As more returns come in from California, it looks like Trump is going to lose the popular vote despite having secured a majority of electoral votes. In the coming days, if the 2000 election was any indication, I suspect we will see Democrats arguing that this somehow makes Clinton the “rightful” president and that Trump wouldn’t be president if we had a “more sensible” electoral system.
These arguments are silly: the popular vote tells us virtually nothing about what an election would have looked like if the popular vote mattered.
The basic idea is that elections are strategic; campaigns adopt particular tactics given the rules of the game. Consequently, we cannot judge whether Clinton would have won in a popular vote contest given the results of an electoral vote contest.
Here’s an analogy to make the idea more concrete. Baseball games are decided by runs. Teams strategize accordingly, sometimes…
View original post 259 more words
Utopia, you are standing in it! 
Dec 24, 2016 @ 19:08:28
well no,
If the electoral vote does not reflect the pooular vote then it is a fail surely.
LikeLike
Dec 24, 2016 @ 19:10:12
I agree. Kerry could have won in 2004 but for Ohio election fraud
LikeLike