3 ms·
Not to endorse either candidate, but you're making a common mistake. If the election were a popular vote, the candidates would campaign for that. They'd focus
by xamuel 10y ago
Not to endorse either candidate, but you're making a common mistake.
If the election were a popular vote, the candidates would campaign for that. They'd focus more on big cities etc. There's no guarantee Clinton would have won the popular vote if that had been the case.
Edit: If you're downvoting could you explain why?
- TulliusCicero 10y agoYou're definitely not wrong that it's not guaranteed she would win. She'd probably have had a better chance though. It would've been harder for Trump to make his pitch in the areas Clinton did well in.
- AnthonyMouse 10y agoThere is no way to predict what would have happened. National popular vote would completely change both campaign strategy and voter incentives, and the results were already so close that as much as casting ballots on a Sunday instead of a Tuesday might have been enough to change both the popular vote and the electoral college result.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- dcposch 10y agoI never said that the rule change would "guarantee" a Clinton win. I just said it would be more democratic.