Since state electoral votes are mostly awarded all-or-nothing, the electoral count can't tell you anything about how close an election was or wasn't.

Looking at a number of swing states with significant numbers of electoral votes can, though. The margin of victory was just over 1% in Florida (29EV). It's less 1% in Pennsylvania (20EV) and Wisconsin (10EV). Michigan (16EV) was less than .25%.

That's 75EV won by that thin a margin. Half that could have swung the election.

(And yes, you can play this game the other way, but the only state Clinton won that was that closely contested was... New Hampshire, 4EV)

The election was quite close. Trump's electoral victory was very thin.

That's the state of affairs to be expected when the EC winner loses the popular vote.

I'll also point out that Trump lost the popular vote by almost 3 million votes (2%), which makes it really stretch the imagination to even call it a "near-landslide".

Sure, except popular vote does not matter, nor should it. If it did, CA and NY's echo boxes would run the US, and there would be no US in short order. Don't forged why the Unites States exists; taxation without representation.

He could have lost FL _or_ OH and still won.

We all know that the Electoral College and these complaints about California and New York are disingenuous. They're devices to make sure the South controls the country.

So, did Trump win by a lot when you take out California and New York? Yes. He also lost by a lot when you take out the South. Population is the only fair metric for weighting regions against each other. The South is not entitled to control everyone else's lives, especially since they're the damned region that demanded extra Representatives for their slaves.

Funny that you think CA and NY are so entitled. I don't have a map handy, are MI and PA in the south too now?

I don't understand this idea that just because somebody lives in a particular state their vote should count less than somebody in a different state. That seems evidently unfair.

It exists because some states are very sparsely populated while others actively suppress the votes of a large portion of its population, first by slavery, then by other methods. It's fair to increase representation of underpopulated states because their interests would be underrepresented if not (and it's a good thing because it allows large areas to be dedicated to nature).

Unfortunately, there is no mechanism in place that actively punishes voter suppression. Voters per inhabitant ratio and election turnout could be used to penalize states with low engagement to ensure voter suppression does not occur.

I still don't get it. Why would sparsely populated states' interests be underrepresented if every individual vote were equal? That only makes sense if you think land area or population density is a primary unit of relevance regarding political influence, which to me seems completely arbitrary.

People who live in underpopulated states have a valid argument in that, if their votes are not weighted to compensate for the low density, their voices may end up not being heard. This weighting creates a minimum limit for representation.

It, however, removes the penalty for suppressing votes because the remaining votes continue to have a fixed weight.

One sq mile, one vote!

The fairness is intended at the state level. How your state decides on electors is their law. It doesn't even have to poll each individual, historically state legislatures even did it themselves.

Popular vote doesn't matter for who becomes president, but neither does the presence or lack of a "landslide." But both can certainly be relevant when analyzing an election.

Also, the "CA and NY would run the US" is an extremely weak argument. It's logically equivalent to saying that Texas and Oklahoma are currently running the US, since their electoral votes are sufficient to swap the winner from Trump to Clinton.

>Also, the "CA and NY would run the US" is an extremely weak argument. It's logically equivalent to saying that Texas and Oklahoma are currently running the US, since their electoral votes are sufficient to swap the winner from Trump to Clinton.

Actually, I don't think it's equivalent, since basically no Congressional majority or Presidency has been won without the South for the past 50 or so years. You can actually estimate which party will be dominant in an American party system by looking at who consistently holds the South, irrespective of how other regions vote.

So California and the Northeast can consistently vote one way, and it basically just doesn't matter if the South happens to disagree.

I don't understand. It sounds like you're saying that the South "runs the country" in the wording of the original claim.

That is what I'm saying. The South runs the country, and the rest of us are forced along for the ride, whether we want it or not.

The problem with calling it close based on the popular vote, is that you have to retroactively change the rules. The MSM made the game of winning the popular vote much different than winning the electoral college, by being so biased against Trump, and he campaigned hard in the swing states. Only those people really heard what he had to say. The rest of the US was hearing information filtered by the MSM.