In her column “We’ve got the horse right here” (Web, May 8), Suzanne Fields notes, as many have noted before her, that the Democrats are still angry Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 presidential election because the Electoral College (and not the popular vote, which she won) determined the winner.
One of the many reasons the Electoral College system is preferable to a popular vote is that to achieve the necessary 270 Electoral College votes, candidates must campaign in states other than the most highly populated ones, meaning they are forced to consider the concerns of the people in the less-populated states. Nonetheless, it’s important to remember that the campaign strategies of both Hillary and President Trump focused on winning the Electoral College vote, and Mr. Trump’s strategy succeeded. Had the popular vote determined the winner, Mr. Trump’s campaign would have shifted its strategy toward winning the popular vote. So there is no way of knowing that Hillary would have won. And given how terrible her Electoral College strategy was, ignoring many of those less-populated states necessary to achieve 270 Electoral College votes, it’s very possible Mr. Trump would have won a popular-vote election, too.
BRUCE G. KAUFFMANN