Hillary Clinton is now 1.5 MILLION ahead of Donald Trump in the popular vote count

[RobertMugabe]

If you subtracted the votes via illegals he would win the popular vote too.

1.) illegals can't vote.
2.) What the fuck has this to do with my comment?

[GennGreymane]

1.) illegals can't vote.
2.) What the fuck has this to do with my comment?

Its a random thing I have been reading. People want Trump to win the popular vote too. Many want Obama to have lost via the popular vote. I hear on a lot of boards and in real life that Obama lost the popular vote twice.......

[zenkai]

Why? What evidence do you have that suggests voting turnout would be "a lot different"?

Voting turnout in this country is always abysmal. We have a popular vote for gubernatorial races, and turnout is always low. Why would it be different for a Presidential election?

The people that voted are the people who are most likely to vote. If someone sat it out because "their vote didn't matter", I'm sure they'd just find some other excuse not to vote.

Common sense. If you live in a solid red or blue state, that deters voters of the opposite winning faction. Not to mention some people might not have voted 3rd party in a solid Red or Blue state out of protest.

1.5 million is only about 1% of the vote.

[Macaquerie]

Common sense. If you live in a solid red or blue state, that deters voters of the opposite winning faction. Not to mention some people might not have voted 3rd party in a solid Red or Blue state out of protest.

1.5 million is only about .01% of the vote.

0.01%? I guess overpopulation is a bigger issue than we had ever thought....

[TZucchini]

Common sense. If you live in a solid red or blue state, that deters voters of the opposite winning faction. Not to mention some people might not have voted 3rd party in a solid Red or Blue state out of protest.

1.5 million is only about .01% of the vote.

Whenever people cite "common sense" as evidence for a particular claim, it's usually a safe bet to just ignore it.

The idea that the electoral college is a deterrent for voters is, well, good enough a reason to get rid of it altogether. But there's really no data to back it up, beside a few anecdotal stories here and there. Fact is, even in solidly blue or red states, the opposition still comes out to the polls and votes.

And the idea could easily work in the opposite direction just as well, cancelling out any effect. As a liberal, if I know Connecticut is going to the Democrats, there's really no point in me going to the polls and voting.

- - - Updated - - -

0.01%? I guess overpopulation is a bigger issue than we had ever thought....

lol...I'm sure he meant 1%. Just typed it out wrong.

[Macaquerie]

Whenever people cite "common sense" as evidence for a particular claim, it's usually a safe bet to just ignore it.

The idea that the electoral college is a deterrent for voters is, well, good enough a reason to get rid of it altogether. But there's really no data to back it up, beside a few anecdotal stories here and there. Fact is, even in solidly blue or red states, the opposition still comes out to the polls and votes.

And the idea could easily work in the opposite direction just as well, cancelling out any effect. As a liberal, if I know Connecticut is going to the Democrats, there's really no point in me going to the polls and voting.

- - - Updated - - -



lol...I'm sure he meant 1%. Just typed it out wrong.

IMO, we should just get rid of percentages altogether, and just write whatever we mean as a fraction. So like if 0.51 of voters support a candidate, then she should win the election regardless of where the other 0.49 live. It's a little odd I guess, but it's not much of an adjustment and allows you to avoid confusion when comparing 51% to two-thirds, for example.

[The Casualty]

Common sense. If you live in a solid red or blue state, that deters voters of the opposite winning faction. Not to mention some people might not have voted 3rd party in a solid Red or Blue state out of protest.

1.5 million is only about .01% of the vote.

It is specious reasoning to assume that we can gauge how the popular vote would have turned out if that was the electoral system in place prior to the election for more reasons than more people turning out to vote.

Both Clinton and Trump would likely have altered their overall campaign strategy to suit a different type of race - everything to what sorts of promises they chose to hammer into the electorate as central to their platform, where advertisements ran and what kinds, and what kind of stops they made and where.

To whose advantage? Anyone who says they can read those tea leaves and knows for certain who the winner would be is lying to themselves.

All I know is just like with the EC, we would have elected a terrible person and should have vetted better in the primaries.

[Spectral]

1.) illegals can't vote.

It's not clear whether this is true in practice. There's a lot of weird results when people bother to study it. Here's a summary from Politifact where they conclude that this isn't a problem, but discuss some of the weird results in the studies. Apparently there are a pretty good chunk of people that don't really seem to know if they're citizens or not - seriously.

[barackohmama]

Bernie Sanders won teh election, get over it

[melodramocracy]

Popular vote doesn't actually determine the presidential election, which is part of the reason there's such a high amount of non-participation in the process.

Which is why I chuckle when I see folks claim that voting is any sort of civic duty.

[zenkai]

Whenever people cite "common sense" as evidence for a particular claim, it's usually a safe bet to just ignore it.

