Why are people assuming, that Clinton would of won with the Electoral College?

[Downnice]

Honestly this notion is just asinine in my opinion, If we had a straight popular vote it would not of meant Clinton would of one this election. Not saying she would of lost this year, but i'm saying it is no guarantee for the following reasons

1. Both parties would of campaigned differently. If we are using this system, Trump would of campaigned in highly populated areas that the GOP could win to try to increase turnout, and the Democrats would of campaigned in highly liberal areas to try to raise the turnout as well.

2. Third party candidates would have a better chance and would take more of the vote away. Most people in this election did not like either candidate but voted for one or the other because if they voted for lets say Gary Johnson or Jill Stein, it would be throwing your vote away. If this was a straight popular vote I would guarantee you that both of them would of gotten a whole lot more votes and both sides would of taken even more from Clinton and Trump.

I do not like the Electoral College myself, but saying Clinton would automatically win with a straight popular vote is stupid.

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

Bad polling and the liberal confirmation bias echo-chamber.

[Beet]

You're right. Trump may well have won under the PV. He himself said he prefers it. Which is why the GOP has no reason to oppose getting rid of it.

[Figueira]

Why would third party candidates do better?

Anyway, while this is technically true, it's still the case that Clinton got more votes than Trump.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

because it's harder to rig than the electoral college