Would Hillary Clinton Have Won if It Weren't for That Pesky Electoral College?
Far be it from me to relitigate the 2016 presidential election, but liberals constantly repeat the narrative that Hillary Clinton won because she got 3 million votes more than Donald Trump. In October, Clinton joked, "Obviously, I can beat him again." Liberals are again fighting to overturn the Electoral College partially because Clinton won the popular vote in 2016. During the Democratic debate this past week, Bernie Sanders said a woman can win the presidency because Hillary won the popular vote.
Technically, Clinton did win the most votes, but she did not win a majority of the votes — she only won a plurality. Even if the U.S. abolished the Electoral College, it is far from clear Hillary Clinton would have become president in 2017. A popular vote victory should not be enough. After all, a candidate needs a majority of the Electoral College votes to win the presidency, not a plurality. If no candidate wins a majority, the election goes to Congress.
On Election Day 2016, Donald Trump won 62.98 million votes (46 percent), while Clinton took 65.83 million votes (48.2 percent). Libertarian Gary Johnson took 4.5 million votes (3.28 percent), while the Green Party's Jill Stein took 1.5 million votes (1.1 percent), Evan McMullin took 731,991 votes (0.54 percent), and Constitution Party candidate Darrell Castle took 203,090 votes (0.15 percent). Trump won 30 states and Maine's 2nd congressional district for 304 electoral votes, and Clinton won 20 states and Washington, D.C., for 227 electoral votes.