Which is the classic argument being made by those who favor the system called for under the law. Imagine if we applied the Hillary's supporter's arguments of overthrowing something that is "the law", based on popularity. Using their logic, and applying it to, say, abortion, then abortion would most probably be illegal.Riddick wrote:Trump Loses Popular Vote By 2.8 Million – But BEATS Clinton By 3 Million Votes OUTSIDE CA & NY!
- Clinton won CA by 4.2 million votes & NY by 1.6 million, running up the score in places she'd have won no matter what
- CA alone accounted for more than Clinton's national popular-vote edge
- Newt Gingrich mocked: 'This is football season. A team can have more yards and lose the game. What matters is how many points you put on the board'
In any event, this is the argument against the popular vote - in the scenario you've cited, we'd have two states calling the shots for the other forty-eight and the District of Columbia based solely on their population density. The bicoastal elites and celebs of California and New York have no idea at all of what life is like for the poor and middle class and can't see beyond their cradle-to-grave nanny state mentality.