Technically Hillary Clinton could still be elected President.

ligerdub

I don't doubt the figures, but I don't think they can say "this happened, therefore that's why". They did a survey on 3rd party voters, and although more would have favoured Clinton, it wasn't by much, and biggest share by far stated they wouldn't have voted for another candidate it they had no other choice. I suspect both the main parties suffered as a result of this.

The Republican figures were only about 1.2 million lower by the way (a healthy enough amount right enough). Hillary got pretty much the same amount of votes as John Kerry did in 2004. Obama's figures are massive outliers, so it's an unfair comparison.

Hillary got 60 million votes in 2016.
Kerry 04: 59
Gore 00: 51
Clinton 96: 47
Clinton 92: 45

Obama got 70 million and 66 million in his campaigns. His were massive outliers, even taking into consideration the rise in population.

Rightwing

More like Clinton could still end up in jail.

Has Trump the courage to do what he said he would?, that's the question.

FatherTed

RobertKK wrote: »

The electoral college exists because it is the United States, as in separate states who have their own separate laws and taxes apart from federal laws and taxes.
The electoral college gives each state a weighted vote, the EU has a similar voting system as in states have different weighted vote among the 28 members, but this is due to change in 2017.

The electoral college votes is all that matters, not the popular vote.
Blame the 6 million people who didn't vote for Democrats this election compared to the near 2 million less who voted for the Republicans or the 55% turn out.

Elections are decided by the agreed system which all candidates know before a vote is cast.
Elections are not decided by protests, riots or petitions.
There is no evidence of any major voter fraud that would make the election illegal.

It is fine to argue and disagree before an election, but when the election is deemed fair and once you haven't elected in people associated with terrorism, then people should accept the result and whoever you support, just hope the people in power do a good job for their country and on the international stage.

However the Weighted Votes for each state are not evenly distributed per population.

RobertKK

Rightwing wrote: »

More like Clinton could still end up in jail.

Has Trump the courage to do what he said he would?, that's the question.

I don't believe he will.

I am of the opinion, he threw everything including the kitchen sink at her. She lost, and that is all that mattered.
Now he has far bigger things to concern himself about, given Hillary had been disposed of.

martingriff

osmiumartist wrote: »

So just to be clear here, actually smashing stuff up is OK as long as you are protesting against possible violence?

Sorry only saw your message peaceful protesting is acceptable looting and violence is not

ZeitgeistGlee

Rainman16 wrote: »

Hillary won the popular vote.

Irrelevant because:

1) It's not, obviously, how the system works or is intended to work. It's actually intended not to be directly democratic because of how the US was originally envisioned. (i.e. anti-Mob Rule)

2) The EC system tends to disincline people voting against their state's leaning i.e. Reps in California or Dems in Texas because it seems/is pointless. This is why Swing States are so vital.

Rainman16 wrote: »

The only reason Trump "won" is because of the Electoral College.

Which, again, is how the system is supposed to work (so no need for air-quotes) and what everyone signed up to going into it and when they cast their votes.

Amazingly despite Al Gore being in the same position 8 years previously I don't recall raucous demands from people to have President Obama fix the system when he was swept into office in 2008 despite the Dems controlling both the Executive and Legislative branches of government at the time. I guess winning a "broken" system is enough?

Rainman16 wrote: »

But so is the outcome of this election

It happened 16 years ago. :rolleyes: Then again I expect most of the college-age kids rioting over this not to remember something that happened when they were infants/young children.

Rainman16 wrote: »

There is currently a petition on Change.org with close to 3 million signatures of people urging the members of the Electoral College to do the right thing.

To subvert a legal and fair election to the whim of a faction who couldn't even mobilise their own supporters to vote in the same numbers they did 4 years previously? Sounds very democratic to me.

Rainman16 wrote: »

On December 19th, they can save Americans from themselves.

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
- C.S. Lewis

Maybe they could introduce a monarchy to save themselves from the whole business of governing themselves. The Bushs and Clintons seem up for the job, tho maybe the the Kennedys are still interested.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Rainman16 wrote: »

Hillary won the popular vote. The only reason Trump "won" is because of the Electoral College.

It has never been done before, It is unprecedented. But so is the outcome of this election.

Al Gore begs to differ.

Inquitus

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Al Gore begs to differ.

Aye its happened 4 times, twice in the 19th Century and twice in the last 5 elections, Gore being the most recent example prior to 2016.

