Donald Trump did not win the popular vote as previously debunked viral articles have indicated. However, the solace Clinton supporters are taking in this doesn’t tell the full story considering the popular vote isn’t, nor has it ever been, the way the country determines its President.

And yes, that does matter, especially when you look at the way the two candidates spent on their campaigns.

Don’t believe the rumor: Donald Trump is not beating Hillary Clinton in the popular vote https://t.co/vlq6MGVPt9 pic.twitter.com/1jAhgSmiwN — PolitiFact (@PolitiFact) November 15, 2016

A reading of what Clinton and Trump spent through Oct. 20 offers an interesting look at how much of a landslide the popular vote might have been had Trump invested as much money as Hillary Clinton.

CNBC reports Clinton spent $450.6 million on her campaign, while her opponent spent only $238.9 million.

Meanwhile, Trump secured 60.391 million votes while Clinton earned a little north of 61.061 million. The total margin between the two was about 670,000 votes.

When you go back to how much each candidate spent to earn their share of the popular vote, Clinton spent approximately $7.38 per vote compared with Trump’s $3.96 per vote.

Taking that into consideration, had Trump spent Clinton’s $450.6 million at the $3.96 number, he would have turned out 113 million — a winning margin in the popular vote by 52 million votes.

Even applying a conservative 30 percent rule of diminishing returns, Trump still ends up with 79.1 million votes — 18 million more than Clinton under the same variables.

Trump instead spent less and eked out a victory through the Electoral College, much to the dismay of Hillary supporters. If both candidates had been forced to spend the same, then this particular data set shows a heavy advantage to Trump.

With protests raging throughout social media and in major cities across the country, it’s important to keep this in mind. Both candidates knew the game going in, and they played with an Electoral College strategy in mind.

Had popular vote been the rule, Trump might have committed more funds to California or his home state of New York, where he would have needed fewer than 700,000 more votes to defeat Clinton.

Under those circumstances, his percentage of the vote would not have had to budge very much to hand him the victory.

This reality is why Trump described his win as “easy” on Sunday’s 60 Minutes interview. It was, in both a strategic and financial sense.

Given how Trump outplayed Clinton in the Electoral College system, it’s likely he would have in a popular vote system as well. After all, less than 122 million people voted. There are more than 146 million registered voters in the U.S. and that doesn’t count the additional 72 million, who are eligible but not registered.

Considering how well Trump turned out irregular voters, he likely would have pulled the 700,000 needed from that 72 million bloc alone.

Considering he was able to almost match Clinton regarding votes with almost half her spending, it’s unrealistic to think dumping an additional $212 million into his campaign wouldn’t have resulted in a more significant turnout than the 700,000 needed.

The bottom line is, you can’t play by long-established rules, then change them after the game has been played to favor the losing team. And as far as Clinton’s popular vote “victory” is concerned, that would be tenuous at best once campaign efficiencies (cost per vote) and changing strategies are factored in.

Here’s why citing the popular vote is stupid and why the Electoral College is good https://t.co/FGvAOnaoel pic.twitter.com/ywUAEg9UQJ — Barstool Sports (@barstoolsports) November 14, 2016

But what do you think, readers? Should more weight be given to the popular vote, and if so is it a decision you think would influence the way candidates campaign for the presidency?

Also, would Donald Trump have won the popular vote had he and Clinton competed strictly on those terms, knowing what is known now? Sound off in the comment section below.

[Featured Image by Gage Skidmore/Flickr Creative Commons/Resized and Cropped/CC BY-SA 2.0]