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

[Deleted]

regardless what the end result was, one side won and the other side conceded. Protesting is one thing, but continuing the way these children are is just embarrassing. You protest orderly to get your point heard and be taken seriously. The second one devolves into a riot is the second your cause should be laughed at. If as a group you can't treat your cause with respect, why should anyone else.

And honestly, there are really people out there that wanted Hillary as president. Heck if democrats wanted the white house so bad, you should have nominated a candidate that wasn't under federal investigation. I still have no clue how blind half the american public was to just ignore that. Don't even get me started on the FBI investigation, If I did something in kindergarten and was being investigated they would find it. But somehow forgot they could get subpoenas and warrants to find the info relevant to the case. Oh they destroyed almost HALF the emails, "Oh Well". I thought that was like Hillary admitting that she destroyed evidence, which in itself is a crime.

Ok, I feel I need to make this clear:
-I'm not a USA citizen.
-I don't like Hillary.
-I don't like Trump either.
-If I was an USA citizen AND a registered Democrat, I'd have voted for Bernie Sanders.
-I agree that it was a retarded move to nominate a candidate under federal investigation.

Now, onto the point. Even if she was under a federal investigation, she had not been convicted. While I am not american, I believe an important saying in the justice system is "innocent until proven guilty". Now, I believe Hillary was guilty. But I'm not a judge or jury and I may not have all the evidence they hold.
So, since Hillary has not been convicted, she's allowed to win the presidency. And people voted for her. I won't discuss their motive, since, again, I would not have voted for her if I was an american (or for Trump either). The fact remains that more people voted for her. And they lost. Because of the electoral colleges. So people protest.

Now, regarding violent protests, I will agree they are not a good idea to be heard. That being said, the communist regime fell in Romania, my country, due to a violent protest that turned into a revolution. Without that, we might still have been communist now. Our neighbor Moldova is still struggling to get out of that. So, my point here is that, in certain situations, violent protests can achieve results. But you must be willing to stake your life on it, something I doubt these protesters are doing now. In fact, i believe most (not all, but most) of those protesting violently now to the election of Trump are just asking for an excuse to... be violent.

[scaphism]

And this is acceptable under the tenet of equal rights under citizenship why?

I dont think it should be accepted but thems the rules everyone knows thems the rules. until the rules change gotta use them rules.

[zenkai]

Ok, I feel I need to make this clear:
-I'm not a USA citizen.
-I don't like Hillary.
-I don't like Trump either.
-If I was an USA citizen AND a registered Democrat, I'd have voted for Bernie Sanders.
-I agree that it was a retarded move to nominate a candidate under federal investigation.

Now, onto the point. Even if she was under a federal investigation, she had not been convicted. While I am not american, I believe an important saying in the justice system is "innocent until proven guilty". Now, I believe Hillary was guilty. But I'm not a judge or jury and I may not have all the evidence they hold.
So, since Hillary has not been convicted, she's allowed to win the presidency. And people voted for her. I won't discuss their motive, since, again, I would not have voted for her if I was an american (or for Trump either). The fact remains that more people voted for her. And they lost. Because of the electoral colleges. So people protest.

Now, regarding violent protests, I will agree they are not a good idea to be heard. That being said, the communist regime fell in Romania, my country, due to a violent protest that turned into a revolution. Without that, we might still have been communist now. Our neighbor Moldova is still struggling to get out of that. So, my point here is that, in certain situations, violent protests can achieve results. But you must be willing to stake your life on it, something I doubt these protesters are doing now. In fact, i believe most (not all, but most) of those protesting violently now to the election of Trump are just asking for an excuse to... be violent.

Yeah but I bet Romania was united, them vs the government, this is half America vs the other half. That wouldn't be a revolution, that would be civil war.

