. Circuit's 1993 opinion [on whether Hillary's task force had to publicly disclose records], the court said that the federal anti-nepotism statute does not appear to cover staff in the White House or in the Executive Office of the President. Judge Laurence Silberman wrote, "So, for example, a president would be barred from appointing his brother as attorney general, but perhaps not as a White House special assistant."

Courts have also held in the past that parts of the Executive Office of the President are not agencies when it comes to the Freedom of Information Act, but it's unclear whether those legal precedents would be controlling when applied to the anti-nepotism statute.

An individual appointed, employed, promoted, or advanced in violation of this section is not entitled to pay, and money may not be paid from the Treasury as pay to an individual so appointed, employed, promoted, or advanced.