The popular vote doesn't have to be a set percentage of the vote or a majority - it's just the person who get's the most votes or a plurality of the vote.
And Clinton clearly did that so yes - she won the popular vote.
Regarding your opinions on voting reform they make no sense what so ever.
Just because a majority might not have voted for one particular candidate it doesn't mean they have anything in common with each other more then their choice to not vote for that candidate and elections are not about deciding who didn't win but who did.
In your version there would hardly ever be a winner in most elections in democratic countries around the world since actual majority rule is rather rare.
Almost all elections would just end up undecided as a majority of the voters couldn't agree on one which candidate or party to support.
That's an idiotic proposal that would make most countries ungovernable quite frankly.
0
@rphb
That's not how the popular vote works at all.
The popular vote doesn't have to be a set percentage of the vote or a majority - it's just the person who get's the most votes or a plurality of the vote.
And Clinton clearly did that so yes - she won the popular vote.
Regarding your opinions on voting reform they make no sense what so ever.
Just because a majority might not have voted for one particular candidate it doesn't mean they have anything in common with each other more then their choice to not vote for that candidate and elections are not about deciding who didn't win but who did.
In your version there would hardly ever be a winner in most elections in democratic countries around the world since actual majority rule is rather rare.
Almost all elections would just end up undecided as a majority of the voters couldn't agree on one which candidate or party to support.
That's an idiotic proposal that would make most countries ungovernable quite frankly.