If Senator Gillibrand is running a feminist campaign, then she might want to make this useful point: in the last presidential campaign almost ten million more women voted than did men. By a huge majority the female voters preferred Clinton. The majority of women for Clinton was bigger than the majority of men for Trump.
So what happened? How could the more numerous group of voters, with the stronger preference, not have elected their choice as president?
The only reason that the majority of women did not see their preferred candidate sworn in as president in January 2017 was the Electoral College system.
In a tiny few swing states, the female preference was a little below the national average.
If every vote counted equally and all were counted in a nationwide tally that chose the president, then women (and men) already would have had a fair chance to elect a female president.
And if Senator Gillibrand, or anyone else, wants a fair chance to be a feminist candidate, then the most important reform would be the appointment of electors to the national vote winner instead of only to the winner of statewide pluralities.