The New York Times, saying Americans would prefer to elect the president by popular vote, is calling for the end of the Electoral College.
In an editorial, the newspaper called the Electoral College an "antiquated
mechanism."
The Times notes: "But for now, the presidency is still decided by 538 electors. And on Monday, despite much talk in recent weeks about urging those electors to block Donald Trump from the White House, a majority did as expected and cast their ballots for him — a result Congress will ratify next month.
"And so for the second time in 16 years, the candidate who lost the popular vote has won the presidency. Unlike 2000, it wasn't even close. Hillary Clinton beat Mr. Trump by more than 2.8 million votes, or 2.1 percent of the electorate.
"That's a wider margin than 10 winning candidates enjoyed and the biggest deficit for an incoming president since the 19th century."
The Times said Trump won by the rules, but the rules need to change so presidential elections reflect the will of American voters and promote participatory democracy.
It labeled the Electoral College, which is written into the Constitution, a "living symbol of America's original sin."
"When slavery was the law of the land, a direct popular vote would have disadvantaged the Southern states, with their large disenfranchised populations," the newspaper's editorial said. "Counting those men and women as three-fifths of a white person, as the Constitution originally did, gave the slave states more electoral votes."
The Times notes it has opposed the Electoral College for at least 80 years regardless of the outcome of any particular election.
"Many Republicans have endorsed doing away with the Electoral College, including Mr. Trump himself, in 2012," the newspaper said. "Maybe that's why he keeps claiming falsely that he won the popular vote, or why more than half of Republicans now seem to believe he did.
"For most reasonable people, it's hard to understand why the loser of the popular vote should wind up running the country."