LordAwesome

Rainman16 wrote: »

The electoral collage is such a ridiculous system, The fact that the people aren't actually voting for the president directly, but voting for "electors" to make the actual vote for them, and that it's actually possible that these electors can turn around and vote for whoever they want is so bizarre.

Would it be the right thing to do? That's up for debate.

But the fact that its even a possibility is strange, The reason it is, must be as a fail-safe measure to protect Americans from themselves.

The EC is there to prevent the big states from trampling over the small ones. If a president could get elected from the popular vote then the candidates would just pander to the three or four biggest states in the US and cruise to victory. With the EC, in theory, every state has a voice.

osmiumartist

Rainman16 wrote: »

Hillary won the popular vote. The only reason Trump "won" is because of the Electoral College.

It's worth noting that this is the "only" reason any president has ever been elected. But it's awful, simply awful, now that the wrong guy won. Right?

Rainman16

Nonoperational

Give it up man. Ridiculous and never going to happen.

LLMMLL

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Thanks.... I have a similar opinion of you too, but I didn't want to say anything until you did first!

The phrases are very apt.
The 'safe space' concept is very very real & is not a term of abuse.
Snowflake is obviously, but then "emotional fortitude of a toddler" doesn't roll off the tongue as nicely.

I mean, read the first paragraph of this journalism, or this slice of teeney-angst from Lena Dunham.

I can't think of a better word for the sheer scale emotional fragility of our generation when something doesn't go our way.

This is pure ridiculous. I work in an irish uni and the vast vast majority of the students don't give a toss about the social justice movement.

The debate societies like to invite controversial speakers so they might get into the national papers. The debate societies are usually filled with right leaning people rather than left anyway. Te only other group who makes a big deal about this stuff is the gender equality society whih probably has about ten regular attendees.

Lena Dunham is not a spokesperson for everyone under 30.

Use your intelligence. The media does not reflect popular opinion. It just wants to sell papers. The next generation are fine.

infogiver

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Thanks.... I have a similar opinion of you too, but I didn't want to say anything until you did first!

The phrases are very apt.
The 'safe space' concept is very very real & is not a term of abuse.
Snowflake is obviously, but then "emotional fortitude of a toddler" doesn't roll off the tongue as nicely.

I mean, read the first paragraph of this journalism, or this slice of teeney-angst from Lena Dunham.

I can't think of a better word for the sheer scale emotional fragility of our generation when something doesn't go our way.

"I touched my face and realised I was crying ".
What's wonderful is that lots of young people in the 1st world have had it so good, so easy, so rosy.
And are so privileged and generally accustomed to getting what they want in 2016, that this is they're reaction to a democratic vote not going they're way.
I have seen not one of them rail and thrash out against they're own peer group for being too lazy and immature and downright entitled to actually go down to the polling station.
This is actually the extent to which they simply cannot tolerate even the concept of criticism or personal responsibility.
It really is a pity.

ZeitgeistGlee

LLMMLL wrote: »

Lena Dunham is not a spokesperson for everyone under 30.

Lena Dunham shouldn't be a spokesperson for anyone, period.

Achasanai

Rightwing wrote: »

More like Clinton could still end up in jail.

Has Trump the courage to do what he said he would?, that's the question.

He's been rowing back on a huge amount of what he promised. All to be expected, of course, but it will be interested to see how certain sections of the media and the alt-right (the opposite side of the coin to the so-called snowflake generation) will take it when their assumed revolution doesn't materialise.

LordAwesome

Trump doesn't have to go after Clinton, Gowdy will do it for him when he's appointed AG.

PopePalpatine

Nonoperational wrote: »

Give it up man. Ridiculous and never going to happen.

The only way Clinton winning in the Electoral College would happen would be if it was proven beyond all reasonable doubt - with even the alternative media like Breitbart and Infowars admitting it - that voting machines were hacked to give the win to Trump. It's time to come to terms that we're stuck with Trump for the next four years.

ligerdub

PopePalpatine wrote: »

The only way Clinton winning in the Electoral College would happen would be if it was proven beyond all reasonable doubt - with even the alternative media like Breitbart and Infowars admitting it - that voting machines were hacked to give the win to Trump. It's time to come to terms that we're stuck with Trump for the next four years.

Yeah, because a Trump win is really what the power brokers wanted. Give me a break pal!

