Not that I can find . You can ' t really exit poll people who don ' t vote so I would imagine it ' d be difficult to come up with a competely actuate statistic . Ultimately , people choose to vote and not to vote for many reasons , and a common theme is what state they ' re in . In an electoral college system , you ' re much less pressed to vote in California or Texas . You know those states are going to go Blue and Red respectively . Furthermore , if you live in a swing state and you hate Clinton , really hate Trump , and only kinda hate Stein , you ' re likely to vote for Clinton when you ' d otherwise vote for Stein just to defeat Trump . A pure popular vote removes these barriers . You wouldn ' t feel disheartened about voting based on your state , nor would you feel pressured to vote for a main party candidate . It could result in fewer pepper voting . If people in Texas were less concerned about making their state go red they might be less likely vote . It could make their vote feel less impactful because instead of being 1 vote of a few million they ' d be 1 vote in 120 million . Maybe the opposite would happen and , no longer concerned about keeping the state red but also worked that their vote means less , more people would vote . Also , more Democrats would vote in Texas because the state going over way or another is no longer relevant . Sane thing with Democrats in Cali . In a popular vote system , the results arte simply garunteed to be different than they are now . Maybe Clinton would still win , but maybe not . It ' s competely unpredictable , and that unpredictability is why you can ' t put much weight into the popular vote as it is now .