True in a fair election but then we aren't guaranteed of that are we?
I suppose it depends on the definition of fair.
Fair for the first 44 Presidents was winning within the way things are currently constructed.
"Well, the electoral system is not fair...should be a popular vote" okay that's an argument, but that's not how things were set up.
Let's say, things are changed and it is someday set up that way. Now, about 7-10 cities in 4-5 states are going to decide the leaders and resulting policies for the entire country.
I'm not totally against a popular vote and I'm not so sure republicans couldn't at least be brought to the table to discuss how to get to that, but liberals would not be on board with all the things that would have to be in place to absolutely guarantee 1 vote per AMERICAN CITIZEN.
Also, let's be honest. The first time a pub won the new popular vote election, it would be "scrap that...back to the old way" or the libs would come up with a bunch of reasons why the system is flawed and should be changed to something else.
"voters in flyover country are stupid, racist, misogynists, deplorable, etc...and their votes shouldn't count as much as the voting base of the handful of densely populated more liberal areas..."
"votes of XYZ group, gender, sexual orientation, non-binary, race, illegal immigrants, etc...should count more because of this and that"