Jayop

I hate Trump but the people voted for him and something like this would cause anarchy.

sellasheep

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

I agree the system isn't perfect, but he won fair and square.

.

No he did not win fair and square. Hillary got 2 million more votes than him.

Jayop

sellasheep wrote: »

No he did not win fair and square. Hillary got 2 million more votes than him.

Because of the electoral college being there. You could have a couple of million Republicans in California and New York that didn't bother voting because it would have been pointless. The popular vote is meaningless while the electoral college exists.

PopePalpatine

ligerdub wrote: »

Yeah, because a Trump win is really what the power brokers wanted. Give me a break pal!

I merely raised the suggested the possibility that the voting machines may have been tampered with. As of typing this post, I've seen no evidence to suggest that's the case.

ted1

martingriff wrote: »

The Electoral College will vote as they have been told to by the people. There would be a crap storm (and rightfully so) if they did not. Trump is president he wanted to be elected so said what would get him elected. The only thing that could (and probably is happening) is those who are idiots will not think its acceptable to be racist etc because they saw he was. This will be something that has to be tackled quick by the Republican Party (as they were his nomination) and Trump himself

The people voted for Hillary. Mad system all together.

ZeitgeistGlee

sellasheep wrote: »

No he did not win fair and square. Hillary got 2 million more votes than him.

You not knowing how the American presidential election system works doesn't make it unfair. It's not, nor has it ever been a pure popularity contest.

Certainly you can believe it's unfair, hell I don't think it's particularly fair but it's the system everyone signed up to.

ted1 wrote: »

The people voted for Hillary. Mad system all together.

Same basic idea here would be if every Irish election was decided purely by Dublin, Cork and Limerick (cities).

Manic Moran

ted1 wrote: »

martingriff wrote: »

The Electoral College will vote as they have been told to by the people. There would be a crap storm (and rightfully so) if they did not. Trump is president he wanted to be elected so said what would get him elected. The only thing that could (and probably is happening) is those who are idiots will not think its acceptable to be racist etc because they saw he was. This will be something that has to be tackled quick by the Republican Party (as they were his nomination) and Trump himself

The people voted for Hillary. Mad system all together.

It's only mad if you forget that the President is the president of the fifty "free, independent and sovereign States" (to quote from 1776).

Every voter voted to indicate their preference for who their State wanted to lead them. Each State then votes for the President of that state's choice. If one, and only one vote were cast in California, and it was cast for a Democrat, then the position of the State of California is that it throws it's weight of 55 electors in behind the Democrat presidential candidate. If all 300,000 registered voters in South Dakota voted for the same a Republican candidate, then the position of that State is that it will throw its weight of 3 electors behind the a Republican presidential candidate. Folks who complain about the smaller states having more weight are similarly missing the issue of California having more than its own weight: The reason being that the internal voter makeup of the State compared to other Ststes was such that the end result was that California's EC worth to Clinton was over twice the worth of the individual Clinton voter in California. (10% of the votes, 25% of the EC total)

The citizens of the States and DC were voting in fiftyone individual, independent referenda which happened to take place on the same day. Understanding this principle is the key to understanding why the EC works the way it does.

ligerdub

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I merely raised the suggested the possibility that the voting machines may have been tampered with. As of typing this post, I've seen no evidence to suggest that's the case.

To me it read like it is being suggested as something that happened and is seen as credible. Fair enough if not.

ligerdub

sellasheep wrote: »

No he did not win fair and square. Hillary got 2 million more votes than him.

200,000 difference. They aren't finished counting in some states. He may yet edge her out on that.

ted1

ZeitgeistGlee wrote: »

You not knowing how the American presidential election system works doesn't make it unfair. It's not, nor has it ever been a pure popularity contest.

Certainly you can believe it's unfair, hell I don't think it's particularly fair but it's the system everyone signed up to.





Same basic idea here would be if every Irish election was decided purely by Dublin, Cork and Limerick (cities).

So because someone lives in Hicksville their vote carrys a higher weight than someone living in a city. In democracy are all people not equal?


Who has signed up for it?

FatherTed

ligerdub wrote: »

200,000 difference. They aren't finished counting in some states. He may yet edge her out on that.

Actually it's over 400,000 now.

ZeitgeistGlee

ted1 wrote: »

So because someone lives in Hicksville their vote carrys a higher weight than someone living in a city. In democracy are all people not equal?

