# "Campaign would have been different using popular vote" **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [November 22, 2016, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-would-have-been-different-using-popular-vote/772769 "2016-11-22T22:03:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![OriginalGangster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ea5d25/32.png) [@OriginalGangster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OriginalGangster)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2016, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-would-have-been-different-using-popular-vote/772769/1 "2016-11-22T22:03:11Z")
Those from every shade of the right like to mention this. The candidates campaigned mainly in the swing states (which didn’t exist until 92 btw). Had they campaigned on popular vote, the vote would have been completely different, and Trump may have won California & New York easily. This is bar none the dumbest, most asinine, infinitesimally dim-witted argument I’ve ever seen. Suspended idiocy. NO, it would not. This is why. Most people have heard of Trump or Hillary. Most people have pre-conceived notions of Trump or Hillary. Most people are going to vote a specific party regardless. Most people have internet access in the US. Either candidate was on TV constantly. Most people are on social media in some capacity. Never-ending propaganda for both sides. Conclusion, a different campaign strategy would not matter in the digital age. If Trump spends time in a liberal city like San Francisco, very little will change. Hillary spending time in Oklahoma City, same rules apply. Are they really this dumb? ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2016, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-would-have-been-different-using-popular-vote/772769/2 "2016-11-22T22:09:47Z")
So why campaign at all if the populace already is decided? ---
**Author:** ![OriginalGangster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ea5d25/32.png) [@OriginalGangster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OriginalGangster)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2016, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-would-have-been-different-using-popular-vote/772769/3 "2016-11-22T22:12:33Z")
It’s part of the process, but in the modern age, it’s irrelevant since everyone has access to knowing what’s going on literally all the time. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2016, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-would-have-been-different-using-popular-vote/772769/4 "2016-11-22T22:16:35Z")
> [@OriginalGangster](#): > > It’s part of the process, but in the modern age, it’s irrelevant since everyone has access to knowing what’s going on literally all the time. Access and utilization are two different thing. But if you don’t need to campaign for office because the outcome is predetermined why does everyone who wins a contested election campaign? ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2016, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-would-have-been-different-using-popular-vote/772769/5 "2016-11-22T22:53:45Z")
The argument is about outreach to those who currently do not vote. It isn’t that he would have won CA or NY, or even that many voters would have changed their minds, but rather that some significant number of Republicans in those states did not bother to vote because there was no serious likelihood of swinging the electoral votes their way. Of course, some number of Democrats presumably stayed home for the same reason too; the state’s electoral votes were in the bag no matter what. If those votes had been in play under a popular-vote only scenario, the decision process for those stay-at-homes changes markedly, and both campaigns would have been scrambling to woo them. There are potentially a lot of these voters. If I’m not mistaken, turnout in NYC and LA was each something like only 55%. ---
**Author:** ![Twoflower](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/twoflower/32/22_2.png) [@Twoflower](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Twoflower)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2016, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-would-have-been-different-using-popular-vote/772769/6 "2016-11-22T23:06:49Z")
If the election was based on popular vote instead of electoral vote, of course BOTH candidates would have campaigned differently. The idea that Trump would be the only beneficiary of more votes under that scenario is silly. ---
**Author:** ![E-DUB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/e-dub/32/403_2.png) [@E-DUB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-DUB)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2016, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-would-have-been-different-using-popular-vote/772769/7 "2016-11-22T23:08:22Z")
Original Gangster wrote: “Are they really this dumb?” No, they just think WE are. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2016, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-would-have-been-different-using-popular-vote/772769/8 "2016-11-23T00:00:37Z")
> [@OriginalGangster](#): > > If Trump spends time in a liberal city like San Francisco, very little will change. Except there are lots of areas in CA that are not like SF, and there is no need to campaign there given our current system. If we used the popular vote, there would be a reason to campaign in “swing counties” that exist in states that are, under our present system, safe for one side or the other. Trump, of course, is wrong in saying he would have won if the election turned on the popular vote. But so are the people who think Hillary would have won under that system. We just can’t be sure how different the result would be, but we should expect there to be some difference. ---
**Author:** ![Sterling\_Archer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f1d935/32.png) [@Sterling\_Archer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sterling_Archer)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2016, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-would-have-been-different-using-popular-vote/772769/9 "2016-11-23T00:36:52Z")
I’d love to see a candidate just sit at home and say, “campaigning doesn’t matter. You know my views. You know how I’ll run this thing. Now let’s vote.” I think you’re right, 99% of the activity in the year and a half long campaign is meaningless. Give a few speeches, write up a platform, do the debates. No need to go to rallies every single day. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2016, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-would-have-been-different-using-popular-vote/772769/10 "2016-11-23T00:52:04Z")
