The irony is that the author was writing about the Republican electors who are thinking about voting for someone else now. Not the Democrats. The Republican electors.
And frankly, that’s perfectly within their right. If they don’t see Trump fit for office, then they shouldn’t endorse him. However, I think the only thing worse than a President Trump is a President whomever-some-electors-have-voted-into-office. Trump is a political cancer, but at least 25% of the American public wanted him. Kasich or some other runaway Republican? No one asked for them! But I think even if half of all electors voted for another guy, that guy couldn’t just bypass all of the campaign process; instead this would trigger new elections. Right?
You are demanding we select a winner of a football game based on how many fans were in the stadium, not on who scored the most points on the playing field.
I get what you are trying to say, but gosh, that’s a horrible analogy. In a football game, the people in the audience are merely passive spectators. The players could play the game even if the audience was absent, and there is no correlation between points and people in the audience. In an election, the people are the points! The players aren’t playing independently of the people, they play for the people. The difference between popular vote and electoral college is merely a difference in how to count the people; by group or by individual. How the points are counted was indeed agreed on before, but that’s about the only thing that fits in this analogy.
But looking back at how Trump proclaimed he wouldn’t accept the result if he lost (so much for agreeing on the rules of the process!), it seems to me high horses are not the best positions for Republicans to argue from now. Let’s be honest: if Clinton had won, Trump supporters would have held up their figurative pitchforks and marched towards Washington. You can’t claim that the election is rigged for over a year, and after having won be like “oh, never mind”.