To wit: What does it mean when people say Mrs. Clinton "won the popular vote"? It means you add up all the votes she received in all 50 states and D.C., do the same for Trump, and her total is bigger.
But what does it mean that senators who voted to confirm Gorsuch--in Tomasky's words--"received a minority share of the vote"?
The paper adds up the total number of votes each senator on each side received in his last election. It ignores completely votes cast AGAINST the Senate incumbents.
Now, suppose we apply this method of calculation to the 2016 presidential vote--i.e., we count only votes Trump and Mrs. Clinton received in states they carried.
By that measure, Trump "won the popular vote" by approximately 40.8 million to 33.4 million.
This may seem counterintuitive, given the huge vote totals Mrs. Clinton racked up in California and New York.
But Trump carried 7 of the 10 most populous states, all by less than 10 points. If you ignore Mrs. Clinton's votes in those states, it "costs" her a lot more than ignoring Trump's votes in California, New York and Illinois.
I think if somebody is going to declare the American system of government illegitimate, he has an obligation to be careful about math, don't you agree?
End of rant.
