PragerU

PO2 Robert Aitchison - Actually county borders are not inherently arbitrary. I would suggest that when making such a statement that you consider how counties were formed both in the original colonies, to include the Spanish and French, and in the additional states after the inception of the USA.
There are two wiki articles that actually happen to be good starting points and then another excellent source of information about the formation and functions of counties in the US are genealogic books that cover state and county functions in regards to records keeping that actually subdivides the types of counties and how and why they were formed the way that they are.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_(United_States)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_divisions_of_the_United_States
http://www.ancestry.com/wiki/index.php?title=Red_Book:_American_State,_County,_and_Town_Sources

There are other resources available, but these three are a good start.

SSG Robert Webster - Maybe arbitrary isn't the right word. What I mean is that the counties have no bearing on demographics, population, area, or anything else remotely meaningful from a representative democracy standpoint.

Any given county even in the same state could have less than 2,000 people to more than 10,000,000 people and could have an area from less than 1,000 square miles to more than 20,000. It's also not relevant from a constitutional standpoint. If you look at the nation as a whole you have even larger extremes with counties as small as 88 people or just 12 square miles. Looking at population density nationwide you have extremes from 69,000 per square mile to 0.03 per square mile.

IMO the people who talk about how many counties they won are looking for any sort of stat they can use to try to claim a "win". Would be no different than if people talked about how many area codes their party won (though I suspect area codes would be at least a little bit more consistent from a population distribution standpoint).

PO2 Robert Aitchison - Then use the results for each electoral district. Though I would not ordinarily use The Daily Kos as a source, there report on this very subject shows that it would still be highly probable that Trump would have won using a method like you describe.
See: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/1/30/1627319/-Daily-Kos-Elections-presents-the-2016-presidential-election-results-by-congressional-district

If we had a congressional district based system the campaign would have been run completely differently so it's probable (pretty much guaranteed IMO) that the map would look very different.

The campaign would not have looked like this: http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/294716-will-trump-or-clinton-win-the-11-states-deciding-the-race

In any case my support for such a system isn't even related to the results of the 2016 election, I've been saying the same thing for decades.

PO3 Bob McCord - And that is scary and terrifying, but we know that it does happen. Remember the cell phone public service announcement during one of Obama's campaigns?

PO3 Bob McCord - Great example.

SSG Robert Webster much better than I could ever explain it