Clinton won popular vote because of one single state?

[Captain N]

You mean like the millions of people who vote red in California? I'm sure those ~4.5 million voters would love to have system where their votes weren't automatically ignored every 4 years.

Also look at Illinois -- The entire state is almost red with the exception of Cook County due to Chicago.

That's 5.2 million in the County with 2.7 residing within the city.

12.88 million is the entire state -- On a popular scale the state would be in Republican hands.

A shame only 5.5 million in the entire state voted.

[Prokne]

I think the argument the article is attempting to make is even CA suddenly didn't exist she would have lost?

And if the same population of people from red states didn't exist (or the states didn't) then Hillary would have won. It is a dumb argument - "If all the states that voted for Trump/Hillary didn't exist, Hillary/Trump would have won." Well, duh.

[Yuujin]

Yup, at state level... because the US is a group of states, not a single state.

And this brings us back to the argument of states don't vote, people do.

[Prokne]

I really don't understand how people rationalize that "a lot of people live in one arbitrary area, so they matter less" Who cares how many people live in california, a vote is a vote is a vote. california is not a hivemind, and every vote from there, and everwhere else should count equally. and before someone comes back with stupid "tyranny of majority" arguments. winning a vote is tyranny now? thats how democracy works? so our current system is tyranny of the minority? that logic is self defeating.

Actually votes for president in California count less than votes in any other state does. Votes in states like Wyoming are worth 2 or more votes in CA.

[NihilSustinet]

Actually votes for president in California count less than votes in any other state does. Votes in states like Wyoming are worth 2 or more votes in CA.

yes. thats exactly the point i was making......... i was questioning how people rationalize that that's OK.

[Delana]

And this brings us back to the argument of states don't vote, people do.

They do in US presidential elections.

[callipygoustp]

Source: http://www.investors.com/politics/co...om-california/



So assuming this report is accurate, people really prefer the popular vote over the EC?

I like knowing my vote counts for 1/3rd or 1/5th of the vote cast by a citizen of some other states. No problem with that at all. Excuse me while I pay some more federal taxes to fund the under performing red states.

[Kryos]

I like knowing my vote counts for 1/3rd or 1/5th of the vote cast by a citizen of some other states. No problem with that at all. Excuse me while I pay some more federal taxes to fund the under performing red states.

Wouldn't it be fair to only pay 1/3 or 1/5 taxes if your vote only counts 1/3 or 1/5?

[Blueobelisk]

I want to go on record saying I'm fine with NY/Cali deciding the election. Who cares about those other states, anyway.

[SidFwuff]

California didn't cast 65,000,000 votes in favor of Hillary Clinton, so no, she didn't win the popular vote because of one state.

Um, what?

The article says so. Right here:

Popular vote total outside California:
Trump: 58,474,401
Clinton: 57,064,530
_________________
Trump: + 1.4 million

If it wasn't for California, Trump would have won the popular vote because he did win the popular vote outside of California.

On the other hand, if you drop any state you wish, Trump still has more electoral votes than Hillary- so you can't say any one state gave him his victory like you can with Hilary and the popular vote.

In any case, popular vote doesn't work here in Canada either. People in California have concerns or agendas completely different than those in rural Texas, or fishermen in your New England states.

This is before, of course, you get into the whole issue of turnout in the traditional blue or red states. For example, did Trump get a lower turnout in California because there is no real point for Republican votes in the state, including in the rural areas?

I mean, if you're a Republican in California, why vote for Trump when all Electoral votes are going to Hilary anyway? The same can be said for democrats in Idaho or Wyoming.

Note, though, that California has more than 25 times the population of Idaho. So even if 30% of Idaho actually wanted Hilary but didn't vote... that'd be a drop in the bucket. 5% of California being for Trump and not voting...well, that'd be enough to give Trump the popular vote.

[bmjclark]

Does it really matter where the votes came from? More american citizens voted for a candidate that lost anyways.

[NihilSustinet]

I want to go on record saying I'm fine with NY/Cali deciding the election. Who cares about those other states, anyway.

with a popular vote, the states where people vote are completely irrelevant. NY and Cali won't decide the vote, but a lot of the voters who live there might, and I'm fine with that too.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Did I miss someone saying it was a Republican conspiracy? And no, it really doesn't despite how you try to spin it. It hasn't impacted Republicans so they don't need to complain.

And Democrats didn't complain until recently, so yeah, my point stands.

[callipygoustp]

Wouldn't it be fair to only pay 1/3 or 1/5 taxes if your vote only counts 1/3 or 1/5?

Fuck yeah it would!

[Kryos]

with a popular vote, the states where people vote are completely irrelevant. NY and Cali won't decide the vote, but a lot of the voters who live there might, and I'm fine with that too.

No with the popular vote (no more electoral system) every single vote counts exactly the same. It wouldn't matter where the American lives. One person, one vote. No more "winner takes it all" on state level. If 49% vote blue and 51% vote red in a state the 49% votes wouldn't get ignored and the state would be "red" anymore. Every single vote would be counted and then you would check who got the majority of the votes in all of the US.

[NihilSustinet]

No with the popular vote (no more electoral system) every single vote counts exactly the same. It wouldn't matter where the American lives. One person, one vote. No more "winner takes it all" on state level. If 49% vote blue and 51% vote red in a state the 49% votes wouldn't get ignored and the state would be "red" anymore. Every single vote would be counted and then you would check who got the majority of the votes in all of the US.

why do people keep quoting me, repeating the exact point i just made?

[KrazyK923]

Why is it more unfair...more people live in California.

You do realize that population is what qualifies what number of Representatives are in the House, right?

If we're going to cry about California, then we should also probably acknowledge that the state alone is the 6th largest economy in the entire world.

Its way more nonsensical that a state like Alaska or North Dakota should be on par with a highly populated, highly economical state like California or New York or Texas or Illinois.

[Theodarzna]

You need a valid SS# to register in California.

Yeah, I am sure California DMV's are not registering illegals in any significant number to matter.

California is just safe territory for the Democrats.

[NihilSustinet]

I want to go on record saying I'm fine with NY/Cali deciding the election. Who cares about those other states, anyway.

to be fair though, cali only has ~12% of US population, NY has ~6%, so even if EVERY person voted the same with in both of those states, and even if voter turnout was only 50% everywhere else, that still wouldnt be enough to win a popular vote without any other votes. people who think NY and Cali would decide every vote if we got rid of the EC really havent done the math.

[truckboattruck]

the united states is not a direct democracy
it is a republic

deal with it