INDIANAPOLIS – In the waning days of the presidential campaign, when he thought he was likely to lose, President-elect Donald Trump routinely complained that the system was “rigged.”

He was right — but it’s rigged to benefit him and the Americans he represents.

Angry Hillary Clinton supporters and other activists have focused their ire on the Electoral College. They point to the fact that Clinton won more than 2 million more popular votes than Trump did and they say that the Electoral College perverts the will of the people.

They want to see it abolished — or reformed so that the winner of the popular vote always wins the election.

There’s another way to solve this problem they ought to consider, because the problem is larger than the presidency.

The Electoral College’s total of 535 votes reflects the membership of the two branches of Congress, the 100 U.S. senators and the 435 members of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Originally, the different sizes of the memberships of the Senate and the House were supposed to reflect the two chambers’ different purposes. The fact that every state, however small or large, had the same number of senators — two — was supposed to reflect the fact that each state had the same standing within the federal government.

The House, on the other hand, was supposed to reflect the voice of the people. That’s why it was called “the people’s house.” And its membership was supposed to grow as the population of the United States grew.

That’s the way it worked until the 1920s.

Then, amid rising concerns in rural states about waves of immigration from Europe filling cities, Congress decided to change its system of apportionment. It capped the membership of the House of Representatives at 435.

And, except for temporary expansions when Alaska and Hawaii became states, that’s the way it’s stayed since 1929.

The effect has been to give voters in less-populated and rural states an increasingly disproportionate voice not just in terms of who occupies the Oval Office or who sits in the U.S. Senate, but who rules the House of Representatives.

The people’s house.

In 1929, the year the cap was installed, America had a population of slightly more than 90 million people. Most Americans then lived in the country or in small towns.

Now, we are a nation of slightly more than 325 million and roughly 63 percent of us live in urban areas.

That change isn’t reflected in our system of selecting the president, U.S. senators or members of the House of Representatives.

The fact that our government isn’t set up to represent the will of the majority any longer has had unfortunate effects.

The first is that it has undermined confidence in the idea that all Americans have the same voice in their country’s affairs. The brutal fact is that a Wyoming resident’s vote is worth more — much more — proportionately than that of a resident of California, Texas, New York or Florida.

This leads to the second problem.

Because small states and a minority of Americans have more weight within the system than they should, time and again we see concerns that matter to a majority of Americans — gun violence, affordable health care, income inequality — shoved aside or ignored.

We are supposed to be a nation in which the will of the majority prevails while the rights of the minority are protected.

Now, though, we live in a country in which we live, in the words of a friend of mine, under the tyranny of the minority while the will of the majority is ignored.

The solution to this is go back to the old system and have the membership of the House of Representatives keep pace with population growth — to make it the people’s house once more. The Senate could remain as the bulwark of small states’ interests and prerogatives.

And have the Electoral College continue to reflect the membership of the two chambers of Congress.

Some will argue that increasing the House’s membership would make things more unwieldy and add to the federal government’s dysfunction.

Maybe, but it’s also possible that a reconstituted House would see its mission as implementing the people’s will, rather than thwarting it.

That would be a welcome change.

John Krull is director of Franklin College’s Pulliam School of Journalism, host of “No Limits” WFYI 90.1 Indianapolis and publisher of TheStatehouseFile.com, a news website powered by Franklin College journalism students.

We recently purchased shares of Extended Stay America (STAY), a U.S. hotel chain owning and operating 629 hotels with about 70,000 rooms.

We believe STAY is significantly undervalued because it is misunderstood by investors. We’ve had success investing in “special situations” like spinoffs, post-bankruptcy reorganizations and management changes. STAY checks two of those boxes, having reorganized out of bankruptcy in 2010 and bringing in CEO Gerry Lopez from AMC Entertainment in 2015.

STAY operates in an attractive niche of the hotel industry and is far more profitable than its peers. In addition, STAY is on the cusp of two major initiatives we believe will be transformative for the company and stock — a massive property renovation project and transformation to a franchise model.

We think STAY is cheap at 15.7 times earnings and an attractive dividend yield of 5.4 percent, with dividends expected to increase in 2017 after remodels are complete. That certainly beats earning 0 percent at a bank.

Understanding how STAY makes money is straightforward. STAY operates 70,000 rooms and has an average room rate of $50 per night, generating $1.3 billion in annual revenues. Costs are low because STAY typically cleans rooms only once per week or whenever guests leave. STAY’s profits are just under half of revenues.

As the name suggests, STAY targets guests looking for accommodations for more than one week. Indeed, 2/3 of STAY’s guests stay seven nights or more. STAY’s guests are typically working on consulting or other long-term engagements. Extended stay hotels have higher average occupancy rates than daily stay hotels and are also more profitable because rooms are cleaned less often.

Extended stay hotels are a hybrid of apartments and hotels, as guests have access to the usual hotel amenities such as free Wi-Fi and continental breakfast, but also get a full kitchen. Within the extended stay niche, STAY is the clear market leader with over twice the number of rooms compared to the next biggest competitors, Candlewood Suites (32,000 rooms) and Marriott (28,000 rooms).

To increase rates, STAY shifted its focus to cater to corporate travelers, which now account for 45 percent of revenues. STAY initiated a huge renovation program and hired a sales team to pursue corporate travel partners. The renovation program cost $640 million (about $1 million on each hotel ($10,000/room) and should be finished by next March.

STAY has also implemented a sophisticated revenue management system to maximize room rates. With renovations complete and technology systems updated, STAY believes it can grow to 800 hotels over the next few years, building on the coasts and partnering with franchisees in other areas. By 2021, management expects to have 27 percent of locations franchised, up from 0 percent today.

We believe STAY offers an attractive risk/reward proposition. Armed with modernized hotel rooms and revenue management system, we have faith in Lopez’s ability to create value for investors.

Mickey Kim is the chief operating officer and chief compliance officer for Columbus-based investment adviser Kirr Marbach & Co. Kim also writes for the Indianapolis Business Journal. He can be reached at 812-376-9444 or mickey@kirrmar.com.

Send comments to editorial@therepublic.com.

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author as of the date the article was published. These opinions have not been updated or supplemented and may not reflect the author’s views today. The information provided in this article does not provide information reasonably sufficient upon which to base an investment decision and should not be considered a recommendation to purchase or sell any particular stock or other investment.