• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Clinton may win the popular vote by millions

Status
Not open for further replies.
As far as I can tell, an electoral college system in which every state awards its votes proportionally to each candidate is far superior to either the current system or a pure popular vote system.

That's essentially what the Democratic Primaries are, and I generally think they're the best national voting system we have in place. There's slight weighting, but the biggest discrepancy is when you vote Democrat in a mostly Republican state or district, which amplifies the vote power a bit. The only other candidate for good national votes in the US is the amendment ratification process.

The Dem Primary has the benefit of about 5-10x the number of Pledged Delegates, so there's less rounding issues.
 
I haven't seen any convincing support for the EC.

This just shows that the minority will get what they want. More people missed out because some of the minority live in a different area. That doesn't seem very fair...

The system should be aimed at making the MOST amount of people get what they want.

Who cares if 5 people in the middle don't win if it means 10 people on the edge get it. 1 person = 1 person. Area shouldn't be part of it.
 
I'm sorry I keep seeing this everywhere as if people are implying that we need to wait for the presidency to start to protest the EC. Isn't right now the best time to start especially off the back of the momentum from last Tuesday? Not saying anything will change this current president-elect, but it's really sad that I keep seeing people say you need to wait it's not going to change anything now. No shit, but starting now 4 years ahead especially given the current circumstance means right now is the best time to start fighting for that change.

Below poster encapsulates my point of view.

As far as I can tell, an electoral college system in which every state awards its votes proportionally to each candidate is far superior to either the current system or a pure popular vote system.



The point is that arguing for this now simply opens you up to being accused of being a sore loser and does not give you any higher chance of achieving the change.

The best time to have this push would be in 1-2 years when you could argue based on the general inherent issues of the electoral system and not be as directly tied to one specific result. Doing it now just looks reactionary.
 
Below poster encapsulates my point of view.

Or push now, push then, and continue pushing until it gets done. Why hide in the shadows for a meaningless year or two? It's going to be as tough to do it in a year or two as it is now so there's just no point. Anyone making arguments for the EC as it is now will be making the same arguments a year from now. Except now if you wait, you have less velocity to attack those arguments because you decided to kill off your own momentum because you wanted to play an optics game.

No thanks. Keep the fire burning and let people know that you want change and you want it now, tomorrow, and every day when you don't get it.
 
The best time to have this push would be in 1-2 years when you could argue based on the general inherent issues of the electoral system and not be as directly tied to one specific result. Doing it now just looks reactionary.

Americans have an attention span of less than a month when it comes to politics. If you argue this off-tempo they won't even remember why it was an actual problem, if they even understood what the problem was to begin with. (Most probably don't.)
 
The electoral college isn’t a real place. But someone has to answer all the angry phone calls these days.


Tuesday of last week was quiet.

Wednesday was quiet, too.

The pitchforks started arriving last Thursday, about 36 hours after the presidential election was called. They were virtual pitchforks, but still. Email after email. Tweets. Phone calls. Facebook posts. Some profane. Some pleading.

One subject line: “electoral votes are wrong”

Another: “Vote in Hillary Clinton Dec. 19”

Another: “Letter to America”

Another: “HELP”

So it goes at the Office of the Federal Register, which administers the electoral college and now finds itself at the center of a populist brouhaha.
What that really means, right now, is that she is dealing with the nation’s collective freakout about the electoral college. Millions of Trump haters who can’t handle Clinton’s loss are signing petitions to persuade electors to vote as the majority of Americans did, which would be completely permissible and also pretty unprecedented. Actual electors are being lobbied and harassed, according to the Idaho Statesman, and this frantic energy has also funneled toward the Office of the Federal Register, whose website is the second Google hit when you search “electoral college.”

Death threats. Promises of civil war. Inappropriate photographs. Students with homework questions. A daughter of Holocaust survivors who called to sob into the ear of a government bureaucrat. A woman in Florida who wanted Vincent to do something about Russian hacking.

Only four employees work in Vincent’s division. In the past week, each has taken on the role of civics teacher, and the role of therapist.

“You really need a thick skin,” says Amy Bunk, the division director. “People are venting their frustration. This woman, who didn’t understand the system at all, ended up accusing me of interrupting her and thinking she was stupid.” She sighs. “I spent an hour on the phone with her.”
 
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.

These rules were set down in 1782 by our God-Founders. Weren't people saying a few pages ago that the electoral college is good because it takes control from us ignorant plebs? Y'all need to figure out if you give a shit about the will of the people or not.
 
1.35 M. Still a long way to go. Still millions of votes to count, including a million votes in Los Angeles.

I have a feeling that hilary clinton may end up winning CA by the biggest margin ever once votes are counted. I could see her beating trump by around 3.5 million votes in CA once all of the votes are counted.
 
These rules were set down in 1782 by our God-Founders. Weren't people saying a few pages ago that the electoral college is good because it takes control from us ignorant plebs? Y'all need to figure out if you give a shit about the will of the people or not.

Yeah I agree, I remember pre election some people where saying that the EC is good since it would stop a person like Trump from winning...

And yes I personally don't like the EC, but complaining now will make it look like sore losers and more risk of backfire.
 
What's kinda funny... Or sad... Mostly sad is that national polls may not be too far off the margin by the end of counting if she ends up winning by close to 3 million votes.
 