> [@OriginalGangster](#): > > . . . Most people have heard of Trump or Hillary. > Most people have pre-conceived notions of Trump or Hillary. > Most people are going to vote a specific party regardless. > Most people have internet access in the US. Either candidate was on TV constantly. > Most people are on social media in some capacity. Never-ending propaganda for both sides. > > Conclusion, a different campaign strategy would not matter in the digital age. > > If Trump spends time in a liberal city like San Francisco, very little will change. Hillary spending time in Oklahoma City, same rules apply. > > Are they really this dumb? “Campaigning differently” doesn’t mainly mean spending time in different places. It means saying different things, adopting or emphasising different policies, seeking to influence different groups, interests and constituencies, forging different alliances. Twoflower is exactly right: if the electoral system were different, campaigning would be different, but there is no _a priori_ reason to think that Trump rather than Clinton would have attracted more votes under a different electoral system. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2016, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-would-have-been-different-using-popular-vote/772769/11 "2016-11-23T01:02:46Z")
Most likely would mean that more people would participate. Not held back by living in a red or blue state, but adding to the common pool of citizens. Oddly enough, the Republican Party, who’s faith depends on the dogma that America is basically center-right, and most Americans agree with them…oppose such expansion. How very odd. ---
**Author:** ![OriginalGangster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ea5d25/32.png) [@OriginalGangster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OriginalGangster)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2016, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-would-have-been-different-using-popular-vote/772769/12 "2016-11-23T02:34:59Z")
Outside of college traditionally liberal towns & neighborhoods in some cities, America is center-right. I got the impression in Europe, most places were simply liberal without trying to show off how left they are, the way you see in the US, where bragging about your politics is a sport. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2016, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-would-have-been-different-using-popular-vote/772769/13 "2016-11-23T04:58:05Z")
I find it amazing that Clinton supporters still don’t get something fundamental about this election: Donald Trump looked at what he had to do to maximize his results in the Electoral College. He then proceeded to do what was required to win the necessary votes. In short, his campaign was successful. Had the election been held earlier in the year, he probably would not have been successful; had it happened a year ago he certainly wouldn’t have been successful. In short, yes, campaigning shapes results. It affects turnout; in this election, Clinton’s supporters in key states weren’t as enthusiastic as President Obama’s had been just four years prior. Mr. Trump’s supporters, on the other hand, were enthusiastic. If you don’t believe this, you simply aren’t listening to the chat from those people. Campaigning also affects the perhaps narrowing group of middle-of-the-road people, like me, who don’t identify with either party, and are willing to vote for either party, depending upon message. So yes, I do accept that the one campaign that proved it was adept at motivating voters to vote for them probably would have managed to do the same thing, if we were under a winner-by-national-plurality system instead. The OP is simply living in a state of advanced denial. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2016, 7:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-would-have-been-different-using-popular-vote/772769/14 "2016-11-23T07:05:11Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > . . . So yes, I do accept that the one campaign that proved it was adept at motivating voters to vote for them probably would have managed to do the same thing, if we were under a winner-by-national-plurality system instead. The OP is simply living in a state of advanced denial. But, surely, on the figures the Clinton campaign was _more_ adept at motivating voters to vote for them? They got more votes, after all. Trump didn’t need a majority of the popular vote to get elected, and he didn’t get it and was nevertheless elected (by the skin of his teeth, admittedly). But it doesn’t follow that if he _did_ need a majority of the popular vote to be elected he would have got it. He might or might not. ---
**Author:** ![naita](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naita/32/5862_2.png) [@naita](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/naita)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2016, 7:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-would-have-been-different-using-popular-vote/772769/15 "2016-11-23T07:57:39Z")
> [@OriginalGangster](#): > > Those from every shade of the right like to mention this. > > The candidates campaigned mainly in the swing states (which didn’t exist until 92 btw). Had they campaigned on popular vote, the vote would have been completely different, and Trump may have won California & New York easily. > > This is bar none the dumbest, most asinine, infinitesimally dim-witted argument I’ve ever seen. Suspended idiocy. The conclusion is wrong, but the arguments are correct. If the US had changed to popular vote before this election, it would have been a completely different campaign. > [@](#): > > NO, it would not. This is why. > > Most people have heard of Trump or Hillary. > Most people have pre-conceived notions of Trump or Hillary. > Most people are going to vote a specific party regardless. > Most people have internet access in the US. Either candidate was on TV constantly. > Most people are on social media in some capacity. Never-ending propaganda for both sides. > > Conclusion, a different campaign strategy would not matter in the digital age. How much time was spent in the campaign on issues specific to red voters in California or Massachusetts or on bringing out that vote? How about blue voters in the reddest states? > [@](#): > > If Trump spends time in a liberal city like San Francisco, very little will change. Hillary spending time in Oklahoma City, same rules apply. > > Are they really this dumb? Part of the reason the number crushers’ had the wrong favourite for this election is the problem of identifying who is a “likely voter”. Change the whole election system and who is a likely voter also changes. Dramatically. Almost all the data you have is collected based on estimating likely voters within the current system and on people deciding to vote within this system. Change the system and who decides to vote changes. Not predictably towards Trump, you’re right about that, but you appear to suffer from a similar delusion that it wouldn’t change at all. ---
