You're a House member and have to elect a president ...

[Anzeigenhauptmeister]

The Electoral College wasn't able to elect a president. Thus the vote goes to the House of Representatives, which you are a member of.
Candidate A has won your state, but Candidate B has won your congressional district. Both received the same number of votes nationally. A third candidate hasn't been nominated by the Electoral College. Neither candidate is considered controversial, plus you consider both qualified to be president, but you feel obliged to put the will of the electorate into action.

Scenario α You are a member of candidate A's party.
Scenario β You are a member of candidate B's party.
Scenario γ You are an independent member of the House.

But mind, you are not from Nebraska or Maine, and you are from a state that is divided into several congressional districts.

[Anzeigenhauptmeister]

I had to redo this topic because I unintentionally forgot to add the maximum votes per user, and I cannot delete my own threads nor edit polls.

[Anzeigenhauptmeister]

I'd vote for the candidate who won the national popular vote.

I've "enhanced" the information.

[Anzeigenhauptmeister]

I'd vote for the candidate who won the national popular vote.

No candidate won the popular vote. Look at the opening post.

[Anzeigenhauptmeister]

It's a thought experiment.  give the guy a break.

[Anzeigenhauptmeister]

Exactly. This topic is about the definition of "people" in the term "will of the people". Furthermore it is about the state of inner conflict between your own will as an elected politician and the divergent views of the people who elected you.