Fingers crossed for DDR to win the popular vote...

... and lose the electoral college.

I think this might the full sneed ahead outcome dramneurodivergents should root for.

Rightoids, are you ready to throw all the smug liberal platitudes back in their faces? Land can't vote, people vote

!khive are you ready to make exactly the same rslurred points the rightoids did in 2016? We all knew the rules of the game, do you want LA and NYC to pick the winner?

The latest New York Times-Siena College poll says the presidential race is a dead heat. So do any number of other national polls. In the battleground states, virtually every poll either reports a tie, or results well within the margin of error. The upshot: Even as Kamala Harris' national polling lead over Donald Trump has appeared to shrink, her strength may be holding up in the swing states that matter.

And this suggests the possibility that Election Day may produce a result we have never seen before: a Republican winning the popular vote but losing the Electoral College. That, in turn, just might restore a once-bipartisan consensus — that it is time for the United States to do away with the Electoral College once and for all and let the voters actually decide the presidency.

Throughout American history, we've seen five elections where the popular vote winner lost the White House, with the first three happening in the 19th century. More memorable, particularly for Democrats, are the 2000 and 2016 races, but it's useful to distinguish between them. Al Gore lost the presidency to George W. Bush while winning the popular vote by just 0.5 percentage points, a virtual tie. Trump, however, took the White House even after coming in a full 2 points and 3 million votes behind Hillary Clinton.

Four years later, Joe Biden beat Trump by more than 4 points and 7 million votes in the popular vote, but his Electoral College win stood on a slew of narrow victories in key states.

The 2016 and 2020 campaigns seemed to confirm a broader view of a pro-Republican bias in the Electoral College: With millions of Democratic votes "wasted" in places like California and New York, a Democrat had to win a popular vote plurality north of 3 percent to be elected.

That dynamic has led to growing Democratic calls to abolish the Electoral College, even by the party's vice presidential nominee Tim Walz. Republicans, meanwhile, seem to have become almost indifferent to their inability to win the popular vote — they've done it just once in the last eight elections — and content with the idea that they can win the presidency even if millions more voters wanted a different result.

But even before the 2024 campaign began, there was reason to believe that the Republican Electoral College advantage was shrinking. With Trump apparently cutting into traditional Democratic terrain among Black and Latinx voters, and Democrats polling well in once-Republican suburban areas, the electoral map may be shifting.

If a Democrat did triumph in the Electoral College while losing the popular vote, it would turn history on its head — and might make electoral reform less of a strictly partisan issue.

A partisan divide hasn't always existed. In 1968, third-party candidate George Wallace won five states and 46 electoral votes, coming close to deadlocking the Electoral College and throwing the contest into the House of Representatives. In response, a movement to abolish the Electoral College gained broad, bipartisan support: In the fall of 1969, the House voted overwhelmingly — 339 to 70 — for a constitutional amendment to make the popular vote decisive. President Richard Nixon endorsed the measure. More than 30 states were on record as supporting the idea. But a coalition of smaller states and Southerners filibustered the proposal in the Senate.

As a matter of fact, a few small alterations in history would likely have fueled even more bipartisan support for change.

In 1960, Nixon fell short of a popular vote victory by 0.17 percent to John F. Kennedy (indeed, generations of Republicans insist voter fraud deprived Nixon of victory). In 2000, the preelection consensus was that Gore might win the White House even though Bush would win the popular vote. As I learned in researching a book on the 2000 election, Republicans were prepared to challenge the legitimacy of such an outcome. Four years later, John Kerry came within 2 points of winning Ohio, which would have made him president even though Bush won a 3-million-vote plurality. That would have meant two consecutive elections in which the "winner" became the "loser," with each party suffering that outcome.

So what might happen if Trump wins more total votes than Harris, but loses in the Electoral College?

Undoubtedly, the reaction would be explosive among Trump's army of "election deniers," and there might be an attempt by his allies in state and local offices to try to muddy the waters and argue that the "will of the people" should somehow prevail. Assuming those efforts fail and Harris is inaugurated, we might see a whole new constituency furious at this system of choosing a president — including countless Americans who have no idea that when they vote for president they aren't really voting for a candidate at all, but rather a slate of faceless electors.

As long as the electoral process always favors one party, there is no chance for anything like that movement from a half-century ago to be revived. But if November sees Trump deprived of the presidency despite a popular vote victory, the appetite for change might just take on a bipartisan flavor.