wwhitney wrote:LTLFTcomposite wrote:Can we please stop with the popular vote babbling. You guys can't be so anti-science as to understand that the behavior of both candidates and the electorate would be different if the rules were different.
Sure, behavior would be different, and we can't know what would have happened. But what did happen is the best available basis for estimating what would have happened. 2.8 million votes is a big margin to overcome with a different strategy. Maybe Trump could have done it. Either way, we as a country would be better off, as our president would per force have a popular mandate.
Instead, we have the least legitimate, least democratic, least mandated president ever in the modern era. Second only to George W Bush in 2000.
It is a further stain against the electoral college that of the last 5 elections, 2 have gone against the popular vote, and both for the same party. The effect has clearly been biased. If Clinton had won the electoral college and lost the popular vote, then I would be inclined to say, "well, now the two parties are even on that score." But even so, I would still think that the country would be better off if it elected the president by popular vote.
So election night rolls around and the state of Florida reports there were 200 million write in votes for Ted Cruz. The first liar wouldn't stand a chance.
There's a lack of understanding that our system of representation is the reason we have a United States in the first place. The people in Wyoming don"t want their lives run by the people of California (the most extreme example), metaphorically that's how we got them to sign up for the deal in the first place.