Let us suppose the Central City Pioneers face the Metropolis Pilgrims in the World Series. It is an exciting series that runs for all 7 games before the winner is determined.
In game 1, the Pioneers crush the Pilgrims, 7 to 1.
In game 2, the Pioneers again top the Pilgrims, 6 to 2.
In game 3, the Pilgrims take a game, 3 to 2.
In game 4, the Pilgrims win again, 6 to 5.
In game 5, the Pioneers trounce the Pilgrims, 8 to 0. It is very embarrassing.
In game 6, the Pilgrims narrowly win in a 5 to 4 game, forcing a game 7.
In game 7, the Pilgrims win, 5 to 3.
The Pilgrims won 4 games of the 7 game series and take the Commissioner's Trophy. The Pioneers are peeved and point out that they scored 35 runs to the Pilgrims' 22 runs. Obviously, they should be named the champions. Really?
Let's expand that to 51 games. Team Clinton won 21 games in which she scored 11,217,438 more votes than Trump. Some of the victories were hugely lopsided. In fact, the 4 most lopsided games (California, New York, Illinois, and Massachusetts) were all in Team Clinton's favor. Team Trump won 30 games in which he outscored Clinton by 8,387,978 votes. So, though Team Clinton scored 2,829,460 more votes, Team Trump won more contests.
Under a most points scored system, the Pilgrims would have entered game 7 with a 13 point deficit. Winning 12 to 0 would still have resulted in the Pioneers winning. What is the point of having multiple games in such a system? Why would a candidate spend time in a place with only a million voters rather than spending all his time in a state with 10 million or more? Under a popular vote system, Trump would have made a lot of trips to California and New York to bump up his total. Hillary would have spent more time in Texas. The strategy would have been different for both camps.
That Team Hillary or the Pioneers would have won under a different set of rules is irrelevant.
No comments:
Post a Comment