You didn't really vote for president, the Electoral College did.

Last night as votes were still being counted, statistician and editor-in-chief for FiveThirtyEight Nate Silver pointed out that while Donald Trump has been elected president of the United States, "it's possible, perhaps even likely, that [Hillary Clinton] will eventually win the popular vote as more votes come in from California."

 

 We now know that she has indeed won the popular vote by a slim margin. American journalist Carl Bialik adds via Silver's blog:  

Hillary Clinton could still conceivably win the election -- or she could lose the national popular vote. 

But since both outcomes look unlikely, we should start preparing ourselves for the possibility of the second split between the national popular vote and the electoral vote in the last five presidential elections. 

A coalition of 11 sates with 165 electoral votes between them has agreed to an interstate compact that, once signed by states with a combined 270 or more electoral votes, would bind their electors to vote for the winner of the national popular vote -- in effect ending the Electoral College.

 New York just joined this week. 

It wasn't enough to affect this election, but maybe today's result will spur more states to join.

The results of this election echo the 2000 results, where Democrat Al Gore narrowly won the popular vote, but George W. Bush won the White House.

 It brings into question whether or not the Electoral College should be abolished in favor of the popular vote.

 As a refresher, the Electoral College is comprised of electors that cast their votes for president.

Each state has a set number of electors that is based on the state's population -- the candidate who wins the state's popular vote gets those electors.

Technically, on Election Day, the American people are electing the electors who elect the president.

 The New York Times has a lengthy article describing how the Electoral College works, which you can view here.