Clinton on pace to win popular vote, despite losing election
- Thread starter Tony Stark
- Start date
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/442059/dont-blame-clinton-trump-2016-wouldve-beaten-obama-2012https://www.yahoo.com/news/clinton-...pite-losing-election-193600422--election.html
Clinton on pace to win popular vote, despite losing election
STEPHEN OHLEMACHER
Associated PressNovember 9, 2016
WASHINGTON (AP) — Despite losing Tuesday's presidential election, Hillary Clinton appears to be on pace to win the popular vote, an ironic twist in an election in which her opponent repeatedly said the system was rigged against him.
Just two days before Election Day, Republican businessman Donald Trump tweeted: "The Electoral College is a disaster for a democracy."
As it turns out, without the Electoral College, Trump probably wouldn't be the president-elect.
A day after Election Day, Clinton held a narrow lead in the popular vote, according to unofficial results tallied by The Associated Press. With nearly 125 million votes counted, Clinton had 47.7 percent of the vote and Trump had 47.5 percent.
That's a lead of about 236,000 votes.
Many states count votes after Election Day, so Clinton isn't guaranteed to keep her lead. However, most of the outstanding votes appear to be in Democratic-leaning states, making it very likely she will become the second Democratic candidate for president this century to win the popular vote but lose the presidency.
The biggest chunk of uncounted votes is in California. Washington State, New York, Oregon and Maryland also have large numbers of uncounted votes. Clinton won all those states, and if the trends continue, she will pad her lead by more than 1 million votes
There are also votes to be counted in Arizona and Alaska, two Republican-leaning states. But they are far outnumbered by uncounted votes in Democratic states.
Under the Electoral College system, each state gets one vote for each member of Congress representing the state. California has the most, with 55. Seven states have only three. The District of Columbia has three, even though the nation's capital has no vote in Congress.
It takes 270 Electoral College votes to win the presidency. Trump's total stands at 279, with races in Michigan, New Hampshire and Arizona too close to call.
There have been occasional calls to scrap the Electoral College, with no success. The latest push came after the 2000 presidential election, in which Democrat Al Gore lost to Republican George W. Bush, despite winning the popular vote.
Any calls to scrap the Electoral College aren't likely to go anywhere this time, either, with Republicans controlling both the House and Senate.
Sen. Tim Kaine, the Democratic candidate for vice president, praised Clinton on Wednesday for winning the popular vote.
But when Clinton made her concession speech, she didn't mention it.
The Math: Trump 2016 Would’ve Beaten Obama 2012
The electoral college would produce a razor-thin margin: Trump 273, Obama 265.
What is an American again?
Anyway, I'm trying to think of a reason the electorate system is the fairest amongst the states. Suppose there was a rogue state that opened its border to anyone from the "Americas", north or south, just before an important election, to try to influence a national election through shear numbers. Well, by calibrating electors to older population (ten year census?) figures, a state is prevented from dominating other states due to overly liberal immigration policies (or the breaking of conservative policy). Or rather, one party is prevented from using immigration to gerrymander dominance over another party. While such liberal policies might swing that state, electors based on older census figures would function to BUFFER other states (or other parties) from the liberal policies of such states...or that states inability to slow illegal immigration.
Take California for example, with 55 electors it is the most influential, but per capita, those electors probably under-represent it's population growth in the last ten years. If so, electors are functioning as buffers to population surges, compared to states that grow more in line with natural born birth rates.
In which case, savvy political parties can target their spending on more rich electoral fields where they can get more leverage for dollars spent. Again, these will be states with a more natural born birth rate. Perhaps that also means more "Americans", or at least those places with the deepest roots of heritage invested in the land. But both parties, if savvy, can focus resources on known "battleground" states. So it's fair.
So this is an argument that says the electoral system better represents the will of the country, as is weights in favor of those Americans with the deepest roots...as per natural birth rates.
Stark you need to read this.
Last edited:
Does this thing factor in things like population changes? Fl has around a million more people now than in 2012 so obviously both Trumps and Hillary's total vote will be higher than Obamas.A better way to look at this imo is % of the vote.
In 2012 Obama got 50% of the FL vote ,Trump 49
Obama got 52 % of the PA vote,Trump 49
Obama got 54 % of the Michigan vote,Trump 48
Obama got 53 % of the Wisconsin vote,Trump 48
Obama got 52 % of the IA vote,Trump 51 etc
Last edited:
This is factually true, though the margin of difference is less than 2 tenths of a percent (200,000 votes out of 118 million) without MI, AZ and NH fully reported. So while factually correct, I'm not sure how impactful this argument is.
Obama has stated at least twice, "Trump will not be president".
Skullduggery when the electoral college members cast their votes in December??
The Dems would like it changed so that the election is determined by popular vote. That way, all of the illegals' votes (especially if later granted amnesty and citizenship) would carry enough weight to swing the presidency to the Dems in perpetuity. ("Perpetuity" meaning... until we collapse into a totalitarian regime, of course. After which we won't have to bother with voting.)
Skullduggery when the electoral college members cast their votes in December??
The Dems would like it changed so that the election is determined by popular vote. That way, all of the illegals' votes (especially if later granted amnesty and citizenship) would carry enough weight to swing the presidency to the Dems in perpetuity. ("Perpetuity" meaning... until we collapse into a totalitarian regime, of course. After which we won't have to bother with voting.)
If it was up to four or five electoral votes, I can see them trying to change some electors.
At nine, i'll give them the benefit of the doubt but still watch very closely. I'm guessing the Trump team is watching very closely, too.
Indeed. He and reps have no mandate.