Clinton has gotten 2 million more votes than Trump

Post Reply New Topic

A can't help but see this as being a bit of a blow towards democray. Clinton has gotten 2 million more votes than Trump yet he has still snatched victory due to the electoral college.

That is why people are pissed. But it was never like this when Bush won the 2000 election but there were still protests but it was never this bad.

The popular vote doesn't matter and shouldn't even be counted and displayed. We're a republic and the electoral college is all that matters. Clinton knew this and she loved it when she though she had it in the bag. Liberals were chanting and predicting her getting 330 electoral votes . Only upset now caus they sore losers.
They also predicted trump would win the popular vote but said it didn't matter and that it's electoral college that wins. It's so funny that not their prediction is reversed that they cry saying we need to get rid of it.

Well let's look at it for a moment.

1 Wyoming Vote is worth 3 Californian votes. And in the case of Florida the fact that Trump won 49% of the vote automatically gave him all the state's electors, discounting the other 51% of the population. Ask yourself how is that fair?

Electoral college is a joke and does need to go.

Also I want to point out- there is several people now saying several states could have been rigged. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 33091.html


Hillary should demand investigations and recounts. After all- Trump was whining about it being rigged how much then he won? I still think it's possible he could've rigged it in his favor. Also I still strongly feel hate and fear won the election, especially because of gun nuts worried about losing their precious guns because of stuff that Hillary would probably not even do!

Why would you say that hate and fear won?

States can decide to be an all for one or split state most want to be an all for one. I don't see California or New York willingly giving up a 1/3 of their electoral votes.
Hillary got 47% in Florida so she lost Florida.
Would you have California give up 18 votes to gain 14 from Florida?
Newyork would lose 10. Oregon 4, Washington 5 and so on and so on.
Lots of people in blue states votes don't count and haven't for decades. It's up to democrats to change that system in thouse states and they won't. Like wise republicans in red states won't change it to lose votes either. Feds can't change it cause it's up to the states to decide how their electoral votes are awarded.

Worlds not fair as I'm sure you as an aspie have also found out.

Well why would they willingly slit up electoral votes if populated states like Texas and Georgia aren't willing to do the same. All that would be doing is handing the race to the Republicans. And the electoral college is actually bias against Democrats you see, states such as Illinois, New York and California get reduced electoral votes, whilst red states such as Wyoming, Nebraska and Alaska get their number increased.

Its also not just Florida and California your'e talking about its all those states in the north e.g. Michigan and Wisconsin where Trump narrowly won. She would get votes from their where before she got none.

Hillary is now up by 1.6 percent and rising. Most meta polls right before the election had Hillary up by 3 to 4 percent. Despite the polls bieng nearly unanimously condemned and mocked the final results are going to be well within the margin of error.

Blame lies not with the tool itself but in analysts who failed to understand polls are a tool or whose internal emotional belief that Trump could not possibly win clouded thier analytical judgement.

The fivethirtyeight poll based forecast site is now the laughingstock of the political junkie world. At the the end they had Trump with around a 30 percent of winning much higher then other meta analysis sites. The site was the only site that I saw that that raised the possibility of Hillary winning the popular vote and losing the electoral college.

It's funny to me how before the election when Clinton was predicted as the winner of the electoral college with all those blue state maps being shown, Clinton winning it seemed perfectly fair. I mean I don't recall hearing lot of complaining about it from the left at that time. Trump was on record saying it was unfair, which he stuck to after the election during his 60 Minutes interview. But I don't recall Clinton or the Democrats complaining it was an unfair process before the election.

Probably they mocked Trump for saying it's unfair. Mocked and rolled their eye at him saying the media was biased against him, that the system was rigged. And yet after the election, these are now the things being said by Clinton and the Democrats.

Seems it's only unfair and rigged to whomever loses.

Well except Trump I guess since he's sticking with what he originally said.

If you want to now why the electoral college should go; all you need it this article, which explains how to win the electoral college with only 22% of the popular vote.

the video below explains the same effect

Yeah that is very much a scary thing to think about.

Not allot of people know this but the 2004 election was actually allot closer than what many people think. John Kerry narrowly lost Ohio by 80,000 votes and had he won he won have taken the presidency, Despite George W Bush having a clear over 50% majority in the popular vote.

Not too long ago, that's exactly how I thought voting worked. Whoever got the most individual votes won. I mean what else? It took me quite a while to get a basic handle on the crazy electoral college system. I'm going to guess there was a big uproar in 2000 and many called for it to be abolished and rightly so.

And I wonder how many more people would have voted if the popular vote was the only system used to determine a winner.

Isn't it to make sure that the elected president is represented by the majority of states (different than represented by the majority of total population)?

At the end, he is supposed to be the president of the United States - not president of the most populous states only.

In my country for instance, a Christian vote per capita is more powerful than a Muslim vote (because Christians are only 40% of the population - yet are represented by 50% of the parliament) but that to ensure that Christian representation is not to be overshadowed by Muslims.

There was no suggestion that Trump was going to win the vote but lose the election. Clinton had about a 10% chance of it happening, while Trump had about a 0.1% chance if that.

Lots of people of all political orientations have been talking about electoral reform for a long time. The Huffington Post, a strongly left-leaning publication, published two articles on abolishing the electoral college between January and October. More representative systems are common platforms of liberal and to a lesser extent leftists worldwide.

People didn't mock Trump for saying the electoral college was unfair, they mocked him for suggesting that the only way he could lose would be if the election was rigged, they mocked him for saying he'd refuse to accept the result (Clinton conceded very quickly), and they mocked him for suggesting Romney only lost because of the electoral college.


Under the current system, a president can win with only 11 states. In theory, you could win the Presidency with 50% in 11 states and 0% in the others (or even lower if there are more parties). That wouldn't be possible if the popular vote were used.

This is the intent indeed, but it doesn't work that way (anymore).
The bigger and more populous states get more electoral votes than the smaller ones, to make a president truly represent everyone; New York state should get the same amount of representatives as alaska, which isn't the case.

another problem is the "winner takes all" distribution: in a state with 10 representatives (for example), the candidate with the most votes (which can be as low as 30% with 4 or 5 independents), will get all 10 representatives, instead of the 3 he has 'earned' in the 30% example.

the electoral college can work as a way of getting small states equal representation, by "upgrading" a persons vote there, but the current method fails to do so.