I had one final thought on the matter.
Regardless of the merits of a popular vote over the Electoral College, incidentally winning the popular vote, when that was not the intended goal of either campaign, does not invalidate the results. The claims of those Democrats who believe Clinton “really” won don’t have any merit. It’s like a chess player saying he won because he had more pieces after his opponent made checkmate. You cannot claim a win in chess by the rules of checkers.
Moreover there is no guarantee that Clinton now, or Gore in the past, would have won if they had been competing with Trump/Bush for the popular vote. Both candidates would have adapted their strategies to gain the majority. One can only speculate in vain as to who would have had the more effective strategy.
Regardless of the merits of a popular vote over the Electoral College, incidentally winning the popular vote, when that was not the intended goal of either campaign, does not invalidate the results. The claims of those Democrats who believe Clinton “really” won don’t have any merit. It’s like a chess player saying he won because he had more pieces after his opponent made checkmate. You cannot claim a win in chess by the rules of checkers.
Moreover there is no guarantee that Clinton now, or Gore in the past, would have won if they had been competing with Trump/Bush for the popular vote. Both candidates would have adapted their strategies to gain the majority. One can only speculate in vain as to who would have had the more effective strategy.
