> The popular vote count is a measure of the level of support for the candidate. This would only be true if the popular vote result would be entirely unchanged

> The popular vote count is a measure of the level of support for the candidate. This would only be true if the popular vote result would be entirely unchanged if the election system was changed to be based on popular vote. And the popular vote would almost definitely have been different if the election results were based on popular vote, so it's then not a measure of the level of support for the candidate. > The electoral vote count is, unfortunately, how we determine who gets the office Why is it unfortunate? > That says nothing about the overall support a candidate has. Can you cite any evidence that the popular vote is a better indication of the candidate's popular support than the electoral college? > In the end, Trump had the support of 1.5% more actual voters than Harris did. Again this would only be true if the popular vote would be unaffected if the election was based on popular vote, which is a false assumption. > he has no mandate. Please cite. > And we really have no idea what would have happened if our system was based on the popular vote. This seems to contradict everything else you wrote as your reasoning is only valid if you work under the assumption that the popular vote would not have changed at all if the system was based on the popular vote.