Yeah I agree, I remember pre election some people where saying that the EC is good since it would stop a person like Trump from winning...

And yes I personally don't like the EC, but complaining now will make it look like sore losers and more risk of backfire.

We have a party that is now only capable of getting power through loopholes in democracy. Twice in a generation the majority of Americans have been told "fuck off, your vote doesn't count as much as Joe Bob from the boonies. Now shut up and live under minority rule as we fuck up the country."

People have every right to be pissed off that a slavery protecting rule from over 200 years ago is rending the majority of Americans votes useless.
 
I love the Trump supporter images going around Facebook saying that Trump won the popular vote as well as the EC.

aigUPiW.jpg

From TWITTER posts!
 
There really should be a mechanism that is triggered that overrules the Electoral College if there is an x number of more popular votes for one candidate.
 
I have a feeling that hilary clinton may end up winning CA by the biggest margin ever once votes are counted. I could see her beating trump by around 3.5 million votes in CA once all of the votes are counted.

Yeah.

There really should be a mechanism that is triggered that overrules the Electoral College if there is an x number of more popular votes for one candidate.

Agreed, at the very least.
 
There really should be a mechanism that is triggered that overrules the Electoral College if there is an x number of more popular votes for one candidate.
Nonsense. It should be one or the other (EC or pop), both would be utterly ridiculous.

Campaigns would be so different if popular vote had any meaning at all, this truly proves nothing.
 
how do they already know which party won the state?
They know the gap is bigger than the votes that remain but if it changes the results also change. States only decide on who their electors are going to be later and the electoral college casts their vote on the 19th of December.
 
Not sure if this is the right thread but what more can I do to help resist against Trump? I have several donations lined up and I called my congress people and senators, what else?
 
Not sure if this is the right thread but what more can I do to help resist against Trump? I have several donations lined up and I called my congress people and senators, what else?

Volunteer at an organization centered around helping a group that stands to be effected negatively by a Trump presidency.

Someone needs to throw a pie in this guy's face.
 
No change will come with regards to the EC. The media is not talking about this and the candidate in question does not seem particularly interested in a fight (I don't blame her).
 
I have a feeling that hilary clinton may end up winning CA by the biggest margin ever once votes are counted. I could see her beating trump by around 3.5 million votes in CA once all of the votes are counted.


This had me thinking that in theory (and in actuality) a candidate could win 49 states and still lose the popular vote.
 
This had me thinking that in theory (and in actuality) a candidate could win 49 states and still lose the popular vote.

Easily, in the abstract. Win 1 vote in 49 states+DC, and your opponent could win 300K in Wyoming. You'd win with 535 EVs, but you wouldn't even earn half a percent of the popular vote.
 
EC votes in all states need to reflect the percentage of votes cast, not winner takes all.

That's what I'd be more in favor of. Completely removing the Electoral College system would basically kill small population states from having any say at all in who wins. Politicians would completely abandon the entire middle section of the US and only focus on major metropolitan areas.
 
That's what I'd be more in favor of. Completely removing the Electoral College system would basically kill small population states from having any say at all in who wins. Politicians would completely abandon the entire middle section of the US and only focus on major metropolitan areas.

The EC does not make them visit the smallest population states already, and the math doesn't work to just campaign the major metro areas.
 
The EC does not make them visit the smallest population states already, and the math doesn't work to just campaign the major metro areas.

Correct, but each state at least has SOME say this way, even if it's only three votes. What's the major negative to just splitting the EC votes based on percentage per state? How would the EC have shaken out in this election if it wasn't "Winner Take All" in each state?

Also, holy hell I need some coffee. I didn't realize how old the post I responded to was. I'm probably way out of my depth on this one and it's most likely already been discussed.
 
That's what I'd be more in favor of. Completely removing the Electoral College system would basically kill small population states from having any say at all in who wins. Politicians would completely abandon the entire middle section of the US and only focus on major metropolitan areas.

Let's say that was true. So what?

There is NOTHING,that should give one segment of the population a weighted say in a national election. Peoe who live in small states already have their interests protected by having equal voice in the Senate. A national election should be a vote by the people, and every vote should count equally. Screw this minority rule crap.
 
Wow, Clinton again proving how unlikeable she is by beating tr*mp in the popular vote. Sad!

Can't believe people are still on the HISTORICALLY BAD CANDIDATE narrative.
 
Wow, Clinton again proving how unlikeable she is by beating tr*mp in the popular vote. Sad!

Can't believe people are still on the HISTORICALLY BAD CANDIDATE narrative.

OMG her lead is growing in CA, one of the bluest states in the nation. If she keeps going, she surely win!
 
Leading in a way that won't win an election is useless.

A good candidate would have gotten votes where it mattered. Hillary was a bad candidate.
 
Don't know why the media isn't talking about this more. That's a massive lead and a huge case for reform.

Well Democrats should be front and center boasting how their candidate won the majority of voters by over 2 million votes, that he has no mandate, and how the majority of Americans back their policies and solutions. Instead we're still handwringing about how maybe we cared TOO much about minorities. It's pathetic.
 
Ah, so a good candidate would be pandering to get votes "where it mattered"
Yeah.

Not sure why this sounds sarcastic. A good politician has to play the game to win or they get nothing accomplished.

Hillary is certainly the best politician to lose the Presidency to an orange clown, though. If we're handing out participation medals and trying to blame her failures on other people and all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom