Sure but if we look at deep red states like Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, South Carolina and West Virginia we would probably find out millions of people who would vote Democrat don't bother as they know it's hopeless. All that being said, if a Republican ever wins the popular vote and loses electorally, I'll bet the farm we'll start seeing movement towards changing if not eliminating the electoral college. I personally think it's antiquated. I'd like to see whomever gets the most votes period be the winner. In the current format we may have 10's of millions of votes every election that just don't count. I think all votes should count. I also think if it was most votes wins, we'd get much better turn out and be on our way to a true democracy.
You would lose that bet.
Correct me if I’m mistaken, but you seem to be alluding to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. True?
Democrats want the Popular Vote to prevail in national elections because, in theory, they would have won five additional presidential elections over the years.
The Popular Vote ends the duopoly, meaning that there can be any number of candidates vying for the biggest slice of the electorate,
Clinton won in 1992 through the Electoral College with just 43% of the Popular Vote. Via the Popular Vote, someone could be elected president with just 35% of the vote (maybe less, so long as it's a plurality). A minor revolution every 4 years.
Imagine that six candidates run (Why stop at six?) and five get 15% each, and one gets 25%. That’s how we get a President Stephen Colbert or Joe Rogan. There would be political parties for every minor interest, and the ensuing political turmoil from the Popular Vote would be immediate and unending.
I prefer that something else, usually north of 45% of the electorate, picks our president.