[Xires]

Hillary Clinton's lead over Donald Trump in the popular vote count has increased.
The Democratic former secretary of state, who lost the bruising presidential election to the Manhattan billionaire thanks to the electoral college is now ahead of him by more than 1.5 million votes.
The Associated Press count as of Saturday was Clinton with 63,390,669 and Trump standing at 61,820,845 – a difference of 1,569,824.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ote-count.html

Who cares? The electoral vote is important and our founding fathers understood this. A few overpopulated cities should not dictate this nations future. If you look at the election map county by county you'll see it is almost completely red wit ha few overpopulated and crime ridden blue spots. California and New York have MASSIVE populations. The electoral vote makes all 50 states have a voice that matters. We are a republic and the electoral college votes based off of that states majority which means Trump won the majority of states by a landslide.

[Zarc]

I just realized something.

I mean, of course I supported Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump, but unless Donald Trump completely corrupts the system or causes some major foreign policy catastrophes, maybe a Democratic Party transformed in the image of Bernie Sanders can emerge as the real winner in local, state and national elections over the next four years culminating in a Presidential election victory in 2020. If that is the case, since Clinton was far from an ideal candidate anyway and given that her tenure was kind of destined to be short anyhow, maybe Trump's win will turn out to be a Pyrrhic victory for the right-wingers in the long run. We can always hope.

But I digress. What I realized is that Hillary Clinton actually won the popular vote against Barack Obama in 2008 in the Democratic primaries, but lost in the delegate race. This year she actually beat Bernie Sanders by like 4 million votes, despite the repeated calls of foul from the most hardcore Bernie supporters. Only to then go on to again win the popular vote in the General by 2 million, but lose the election like she lost the 2008 Primary election. Damn that woman can't catch a break! It seems like destiny really did not favor her becoming President despite her best efforts. And of course her husbands VP won the popular vote in 2000 while losing the election. Seems like the Clinton camp is cursed to lose elections while winning the popular vote. Good thing Hillary's immense impopularity, their already long political careers and their advanced age will mean that they are now shoved aside in favor of people who might actually be able to win elections. LOL.

[Bajaber]

Eh i just mostly thing this eleciton was a giant joke. I even talked to some friends of mine outside of the us and they just said..Oh by the way all the world is laughing at you guys because your running child of a women and a loud mouth. They went to insult HIlery saying they may liek her but she is to childesh in their eyes and finds that our elecitons are becoming more like jokes and just not really caring about who runs for what anymore..just to line their pockets.

[Gray_Matter]

Its amazing that 61.8million votes was enough to vote in a president over a country with 318million ppl in it.
As a european i just wonder why you dont change the system. Whats the benefits with it? Why is the current one better than democracy?

That's a bit unfair. There are only 146 million registered voters in the US so quite a high proportion of the registered voters voted. There were 135.5 million voters in this election. Even if you look at the eligible voters then it's 219 million people so roughly 62% of eligible voters voted and 93% of registered voters. That in spite of effort by some people to make it as difficult as possible to vote.

- - - Updated - - -

Hillary Clinton's lead over Donald Trump in the popular vote count has increased.
The Democratic former secretary of state, who lost the bruising presidential election to the Manhattan billionaire thanks to the electoral college is now ahead of him by more than 1.5 million votes.
The Associated Press count as of Saturday was Clinton with 63,390,669 and Trump standing at 61,820,845 – a difference of 1,569,824.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ote-count.html

Just for the record. The popular vote margin is now 2.55 million in favor of Clinton or 1.9%. Clinton 65,228,264 to Trump 62,673,688.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...le=true#gid=19

[Slant]

Just for the record. The popular vote margin is now 2.55 million in favor of Clinton or 1.9%. Clinton 65,228,264 to Trump 62,673,688.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...le=true#gid=19

Just for the record, we don't trust random Google Documents... and don't even quote what it says at the top. :P

[Gray_Matter]

Just for the record, we don't trust random Google Documents... and don't even quote what it says at the top. :P

Not a random Google Docs document. The author is David Wasserman. A well known political analyst. Here is the page that references the document (and also has the numbers).

http://cookpolitical.com/story/10174

The document just provides more detail.

[Orlong]

Not a random Google Docs document. The author is David Wasserman. A well known political analyst. Here is the page that references the document (and also has the numbers).

http://cookpolitical.com/story/10174

The document just provides more detail.

