As sure as the change of seasons, the end of the 2016 campaign has brought calls to change the Electoral College system by which we elect a President, as backers of Hillary Clinton fume that she won the popular vote, but will not end up the winner of the race against Donald Trump.
"One vote for one person should determine the one leader who is supposed to answer to all the people of the country," declared the liberal group MoveOn in an email sent to supporters.
"On November 8, the American people spoke clearly, and chose Hillary Clinton for President," echoed the group Daily Kos, which also called for change.
Those calls came as Clinton's lead in the popular vote kept going up this weekend.
On Friday afternoon, Clinton lead by a little less than 400,000 votes:
By Saturday night, Clinton's lead had grown by 150,000 more.
On Sunday it was over 600,000.
It's likely that Clinton's popular vote advantage will be the third largest - for a candidate who lost in the Electoral Vote.
As you might expect, critics of Clinton are not exactly rushing to embrace the idea of changing the Electoral College format to whoever-gets-the-most-votes-wins.
And let's not get carried away - the idea that the Congress would change the Electoral College process seems very remote.
Like, it ain't happening.
But to give you a quick demonstration in how opposition to the Electoral College usually goes hand in hand with whether your candidate is winning or not - there is this tweet from Election Night in 2012:
Yes, that would be the same Donald Trump, the next President.
Back then, he probably didn't know that he would be making the same argument that Democrats would make after his victory in the Electoral College in 2016.