The idea that the electoral college is a deterrent for voters is, well, good enough a reason to get rid of it altogether. But there's really no data to back it up, beside a few anecdotal stories here and there. Fact is, even in solidly blue or red states, the opposition still comes out to the polls and votes.

Yes they do, I would say mostly for other reasons besides the President. But you have some people who only think voting for the President matters. I agree that the whole voting system needs to be overhauled but in no way think the popular voting method is a good replacement. That means politicians would only care about the people in high populated areas, they wouldn't give a shit about farmers and other low populated areas.

And the idea could easily work in the opposite direction just as well, cancelling out any effect. As a liberal, if I know Connecticut is going to the Democrats, there's really no point in me going to the polls and voting.

Totally, when I say the voting would be much different, I don't imply that it means Trump would have won the popular vote, Hillary could have easily even had more votes as maybe people who voted for Johnson would have voted for her instead.

- - - Updated - - -

It is specious reasoning to assume that we can gauge how the popular vote would have turned out if that was the electoral system in place prior to the election for more reasons than more people turning out to vote.

Both Clinton and Trump would likely have altered their overall campaign strategy to suit a different type of race - everything to what sorts of promises they chose to hammer into the electorate as central to their platform, where advertisements ran and what kinds, and what kind of stops they made and where.

To whose advantage? Anyone who says they can read those tea leaves and knows for certain who the winner would be is lying to themselves.

All I know is just like with the EC, we would have elected a terrible person and should have vetted better in the primaries.

I 100% agree with this.

- - - Updated - - -

0.01%? I guess overpopulation is a bigger issue than we had ever thought....

Yes, thanks for caching that, the math was .0127, I meant to say 1%, I rounded down because I didn't even add in any 3rd party votes.

[TZucchini]

I agree that the whole voting system needs to be overhauled but in no way think the popular voting method is a good replacement.

The popular vote works or governors, it works for senators and the house, it works for local elections, as well as state-wide elections. We literally use the popular vote for everything besides the Presidential election. I can't think of a single good reason as to why "1 Person, 1 Vote" is a bad idea.

That means politicians would only care about the people in high populated areas, they wouldn't give a shit about farmers and other low populated areas.

Take a look at the top 10 most highly populated cities. It comes out to 5% of the the entire population. That's no where near enough votes to win an election. In a system where 1 person equals 1 vote, that means the farmer in North Dakota is worth just as much as the businessman in New York City.

Plus, it's pretty hard to argue that politicians should provide equal attention to low populated areas as they provide to high populated areas.

[Nadiru]

Take a look at the top 10 most highly populated cities. It comes out to 5% of the the entire population. That's no where near enough votes to win an election. In a system where 1 person equals 1 vote, that means the farmer in North Dakota is worth just as much as the businessman in New York City.

Plus, it's pretty hard to argue that politicians should provide equal attention to low populated areas as they provide to high populated areas.

It's more about metropolitan areas which possess much larger portions of the country (the NY metropolitan area is almost 8% of the country alone, iirc.)

[Deleted]

And she still won't be presidente...awwwwwww

[JadedTauren]

There's a move to authenticate the votes after the exit polls also showed Hillary winning. On top of this, it turns out one of the world's best hackers took out several 43-1 odds bets on Trump winning and made millions.

[The Casualty]

The popular vote works or governors, it works for senators and the house, it works for local elections, as well as state-wide elections. We literally use the popular vote for everything besides the Presidential election. I can't think of a single good reason as to why "1 Person, 1 Vote" is a bad idea.

Playing devil's advocate here, the only one you listed where voting outcome crosses state lines is the presidential election. Everything else is intrastate. Being that we are a union of states, each one currently gets to vote independently with the state votes that (should be) going to the victor in that state. One person one vote does have an effect on the particular state you are voting in, for each of those elections.

[Animalhouse]

http://www.knowyourphrase.com/phrase...ead-Horse.html

And this has gone 45 pages LOL!

[DisposableHero]

Isn't the largest gap in popular vote in modern history ? And it's still only 1.3% more. Insane to think that we usually have a really close race for president.

No. Obama defeated Romney by almost 5 million votes in 2012. Obama defeated John McCain by almost 10 million votes in 2008. In 1964 Johnson beat Goldwater by more than 16 million votes, though not sure where you draw the line for modern.

[Dryade]

If you counted it by vote, and not by electoral vote, everyone would have equal say. Why do states need to have a say when it's the people that matter more?

How about we just get rid of the states, as well. What's the point of having states, if the people living in them don't matter or have no say in their government.

[Elegiac]

How about we just get rid of the states, as well. What's the point of having states, if the people living in them don't matter or have no say in their government.

Sounds like a good idea to me.