4 ms·

We should keep in mind as well that the campaigns play the game they are given -- to maximize electoral votes. There is an opportunity cost (the popular vote)

We should keep in mind as well that the campaigns play the game they are given -- to maximize electoral votes. There is an opportunity cost (the popular vote) to only campaigning in the swing states. For example, a large number of Hillary's popular vote was claimed in California. Trump didn't campaign much in California. One could argue if Trump spent more time in California (which he strategically did not), Hillary's popular vote lead wouldn't be as high. I think its culturally important that Trump didn't get the popular vote, but it's also a little like playing a game of chess, losing, and then decrying "but I took more pawns!" That wasn't the agreed upon rules of the game.

paulddraper 10y ago
Not only that, but no candidate got a majority of the popular vote in 2016. If you wanted to elect by majority vote (as is currently done with the electoral college), we'd have to do a run-off to determine the actual popular vote winner.
filoeleven 10y ago
> I think its culturally important that Trump didn't get the popular vote, but it's also a little like playing a game of chess, losing, and then decrying "but I took more pawns!" There are certainly such complaints coming from those who voted against him, but it's also worth noting that by far the biggest sore loser is Trump himself. He has insisted that the only reason he failed to win the popular vote is due to voter fraud, and not due to a brilliantly-executed campaign strategy by his staff. They knew how to get the electoral votes, and they went out and got them. But instead of being thrilled to have the office and focusing all effort on his agenda, he had his press secretary defend his delusional idea that he won on the merits of being the most popular, and then doubled down and claimed widespread voter fraud in the states he didn't need to win. It's worth noting because it shows how divorced the reality of fitness for the office is from the ability to gain the office. We have known this for a long time--almost everyone acknowledges that absent an extremely fortunate turn of circumstances one cannot become president--but I don't think there has been in at least a century here (and probably longer) such a stark negative example.
- rrauenza 10y ago
  Ah! Good point, and also reminds me of the existence of this article: https://www.wired.com/2017/01/author-trumps-favorite-voter-fraud-study-says-everyones-wrong/ https://www.wired.com/2017/01/author-trumps-favorite-voter-f...

paulddraper 10y ago

Not only that, but no candidate got a majority of the popular vote in 2016. If you wanted to elect by majority vote (as is currently done with the electoral college), we'd have to do a run-off to determine the actual popular vote winner.

filoeleven 10y ago

> I think its culturally important that Trump didn't get the popular vote, but it's also a little like playing a game of chess, losing, and then decrying "but I took more pawns!" There are certainly such complaints coming from those who voted against him, but it's also worth noting that by far the biggest sore loser is Trump himself. He has insisted that the only reason he failed to win the popular vote is due to voter fraud, and not due to a brilliantly-executed campaign strategy by his staff. They knew how to get the electoral votes, and they went out and got them. But instead of being thrilled to have the office and focusing all effort on his agenda, he had his press secretary defend his delusional idea that he won on the merits of being the most popular, and then doubled down and claimed widespread voter fraud in the states he didn't need to win. It's worth noting because it shows how divorced the reality of fitness for the office is from the ability to gain the office. We have known this for a long time--almost everyone acknowledges that absent an extremely fortunate turn of circumstances one cannot become president--but I don't think there has been in at least a century here (and probably longer) such a stark negative example.

rrauenza 10y ago
Ah! Good point, and also reminds me of the existence of this article: https://www.wired.com/2017/01/author-trumps-favorite-voter-fraud-study-says-everyones-wrong/ https://www.wired.com/2017/01/author-trumps-favorite-voter-f...