3 ms·
But the campaigns were run to win electoral votes. If the rule for winning was popular votes, the campaigns would have been run entirely differently and the res
by gwright 10y ago
But the campaigns were run to win electoral votes. If the rule for winning was popular votes, the campaigns would have been run entirely differently and the results would have been entirely different.
What I do think the results indicate is that neither party is effectively capturing the support of a large majority of Americans. The typical observation is that we are a country divided, but I rather think that there are a large number of Americans who would prefer voting for a synthesis of typical Democratic and Republican policies, but that isn't possible. Some of those people fall on the Democratic side and some fall on the Republic side during an election and that changes depending on the candidates.
- mc32 10y agoThis is an important point people dismiss too easily. If the campaigns would have had to focus on popular votes, they would have been run differently. Trump would have given more time to California and Hillary would have campaigned more in Texas, for example. It's obviously impossible to say what the outcome would have been, but the campaigns definitely would have optimized differently.
- ianai 10y agoIn a different universe things would be different. This is always true and I agree with you what you mean in pointing it out. From a human level though he still didn't cross the popular threshold. Regardless of constitutionality that leaves a lot to be desired.