| GameOver22 said: I think your using the term feasible (i mean possible/capable) differently from me. They might be statistical outliers(you are dealing with a very small sample size though), but that doesn't make them meaningless or inconsequential. I would also include the 1824 election in this discussion although its a bit more complicated. Point is, they are outcomes that occur in the real world, and there is no reason to assume it cannot happen in this election. Statisically speaking, the winner of the popular vote and the electoral college are usually the same, but this is far from a necessary result. Essentially, and this has been my point all along, there is no causal connection between the popular vote and electoral victory, and I'll reiterate, this is why candidates focus on battleground states. They don't care about winning the popular vote because it doesn't determine electoral victory. In all truthfulness, the fact that the popular vote and electoral victory usually coincide is nothing more than a statistical artifact and has zero explanatory power. You say you can predict 27/30 (don't know where 30 came from) electoral winners by using the popular vote. Well, I can predict 30/30 using the electoral college. Point is, why use the popular vote to determine the electoral winner when there is a much better method available, namely, using the electoral college, since, you know, the electoral college actually determines the winner? There's a reason why people are focusing on the polls in swing states rather than the national polls. |
I chose 30 to represent common era. It was somewhat arbitrary. Could be expanded or contracted. 30 out of 56 elections isn't a small sample size when polling services' sample sizes are about 1000 people out of 300 million. THAT's a small sample.
1824 I didn't include because it was decided by the House.
If your argument is that it is possible to win the popular and lose the electoral, then I agree. That's indisputable. If that was your only point, why didn't you say so instead of continuing with this idea that the popular vote isn't a determination of anything?
"why use the popular vote to determine the electoral winner when there is a much better method available, namely, using the electoral college"
True enough, but I would argue that it's easier to poll nationally than electorally.
