It's been one full month since Republican Donald Trump won the electoral college vote by a margin of 306-232 over Democrat Hillary Clinton.
In an astonishing turn of events, Trump's triumph left much of country reeling with shock, while pundits and prognosticators scrambled for answers.
In the weeks since, a debate has raged in the press and on social media regarding the strangely uneven nature of Trump's victory.
While the President-elect bested Clinton by 74 pledged electors, he lost the popular vote by a margin of nearly 3 million.
While four previous presidents have won the White House despite losing the popular vote, none has ever lost by such a staggering total.
(The most recent example is George W. Bush's victory over Al Gore, in which Bush lost by 543,895 popular votes, but still secured a win in the electoral college.)
Of course, in Trump's case, there's the added complication of the fact that he's Donald Trump.
Many believe the duty of the Electoral College is to keep unqualified demagogues who use lies and popular prejudices to sway voters from ever assuming power.
And according to the Federalist Papers, they're not wrong.
The oft-cited documents - penned by several Founding Fathers hoping to help convince Americans of the value and necessity of our Constitution - state that it is the obligation of electors to consider this option.
Specifically, to determine if a candidate is qualified, not beholden to foreign powers, and not engaged in demagogy before casting their vote.
Those centuries-old essays enjoyed a resurgence in popularity this week thanks to a New York Times op-ed.
Republican elector Christopher Suprun has vowed to vote against Trump on December 19 and cited the Federalist Papers as his reason.
One other elector has stepped down in protest of Trump, but the anti-Trump movement within the Electoral College will never amass the numbers it would need in order to sway the election.
According to a piece published today by the Washington Post, Democrats have one last, real shot at preventing Donald Trump from being sworn in on January 20.
(And no, it doesn't involve Jill Stein's recount efforts.)
According to the Post's Michael F. Cannon, the best hope for the Never Trump movement still lies in Hillary Clinton ... but not to win the presidency.
Instead of continuing to fight Trump, the most effective way for the former Secretary of State to block him to urge her electors not to vote for her.
Instead, she would urge her pledged electors - Democrats - to throw their support behind a more qualified Republican instead.
In other words, don't do this for her, but for the good of the nation.
John Kasich, Mitt Romney and John McCain have been bandied about as the most conciliatory options, but really, just about any mainstream Republican would do.
In all likelihood, such a push by Clinton's 232 pledged electors would be joined by enough GOP electors to help a more experienced and less inflammatory Republican take the White House.
It would be a bold and wholly unprecedented move, but it might be the only remaining hope for those still hoping to block Donald Trump from the presidency.
Think there's any chance Hillary - and the electors - will try it?