"The problem is that the US does not have a thing called “the popular vote.” That exists nowhere in its rules. Rather, there are 51 popular votes (or 56) which newspaper reporters then sum up into a number they incorrectly describe as “the popular vote.” Of course, Clinton did win that invalid sum by around 3M votes. But bad statistical practice by the press, though it has created a common convention of calling that number “the popular vote,” does not make it so. Election experts from nations that have an actual popular vote result would laugh at the idea that Americans mislabel this sum as the national popular vote.
It’s invalid because it’s really summing two fairly different types of results.
Popular vote totals from “swing” states where both candidates actively campaigned, turnout was higher, and voters expected their votes to count
Popular vote totals from “safe states” which candidates did not contest, and where voters knew their vote could not change the result
Statisticians will tell you these are two very different animals. What we would want to know is who would have won the popular vote, if there had been a real national popular vote. Because there was no such vote, the hard answer is we don’t know what its result would be."
It’s invalid because it’s really summing two fairly different types of results.
Popular vote totals from “swing” states where both candidates actively campaigned, turnout was higher, and voters expected their votes to count
Popular vote totals from “safe states” which candidates did not contest, and where voters knew their vote could not change the result
Statisticians will tell you these are two very different animals. What we would want to know is who would have won the popular vote, if there had been a real national popular vote. Because there was no such vote, the hard answer is we don’t know what its result would be."