-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Clinton may win the popular vote by millions
- Thread starter Buba Big Guns
- Start date
- Status
I have that same question, not entirely sure how it works, during the election, some friends and I speculated that it is literally a race, each state gives you points and the one that wins the most points from the states wins
oh, nice that was interesting
Tal Shiar Agent
Banned
1,161,562 is the difference now.
It's going to hit 2 million, according to Cook/538/Cohn. So this story doesn't matter, but it is nice to have stories about this trickle out while Trump proves himself to be a fuckup.
Would be interesting to see a presidential election decided by popular vote.
Madam President
D.Lo
Member
It's no more complicated than tennis. You can lose a tennis match while winning far less points. You have to win the right points, the points where scores turn.
Basically it is a popular vote, except states are winner takes all. That's it.
Maedre
Banned
At least we know who the American people chose.
A popular vote that stops being popular because those votes doesn't count for shit if they "lose" the state.
And now because of a minority on popular vote but strong on "state power" like rural areas we have a shit show with Trump and his team.
D.Lo
Member
Putting something in capitals doesn't make it true. EDIT: apologies I misunderstood, I thought you meant 'you are incorrect' but you actually meant 'that is unfair'.
What I said is true for all states except Maine and Nebraska.
And as entremet said last page:
It's the design of America, a collection of states with the right to do things the way they like. Even assign their votes for President.
Well it's not as if it was a coinflip afterwards whether EC or popular votes count, both parties knew the circumstances they were operating under, so it's weird to blame in retrospect.
I mean, it's okay, those are the rules of the game and both Clinton and Trump accepted them, but those rules of the game should have been changed a long time ago, at least modified to fall in line with better representation..
Are the democrats as a whole pro getting-rid-of-EC? what kind of majorities would it take to switch to popular vote alone?
They were talking about population, not land area.
Actually, majorities very similar to the ones Republicans have in state legislatures right now. Democrats are on the verge of losing the ability to block constitutional amendments.
Squirrel Killer
Member
The "small states are overpowered" is a bit of a red herring. The small (3 EC vote) states are pretty evenly split, including deep red states like the Dakotas and the deep blue states like DC and Vermont. In this election, even with all their skewed power, had Clinton won all the small states, she still would've lost the EC.
We're up to 131 million total votes cast (just behind 2008's record 131.4 million votes cast), and we should end up around 134 million votes cast, a record. By the end, turnout should surpass 2012 as a percentage and leave 2016 as the 2nd-highest voter turnout as a % in the last 50 years (behind 2008).
Of course, Trump+Clinton's vote count might still be behind Obama+Romney's in 2012 because only ~2 million voted third party in 2012 while over 7 million voted third party this year.
Of course, Trump+Clinton's vote count might still be behind Obama+Romney's in 2012 because only ~2 million voted third party in 2012 while over 7 million voted third party this year.
Chaplain
Member
Interesting video from today revealing that there is a movement to give John Kasich Trump's electoral votes.
Video: Reality Check: Plan in Electoral College for "Compromise Candidate", not Trump
Video: Reality Check: Plan in Electoral College for "Compromise Candidate", not Trump
Ain't gonna happen.
If the EC actually chose to elect Hillary through faithless electors, and then Congress+House went and overturned it, the populace would shove that shit right down Congress' throat. Protests would explode all over the nation.
Dark Cloud
Member
I had a Trump supporter tell me illegals voted and their votes went to Hillary so she actually lost the popular vote too.
MiketheBSG
Member
Should it be concerning to the Republican party that they are the only modern party to exclusively win an election without the popular vote?
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
That seems to be the popular narrative among the deplorables.
Without any credible evidence (like that has ever stopped the Alex Jones/Breitbart crowd before), they are saying that illegals and dead people voted for Hillary in the millions!
Concerning? It's part of their strategy and why they are such huge fans of gerrymandering.
Pretty sure they can't vote for someone who didn't get a single EV.
Yeah, no.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
What? None of the candidates have received a single EV yet. The college has not yet cast their votes.
Duane Cunningham
Member
Or to put it another way, they've only won the popular vote once (2004) in at least a thirty two year period (88-2020)
You know what I mean, pretty sure they can't just pick a random dude.
Shit why did nobody tell me. I'd have gone and done my fake voting for the yasss queen and rigged the election
Chaplain
Member
LegendofJoe
Member
I like the idea of lobbying enough EC voters to switch their vote from Trump to Kasich. If Trump fails to hit 270 and the vote goes to the House with each state delegation getting a vote, are they allowed to vote for whoever they want? I.e. not Trump or Hillary
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Just like the average voter, they indeed can do exactly that.
Yes, they could even fill in "Harambe" like the thousands of idiots who voted in the general election did.
I believe in the House you have to vote for someone who got Electoral votes.
So they could not pick a new random person, but could say back a Kasich if some unfaithful elector pulled the switch that way.
LegendofJoe
Member
They are electors right now lobbying their colleagues to make this happen. They aren't likely to succeed, but this is the closest we've come to this being a possibility. There will be several faithless electors come December 19th.
Because our state population dwarfs a lot of other states combined.
why? I dont understand the problem
alot of small states are also densely populated, and densely populated areas also happen to be democratic usually.
though idk why there isnt a faster way
Dark Cloud
Member
No. It's a democracy. Nothing stays still just because "that's how it is" or America would be worse today.
Also: Provisional Ballots and mail-in ballots.
Provisional ballots require extra verification. Mail-in ballots had to actually arrive. They only needed to be postmarked by election day.
California always takes this long. Bernie fans went full conspiracy theory during the primaries when it took this long, but, no, it is always like this.
Of switching? You wouldn't just try to put out the fire with gasoline but with a nuke.
Yes of course it can change, but Hillary and Trump both was electable, under the same rules. If you want to change the rules do it during a presidency not directly after an election.
Edit: to be clear, it is a travesty that Trump was elected.
But it's not changing the rules, it's just doing something that is legal and allowed but simply has never been done before. Tradition=/=Rule.
And of all the times to "break" the rules/tradition, this is it.
No, at least 37 need to switch to tie it, 39 for her to win.
LegendofJoe
Member
That makes sense. With Michigan yet to officially declare a winer, conceivably it would only take 21 Republican faithless electors to throw the election to the House. Realistically, Trump will end up winning Michigan though, which would make the bar a lot higher with 37 faithless electors needed.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Actually, like Brexit, you voted, but your vote had no legally binding power.
Popular vote is not deciding factor in presidential elections in the states.
Referendum vote is not the deciding factor in a parliamentary democracy like the UK.
People need to learn what the laws are in their country. For all of the right-wing blustering about the sanctity of the constitution and the will of the founders, they certainly don't seem to know much about either.
- Status