Let me start by saying that this post has nothing to do with whether I like or don't like the outcome of the election. The result of the election is the result and now we look at the aftermath. So, I might be about to say something obvious, but I keep seeing arguments that the Trumpeter-in-Chief-Elect doesn't have a mandate because he didn't win the popular vote.
But here's the thing--the popular vote doesn't matter. Most people understand this intuitively; our system is an electoral college system, and that system can end in a result where more people in total vote for one candidate but the other candidate wins. That's not unfair, that's the system.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing for or against the electoral college system. I'm just saying that the within the rules of the system, Trump won. Those unhappy with the result sometimes shout "But he didn't win the popular vote. If we went by the popular vote we would have a different president." My response is, well, I don't know that.
Economists are trained to look at incentives. What incentives are built into the rules of the game and what do those incentives mean for how people behave? Because the electoral college system focuses on state level results, the incentive for candidates is to focus their attention and resources in states where they have a chance of winning. Getting more votes in total doesn't really matter--what matters is getting votes in places where it might tip the scales of a particular state in your favor.
California was a lost cause for Trump. Everyone knew that. So there was no incentive for Trump to campaign (much) in California. No matter how much he lost by--and he was always going to lose California--he was going to lose 55 electoral votes. Whether he lost the California popular vote by 51%-49% or 100%-0%, he was going to lose 55 electoral votes. So why bother with California? But California has a lot of people and when a lot of people voting for Clinton are added to the total popular vote, it swings the national popular vote toward Clinton.
Similar arguments could be made about New York (although Trump spent a little time there because it's his home), and Illinois, and Maryland--lost causes with potential for big popular vote margins. Trump's campaign followed the incentives. Campaign in places where there's a chance of flipping a close popular vote, and abandon effort in those states that would be big popular vote losses. The result: An electoral college win and an irrelevant popular vote loss.
But if we got rid of the electoral college system, Trump would've lost and the candidate who won the popular vote would be president--right?
I don't know that.
Because the incentives change.
In a true popular vote election, both candidates would campaign like crazy in densely populated areas--i.e. big cities. Each vote swung is a vote your opponent can't get. California and New York become the focus as opposed to throwaways. Who would win?
I have no idea.
But I know the incentives would change.
And that's really the point.
Here's a possibly stupid analogy. The Major League Baseball World Series is a best of 7 series. The first team to win 4 games, is declared champions of the world. Suppose in game 2 of the series one of the team jumps out to a 10-0 lead (for those unfamiliar, that's a nearly insurmountable lead in a baseball game), what would happen. Most likely the team that is losing would shut it down. They would save their good pitchers for later in the series and try to win those games. They wouldn't care whether they gave up more runs, or scored more runs in game 2, game 2 no longer matters and the amount they lose by is irrelevant, because its a loss no matter the score. Those are the incentives.
But suppose the rules change and instead of the first to 4 games, the World Series Champion was decided by the aggregate score in all 7 games. Add up the runs across all the games and the team with the most runs in total wins**. Would the managers manage game 2 differently now?
Of course they would. Because now each run matters, whether you win or lose that game.
The rules change, so the incentives change, and the strategies for winning change.
We can't make arguments about the popular vote outcome of this election because both campaign's would've acted differently if the system (and the inherent incentives) were different.
So to me, a better question is are we better off in the current system where campaigns focus on the marginal states and downplay the states that are already in the bag, or are we better off in a system where campaigns might focus on highly populated big cities and downplay less populated rural areas?
The answer probably depends on who you want to win.
*OK, you might hate the players--but don't blame the players for taking advantage of the rules of the game.
**Some soccer*** tournaments work this way.
***For our non-American friends--Football****
****Futbol.
