Way I see it, the problem with your thinking (not saying you're entirely wrong, just that this is a problem) is in assuming that everybody in a given area has the same interests, values, and opinions. Obviously they don't, or each riding would come back 90+% for one party (the 10% would be the permanent malcontents).
This is where I might have been convoluting our system in with yours, the popular vote of 1 constituency is a direct vote for the Governing party, within a 100 miles2 in the 905 where the view isn't skewed too much will result in 20-30 direct votes.
And I guarantee it would have not have a significant effect on your life, so why do you care?
Seriously, what the heck is it you love so much about Trump?
With our current Gov. it may have had a positive effect on us, however it was Hillary and that should say enough on it's own.
I don't think it would have mattered whose name it would have been, it's the optics of someone fighting uphill against a system that don't want him in the game, thus someone to cheer for, and the sucker for the underdog post yesterday. We all know he is trying to set up a system to succeed in after he leaves office, but which POTUS didn't? Carter maybe?
It does appear (optics again) that he is trying to lay a foundation to benefit the American people. He speaks badly like most persons do on a construction site, which translates well to the working class, not a polished speaker that translates well to scholars and the press.
Subsiding all the fears of what he was going to do, the struggles and battles trying to out maneuver the establishment is worth the price of admission.
