At the national level, the former Secretary of State Democrat Hillary Clinton obtained about 400,000 more votes than her opponent, according to provisional results published by the US press.
This is a drop of water in a sea of approximately 130 million ballots deposited at the polls, but that allow Clinton to present herself as more popular than Trump. About 60.4 million Americans preferred it, against 60 million who voted for the Republican.
With the direct vote, the former lady would have been chosen to occupy the White House by 48% against 47% of the votes.
But in the United States the president is elected by an electoral college, composed of large voters representing each of the 50 states of the union and whose number varies according to the population of each one of them.
For example, the candidate who wins in California, a populous state, secures 50 large voters in the 538 polling places.
Donald Trump won the race by getting 290 large voters, against 228 Democrat Hillary Clinton. It takes 270 to get into the White House.
“This raises a question: to what extent is our system democratic?” Asks Robert Schapiro, a professor of political science at Columbia University, New York. If the rule of “one person a vote” is the pillar of democracy, indirect suffrage modifies it, said the academic.
The indirect system “undermines the principle of political equality,” Douglas McAdam, a professor of sociology at Stanford University, told CNN on Saturday.
“In a system of large voters, one vote does not weigh the same as another. The vote of the key states, which are a half dozen and decide the election, count more than the votes won in states clearly Republican or Democrats, “explains the sociologist.
A petition launched on Change.org, which denounces the flaws of the indirect system, had signature of 3.5 million people who claim that the polling station, which will meet Dec. 19, will elect Clinton And not Trump.
Technically it is possible, but really this demand has little chance of prosperity because the great electors are carefully chosen by the parties and their vote is a simple formality.
Large voters could elect Clinton if prosecutors find Trump “unfit” to govern.
The Republican candidate had denounced many times during the campaign a system “rigged” and threatened not to recognize the results of the election.
But after the election, he did not criticize and Clinton also did not question his defeat, despite criticism from his followers.
“A reform of the electoral system would require a modification of the sacrosanct Constitution, a delicate task”, says Schapiro.
Republican George W Bush prevailed in 2000 to Democrat Al Gore without winning the majority of the votes: 48.4% against 47.9%, and the counting of the votes in Florida lasted several days.
For McAdam, the second counts are possible today “thanks to the new technologies”.
Without amending the Constitution, states could adopt laws to attribute their large voters to the candidates who have obtained the most votes at the national level. This type of initiative has so far yielded no results.
Rob Richie, director of the FairVote organization, which promotes several reforms of the US electoral system, suggests a new demarcation of the electoral maps or reform of the system of primaries, strongly criticized by anti-Republican Trump.
It also proposes to lower the age of majority in order to vote at age 17, in a country where voter turnout is particularly low. Only 56.9% of Americans voted Tuesday, said Michael McDonald, a professor at the University of Florida.