Yeah, Im gonna believe a document written by a family member of the former DNC chair who had to resign over rigging the democratic primaries in Hillary's favor to shut out Bernie

[Gray_Matter]

Yeah, Im gonna believe a document written by the husband of the former DNC chair who had to resign over rigging the democratic primaries in Hillary's favor to shut out Bernie

DWS is married to Steve Schultz. Unless there is another ex DNC chair that you are talking about.

Here is his Bio if you are interested:

http://cookpolitical.com/about/staff/david-wasserman

He is just gathering all of the results from all over. If you don't agree with any of the figures you are welcome to post saying where they are wrong and we can double check the sources.

For example. On the California line you will see Clinton 8,559,309 and Trump 4,381,097. This matches exactly with the figures from the official California election site:

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/president/

[Baelic]

Having the popular vote is pretty meaningless if those votes are in areas that you would have won anyway, unfortunately with a first-past-the-post system any vote beyond what is needed to win is wasted.

And by "first-past-the-post" I mean the part of the election that chooses the electors or what-not happens in the US.

[Gray_Matter]

Having the popular vote is pretty meaningless if those votes are in areas that you would have won anyway, unfortunately with a first-past-the-post system any vote beyond what is needed to win is wasted.

And by "first-past-the-post" I mean the part of the election that chooses the electors or what-not happens in the US.

I agree but having the person who won 48% of the vote lose to the person who won 46% of the vote is pretty absurd. I am not implying that Trump didn't win or anything along those lines. I am just saying that the system is pretty stuffed up when, in theory, and an extreme case, a candidate can win the election with 40% of the vote against someone who has 60% of the vote.

[Felya]

Having the popular vote is pretty meaningless if those votes are in areas that you would have won anyway, unfortunately with a first-past-the-post system any vote beyond what is needed to win is wasted.

And by "first-past-the-post" I mean the part of the election that chooses the electors or what-not happens in the US.

It's not meaningless, it's a measure of the whole country. What you are describing is a bastardized version of US checks and balances, which has not been reflected in electoral college 5 times, with the last two being within the last 17 years. Here is how it's supposed to work:

1) The executives branch, which is supposed to represent the will of the country as a whole.
2) the legislative branch, which represents individual states and is not selected by the country as a whole.
3) the judicial branch, which is the mediator of the two others, which is why judges are selected by Executive, but confirmed by Legislative, without any public's vote.

This is part of why Tea Party is idiotic in name alone, when their state representative speaks at their rallies.

- - - Updated - - -

I agree but having the person who won 48% of the vote lose to the person who won 46% of the vote is pretty absurd. I am not implying that Trump didn't win or anything along those lines. I am just saying that the system is pretty stuffed up when, in theory, and an extreme case, a candidate can win the election with 40% of the vote against someone who has 60% of the vote.

The problem is that folks have an issue disconnecting Trump winning, with his win being the result of establishment in electoral vote. Trump won, but the victory is purely political, because losing the popular vote is not a way to show your ideology is prevailing... but, just that you won the presidency...

Trump said the same thing about electoral college just 4 years ago, when Romney didn't even win it. This has been an issue for at least 17 years, because it's pretty unusual. Before Gore lost, this has only happened 3 times in the history of US. We are now at 2 in just 17... the issue doesn't pointing at RNC or DNC, but the way the census generating the electoral split being the issue. This isn't a conspiracy or about rigged elections...

[Stormdash]

I agree but having the person who won 48% of the vote lose to the person who won 46% of the vote is pretty absurd. I am not implying that Trump didn't win or anything along those lines. I am just saying that the system is pretty stuffed up when, in theory, and an extreme case, a candidate can win the election with 40% of the vote against someone who has 60% of the vote.

The popular vote is the score to a game nobody was playing. No Presidential campaign in history ever has been run with an actual strategic gameplan of maximizing its total, aggregate popular vote totals. You're completely misunderstanding the system of government if you think that those outcomes are even... of interest. The United States is not a national democracy. There are no subjects in which the entire voting population of the nation votes as one in the same question, not for any office, not on any referendum. It's either myth or just mistake for those hung up on that.