The US wasn't founded as a plurality-based democracy though (in fact quite the contrary).

ted1 wrote: »

Who has signed up for it?

Everyone who registers to vote. You implicitly agree to abide by the system by voting.

If people disagree with the EC (and I can perfectly see why they would), then they need to campaign to change it rather than waffling about an irrelevant PV winner. '08 would've been IMO a great time to have a national debate on it give given Obama won the EC and the PV I guess there was no appetite for it.

alastair

FatherTed wrote: »

Actually it's over 400,000 now.

It's well beyond that, and only set to grow:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/1/d/133Eb4qQmOxNvtesw2hdVns073R68EZx4SfCnP4IGQf8/htmlview?sle=true#gid=19

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/clintons-popular-vote-lead-will-grow-and-grow/507455/

BorneTobyWilde

Hillary lost key states by just a few thousand votes, had the won 3 of them Trump would not have made 270. It looks a landslide but Michican, PA and NH is all she needed. She lost those states by only a few votes.

alastair

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Hillary lost key states by just a few thousand votes, had the won 3 of them Trump would not have made 270. It looks a landslide but Michican, PA and NH is all she needed. She lost those states by only a few votes.

Hillary has won in New Hampshire. It's not been called yet, but she's got the most votes.

ligerdub

FatherTed wrote: »

Actually it's over 400,000 now.

Great, fair play to her.

ligerdub

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Hillary lost key states by just a few thousand votes, had the won 3 of them Trump would not have made 270. It looks a landslide but Michican, PA and NH is all she needed. She lost those states by only a few votes.

Yeah? She didn't.

Get over it.

alastair

ligerdub wrote: »

Yeah? She didn't.

Get over it.

In the case of NH, she did.

alastair

ligerdub wrote: »

Great, fair play to her.

Yeah, not a hope of Trump 'edging out her lead'. She'll end up millions of votes above Trump.

paleoperson

ted1 wrote: »

So because someone lives in Hicksville their vote carrys a higher weight than someone living in a city. In democracy are all people not equal?

"hicksville"... what a racist and despicable thing to say.

You're showing your colours as a narrow-minded bigot.

ted1 wrote: »

Who has signed up for it?

Are you actually a thinking person?

It's called democracy.

BorneTobyWilde

alastair wrote: »

Hillary has won in New Hampshire. It's not been called yet, but she's got the most votes.

yEA?
So all she needed was a few more vote in Michigan and PA to win.
Very slim victory by all accounts for Trump

alastair

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

yEA?
So all she needed was a few more vote in Michigan and PA to win.
Very slim victory by all accounts for Trump

She needed 13,000 more for MI, and 68,000 for PA.

ligerdub

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

yEA?
So all she needed was a few more vote in Michigan and PA to win.
Very slim victory by all accounts for Trump

It would have been a slim victory for either person. Everyone knows that.

Donald would have to drop 37 EC votes.

Michigan (16) was close enough alright, 13,000 people.
Florida (29) by Donald, circa 120,000.
Pennsylvania (20), circa 70,000.
Wisconsin (10), circa 30,000.

Close enough yeah......but not exactly on the scale of nail biting. You'd also most likely need 3 of them!! Clutching at straws gents.

Clinton won Colorado (9) by 50,000
Clinton won Minnesota (10) by 40,000
Clinton was Nevada (6) by 20,000
Clinton, New Hampshire (4) by 3,000 or so.

These are all in the category of marginal wins too. Fair enough there is a larger potential subtraction from Donald, but he had so much banked that the contentious ones were mainly the turkey for him. There were about 8 close ones and Hillary needed to win all of them, to me that suggests it would have been extremely fortunate for her to win.

What you guys want to do is take all your close wins as banked and bring the close defeats back into the game.

Donald won, and it's pretty clearcut.

You can cling to the popular vote because California gave her about 3 million surplus votes all you want, he was fairly dominant in most other places.

ligerdub

alastair wrote: »

In the case of NH, she did.

I'm sure that's something Donald Trump will wake up in a cold sweat over.

alastair

ligerdub wrote: »

It would have been a slim victory for either person. Everyone knows that.

Donald would have to drop 37 EC votes.

Michigan (16) was close enough alright, 13,000 people.
Florida (29) by Donald, circa 120,000.
Pennsylvania (20), circa 70,000.
Wisconsin (10), circa 30,000.

