We’ve all heard Democrats saying how Hillary Clinton got almost 3 million more popular votes than President-elect Donald J. Trump—and how that shows how he doesn’t have a mandate or something, despite clinching 306 Electoral College votes by winning the majority of the states, which is how the US decides who will become our next president.
Town Hall reports that if it weren’t for California, Clinton wouldn’t have won the plurality of the popular vote. Trump would have won 1.4 million more popular votes that Clinton:
There were two Democrats — and zero Republicans — running to replace Sen. Barbara Boxer. There were no Republicans on the ballot for House seats in nine of California’s congressional districts.
At the state level, six districts had no Republicans running for the state senate, and 16 districts had no Republicans running for state assembly seats.
Plus, since Republicans knew Clinton was going to win the state — and its entire 55 electoral votes — casting a ballot for Trump was virtually meaningless, since no matter what her margin of victory, Clinton was getting all 55 votes.
If you take California out of the popular vote equation, then Trump wins the rest of the country by 1.4 million votes. And if California voted like every other Democratic state — where Clinton averaged 53.5% wins — Clinton and Trump end up in a virtual popular vote tie. (This was not the case in 2012. Obama beat Romney by 2 million votes that year, not counting California.)
This should give more weight to why an electoral system based on winning states, instead of popular votes, is a better one to elect the president of the United States. Read more at Town Hall.