>>
>>I have a theoretical question (for anyone who's interested). In theory (though admittedly, never in practice), someone could win the electoral vote with as little as about 22% of the popular vote. Is there any value at which you would say that, whether it's our historical system or not, the difference between the popular vote and the electoral vote is so large that it casts doubt on the legitimacy of the outcome? If the answer is yes, what is that value?
>
>I'm interested to know if you think NPR would have published that article, had HRC won the electoral college but not the popular vote.
>
>This isn't about the legitimacy of the electoral college - neither you nor any other person was presenting these "stats" before the election. The motive is obvious. Your candidate lost, the candidate you detest won, and you (and others) are trying everything to undercut the victory.
>
>As for the contents of the article itself, they hammer their own argument with this statement: "And let's be clear about the obvious here: This kind of an extreme election isn't going to happen"
>
>When I look at the combination of states they mentioned - the notion that someone would take those combinations of states but lose all others - well, that's a real work of fiction.

The "stats", or their possibility, were not available before the results. That would be like asking you today to think of the answer, or comment to a, yet unknown, question or situation that will be raised tomorrow.
And yes, that's how truth is uncovered and progress is made: in an adversarial manner between two or more conflicting interests. "Losers" have an interest to become inquisitive, whereas "winners" have no interest other than their moral principles(?!). You should thank the "losers" in history for the progress made because of their inquisitive nature. Those ridiculing their statements may have a lot to lose in the long run.
*