Yes, it is a dismissal of the discussion because saying "they are sore losers" doesn't refute the opponent's argument, it just attacks the other side that's trying to discuss.
We already know how hard it is to change the system, but that's not the point, first of all we need to discuss the merits of the system itself before and whether or not
it should be changed and that's what we've tried with the discussion here. And we know how the Electoral College is made in way to appease small states but it does so at the expense of voter equality and proportional representation.
As for the system of world government you propose, for as unrepresentative as it may be, I prefer it to the alternative you propose, because it would still be more representative than minority rule.
Keep repeating the same stupid bullshit until someone believes you. They are not trying to discuss anything. They are claiming the election is illegitimate because of some "national popular vote".
It's pretty fucking simple. National popular vote means NOTHING! It's not what decides the election and both parties knew the rules going in. Every state had been allocated so many votes. Win the state, win the votes. That way no state can unbalance the election vs. the rest of the states, especially since the party in power gets to set their own election rules to make voting easier or harder and for whom. You are the one being dismissive of the truth.
And frankly, so what if YOU prefer it because YOU think it would be more fair. I don't think it would be and you seem to be awfully dismissive of anyone disagreeing with anything you have to say. That doesn't make this much of a discussion. When it goes to "dismissing opinion" you ought to look at yourself in a mirror and look back at your post after post of repeating the same things over and over despite the fact I'll discussed in detail to the contrary.
I still stand by my opinion, that the vast majority of those complaining about the popular vote are doing so solely because their candidate lost and prefer the popular vote because they believe it can be used to make their candidate more likely to win in the future. And if the tables were turned, they wouldn't be saying jack shit. That makes them sore losers.
Furthermore, this isn't the first time the "popular" candidate lost, but I didn't see one of these people talk about popular vote BEFORE the election results came in. Only AFTER their candidate lost did it become such a big issue to them. Again, "sore losers".
That is not being dismissive. I've discussed it, explained it, justified it.