"The counts are not in, but it appears that >2% is indeed the number we're settling at."

Great! The numbers I've seen show it closer to .5%. For example:

"The most comprehensive vote-tracking analysis is published by David Wasserman of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. As of 2:30 p.m. on Nov. 14, according to Wasserman’s calculations, Clinton led Trump by 784,748 votes -- specifically, 61,422,098 for Clinton, 60,637,350 for Trump, and 6,691,311 for other candidates."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/nov/...

Clinton 61,422,098 47.7%
Trump 60,637,350 47.1%
other 6,691,311
total 128,750,759

With the total vote not yet counted, different sources, sourcing the data at different times, I'm open to other sources for this data. I think one of the problems with the Electoral College is that it changes voting behavior, particularly in states that have a strong bias towards one candidate or the other, affecting the popular vote. This makes it more difficult to assess what the actual popular vote would be if there were no Electoral College. Publicizing exit poll results can have a similar effect, as can time zones. I also haven't looked closely enough to see what the estimates are that these different effects would have on the actual outcome.

"You do not "win" EC votes in most states."

Perhaps a poor choice of words. It was only an attempt to express how a state's votes get allocated to a candidate. (Btw, do you think that choice of words was important to what I'm trying to say? Or that it's a reflection of me in general, that I'm ignorant and to cast doubt on everything else I'm saying? I don't think I'm even arguing that the EC is a good thing! Am I giving you the impression I am?)

Regarding "engaging each other across the divide", I'm not implying some kind of centrist agenda. I do think there needs to be compromise of some variety if we're trying to address the issues of the population in general. Two buckets don't describe the population, yet the presidential election is effectively a binary choice. Yet we seem to be making it such when we not only stop listening and talking to the people who voted differently than we did, but actively work against them? I'm all for fighting for issues you believe in. I also want to make sure that I'm working to make sure I'm not alienating people who agree with me on a particular issue (or may, with some constructive discussion) by refusing to listen to what they have to say. Listening doesn't mean agreement, nor does attempting to understand constitute support. I also want to make sure I'm doing what I can to make what I want to say as effective as possible at reaching the people who don't necessarily agree with me.

Am I confused here? I'm honestly asking if there's a useful distinction between engagement (which I'm trying to argue for) and centrism (which I disagree with).

But I also think civil disobedience is entirely appropriate at this juncture.

Completely agree. I also know there are people who may want to support the same issues in other ways. I also hope it's clear that I'm not trying to silence or stifle any unrest and upset. I want it to be constructive. If you have suggestions for me on how to be more effective in conveying that message, I'd appreciate it, especially as I haven't necessarily been very effective here :)

I've been trying to make clear that I'm discussing language that's useful in making change. I'm not arguing about the Electoral College, or Trump's choices for cabinet positions. I think both of those are discussions very much worth having, and ones I am having. Just not here. I also want those discussions to bring people together, not further polarize society. Something I try to keep in mind is that if Clinton had won the Electoral college, there'd be a huge segment of the population very upset right now as well. Whether or not you think one side's feelings are justified doesn't deny the fact that they're having them.

If you don't want to talk about tactics for constructive discussion, that's fine. I certainly can understand that, too. The reason I entered the discussion is that I think you can be more effective at making your case by taking into account the words you're using to do so. So it's on me for entering a discussion about the Electoral College without explicitly wanting to argue one way or the other. I also take it upon myself to have not been able to do so here, given that was my goal.

Thanks for taking the time to engage with me. I've found it useful. I've appreciated it.