Close enough yeah......but not exactly on the scale of nail biting. You'd also most likely need 3 of them!! Clutching at straws gents.

Clinton won Colorado (9) by 50,000
Clinton won Minnesota (10) by 40,000
Clinton was Nevada (6) by 20,000
Clinton, New Hampshire (4) by 3,000 or so.

These are all in the category of marginal wins too. Fair enough there is a larger potential subtraction from Donald, but he had so much banked that the contentious ones were mainly the turkey for him. There were about 8 close ones and Hillary needed to win all of them, to me that suggests it would have been extremely fortunate for her to win.

What you guys want to do is take all your close wins as banked and bring the close defeats back into the game.

Donald won, and it's pretty clearcut.

You can cling to the popular vote because California gave her about 3 million surplus votes all you want, he was fairly dominant in most other places.

No-one (other than yourself earlier regarding Trump 'edging out her lead') disputes that Hillary lost, despite her millions of votes over the winner.

scuba8

While noting the closeness of the count in many states, it should be pointed that many Democrat supporters were hindered in their attempts to vote.
Republicans closed almost 900 polling stations all in predominantly Democrat areas. In NC a judge said that it was carried out with surgical precision in African American areas to suppress voters.

Manic Moran

ted1 wrote: »

So because someone lives in Hicksville their vote carrys a higher weight than someone living in a city. In democracy are all people not equal?


Who has signed up for it?

I live in a city area, San Francisco area, My vote weighs the same as a denizen in the mountains on the Nevada border, or who lives in the Mojave Desert. For the purposes of the Presidential Election, California is a pure democracy. Whoever gets the most votes, even if it's only one vote, wins.
Go to Alaska, and someone who lives in Fairbanks has a vote just as weighty as someone who lives a fifty mile dog sled ride from Barrow. Alaska is as much a democracy in the Presidential election as you like. As far as I know, this is the case for every State in the Union.

Where things get uneven is that the fifty states have different weights in the Presidential Election. California has more weight than Alaska has, by virtue of the fact that more people live in it. If only one man votes in California, and all 485,271 voters in Alaska vote for one candidate, California still carries more weight than Alaska in the Presidential election. EC votes do not change on the basis of how many people vote.

The point here is that the States are voting for President, not the people.

ted1

paleoperson wrote: »

"hicksville"... what a racist and despicable thing to say.

You're showing your colours as a narrow-minded bigot.



Are you actually a thinking person?

It's called democracy.

How do translate Hicksville into being racist?

Yes I'm a thinking person.
I know it's democracy, I don't believe that any of the people who voted actually signed up to EC. They wanted to vote but EC was forced up on them s it's what's there I do believe if an alternative was offered that people would sign up to that.

meeeeh

ted1 wrote: »

How do translate Hicksville into being racist?

Yes I'm a thinking person.
I know it's democracy, I don't believe that any of the people who voted actually signed up to EC. They wanted to vote but EC was forced up on them s it's what's there I do believe if an alternative was offered that people would sign up to that.

Tell me how would clear majority wins work in EU? Especially after brexit when there will be only a few large countries.

letsseehere14

alastair wrote:

No-one (other than yourself earlier regarding Trump 'edging out her lead') disputes that Hillary lost, despite her millions of votes over the winner.

Are these millions of votes the 600k odd votes over Trump that she has? Millions? Correct me if I'm wrong by my last check showed 60.2m for Trump vs 60.8m for Clinton.

She won the popular vote because she appealed to the liberals and took NY by 1.5m votes and Cali by 2.5m. If you look at the heat maps these votes in NY and cali states mostly came from new York city and San Fran/LA where she was getting over 80% of the vote. Despite this 4m vote lead in basically 3 cities she only won the popular vote by 600k.
People like Michael Moore are out protesting and asking Trump to step aside because they want the way the election was run, and was campaigned for changed after the fact.
If it goes direct vote for vote the campaigns will ignore middle and little America and be focused on the major cities only. This move would further divide the USA as smaller states feeling more ignored will begin to push back.

meeeeh

The difference will be probably much bigger because so many votes in California still have to be counted and it's unlikely they will mostly go to Trump. But it really doesn't matter. Campaign strategy is adapted to political system and the aim is to win the most electors not the popular vote. Otherwise it would set up differently.