When it comes to offices in the federal government, voters in the US are voting for only these three things --

a) a district-wide vote of their member of the House of Representatives
b) a state-wide vote for a member of the Senate
c) a state-wide vote to determine which slate of electors will be sworn in and sent to the electoral college.

Worth noting that it's only because of the 17th Amendment that voters must get a say on (b), and right now it would be perfectly constitutional for any or all states to simply exclude voters from (c) and have their state legislatures choose the electors.

[Baelic]

It's not meaningless, it's a measure of the whole country. What you are describing is a bastardized version of US checks and balances, which has not been reflected in electoral college 5 times, with the last two being within the last 17 years. Here is how it's supposed to work:

1) The executives branch, which is supposed to represent the will of the country as a whole.
2) the legislative branch, which represents individual states and is not selected by the country as a whole.
3) the judicial branch, which is the mediator of the two others, which is why judges are selected by Executive, but confirmed by Legislative, without any public's vote.

This is part of why Tea Party is idiotic in name alone, when their state representative speaks at their rallies.

It kind of is, unless you're suggesting that votes above the threshold needed to win a given state somehow counts for more in the electoral college. Now if we're talking about electing Senators and Congressmen (which goes by state and district... I think?) I can see your point, though even then if all your votes are tied up in a given district than that doesn't help.

We actually saw this happen too, the vast majority of people who voted for Hillary lived in high-pop cities. While the rural areas, collectively less in number in population but greater in overall coverage of the US electorate, overwhelmingly voted for Trump.

[drakonblayde]

Seriously, we need to get on board with this plan.



First off, a state isn't something that should have a higher focus over the people in it. It is just an imaginary border that people drew and gave it a name. It is just a means of governance, not a person in of itself. Secondly, the people living in those states don't have any less say than any place else. That's how voting works, and should work, unlike the current electoral college. Finally, we have states to make it easier to manage things. Just like why we have counties, and towns, and etc. It is not it's own country, as much as some people think it can be.

You are so very wrong. The name of the country is the United States of America. Statehood is a rather essential part of American culture. The constitution enumerates what powers the federal government has. Anything not granted to the federal government, the states are free to decide for themselves. That's the entire basis on how this country is setup. It's trending toward the federal becoming more powerful than the states, which is why things like the electoral college is important.

In order to better understand it, you should regard the states as their own sovereign countries. The job of the federal government is to essentially keep the interests of all the states in mind instead of letting one state grow too powerful and dictate to all the others. And that's why the Electoral College is also important - it keeps one state or a collection of large states from putting into power the chief executive, bypassing what all the other states may think.

And for all of you that think the popular vote is a big deal, keep this in mind -

The House of Representatives is where the publics direct popular votes count the most. Control of the House is important, as the Republicans demonstrated during both of Obama's terms.

Despite Hilary Clinton winning the popular vote, the Republicans still retain control of the House. How is this possible? Well, it's simple - it means the majority of Clinton voters were concentrated. That usually means major population centers, which means that anyone saying the popular vote means Clinton should be president, means that they're in favor of a small number of population centers largely directing the fate of the entire nation.

This is exactly what the founding fathers did not want.

If we ever devolve to the point where important decisions are made only by a select few areas of the country as a de facto standard of government, the road to a second civil war will begin.

[Deleted]

2016 best year, ive lmfao when brits elected to exit EU. How stupid can poeple be?

On US election day there was a new winner of the "most stupid people 2016" for voting Trump (aka Hitler 2.0) to represent USA as its President.
Make America great again? I guess every non american is rofl.

[Stormdash]

2016 best year, ive lmfao when brits elected to exit EU. How stupid can poeple be?

On US election day there was a new winner of the "most stupid people 2016" for voting Trump (aka Hitler 2.0) to represent USA as its President.
Make America great again? I guess every non american is rofl.

Well, there's still the possibility of "no" on Italy's "let's have fewer checks and balances" referendum and the possibility of Le Pen

[RickJamesLich]

Not sure why people care about this popular vote shit still - she lost. Everyone knew the rules, including all of the voters, going into this.