Meanwhile, neither candidate had any reason to campaign in some of the biggest states—California, New York and Illinois, for instance, were locks for Clinton, while Texas was a sure thing for Trump.

Now, let’s try to imagine how the campaign would have looked if there were no Electoral College, only the popular vote. Should be pretty clear, right?

Trump wouldn’t have gone to Bangor, Maine—he’d have gone to Bakersfield, Calif. He wouldn’t have gone to New Hampshire—he’d have gone to upstate New York. For her part, Clinton wouldn’t have spent so much time in Nevada trying to win six electoral votes—instead, she’d have been in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas. Instead of Las Vegas, she’d have been trying to pump up her turnout in Los Angeles.

So many things would have been different that we really can’t say who would have won.

If the election were decided by the popular vote, you can bet that Trump would have invested in California. How many Trump supporters there simply didn’t vote because they knew their vote wouldn’t count? You can ask the same question about Clinton supporters in Texas, or states in the Deep South.

Clinton’s lead in the popular vote is both awkward—and accidental. The question is: Should we change how we elect presidents?

This is one of those “be careful what you wish for” moments. You think campaigns are polarized now? They’d be even more polarized in a popular vote election.

The Roanoke Times