**Author:** ![Biffster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biffster/32/339_2.png) [@Biffster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biffster)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2016, 8:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-would-have-been-different-using-popular-vote/772769/16 "2016-11-23T08:03:24Z")
All American voters are equal, but some are more equal than others. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2016, 9:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-would-have-been-different-using-popular-vote/772769/17 "2016-11-23T09:31:49Z")
Turns out the goal of the Trump campaign was to win the electoral college all along. [This interesting, detailed and illuminative _Forbes_ profile on Trump’s son-in-law and de facto campaign manager Jared Kushner details how they did it.](http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenbertoni/2016/11/22/exclusive-interview-how-jared-kushner-won-trump-the-white-house/2/#13c135715b84) After reading it, I have little doubt that in a popular vote only scenario the same smart, savvy, high-tech and brainy approach would be brought to bear to cultivate and garner enough votes in states like CA and NY to override the Democratic advantage in the big cities and Trump would still come out ahead. As his ex-wife Ivana once said of Trump, “You can’t win. He will always find a way to outsmart you.” ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2016, 10:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-would-have-been-different-using-popular-vote/772769/18 "2016-11-23T10:21:35Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > I find it amazing that Clinton supporters still don’t get something fundamental about this election: > > Donald Trump looked at what he had to do to maximize his results in the Electoral College. He then proceeded to do what was required to win the necessary votes. In short, his campaign was successful. Had the election been held earlier in the year, he probably would not have been successful; had it happened a year ago he certainly wouldn’t have been successful. > > In short, yes, campaigning shapes results. It affects turnout; in this election, Clinton’s supporters in key states weren’t as enthusiastic as President Obama’s had been just four years prior. Mr. Trump’s supporters, on the other hand, were enthusiastic. If you don’t believe this, you simply aren’t listening to the chat from those people. > > Campaigning also affects the perhaps narrowing group of middle-of-the-road people, like me, who don’t identify with either party, and are willing to vote for either party, depending upon message. > > So yes, I do accept that the one campaign that proved it was adept at motivating voters to vote for them probably would have managed to do the same thing, if we were under a winner-by-national-plurality system instead. The OP is simply living in a state of advanced denial. Maybe you’re right that Trump would have won under either system, and maybe you’re not. But whether or not you’re right, I’d still like to see future elections decided in a less arbitrary manner. It is not a healthy thing in a democracy For the President - unlike the holder of every other Federal elected office - to not be the person who won the most votes, but the person who won the right number of votes in the right places. We had a good run, of maybe 30 consecutive Presidential elections where the EC and the popular vote would have produced the same result. But now they’ve differed in two of the past five. Maybe Trump would have won anyway if popular vote determined the President, just the way it determines Senators, Representatives, governors, etc. Next time, _let’s find out_. FWIW, Hillary’s popular vote margin is now up to 1.95 million. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2016, 10:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-would-have-been-different-using-popular-vote/772769/19 "2016-11-23T10:58:43Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > As his ex-wife Ivana once said of Trump, “You can’t win. He will always find a way to outsmart you.” America is blessed to have such a brilliant mind leading it in these uncertain times. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2016, 11:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-would-have-been-different-using-popular-vote/772769/20 "2016-11-23T11:30:08Z")
Turnout tended to be higher in the swing states, where campaigns were more active. [As shown in the graphic in the middle of this Nate Silver page](http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/voter-turnout-fell-especially-in-states-that-clinton-won/), 2016 turnout was especially low in very blue California, compared with 2012 turnout. _Get Out The Vote_ in California should have increased Clinton’s popular vote lead significantly. In hindsight it appears D’s tended to vote D, R’s voted R — it was apathy among D’s that cost the election. ☹ The page linked above makes a summary (which, IMHO, doesn’t suit their own data very well): > [@](#): > > In the 14 swing states — those where either the winning party in the presidential race switched from 2012 or where the margin was within 5 percentage points — an average of 65.3 percent of eligible voters cast ballots. In the other 36 states and Washington, D.C., turnout averaged just 56.3 percent. That gap exacerbates a tendency for turnout to be higher in the places where candidates concentrate their travel, advertising and other get-out-the-vote efforts. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-would-have-been-different-using-popular-vote/772769.md?page=2)