Clinton’s popular vote lead surpasses two million.

[pauldun170]

Clinton’s popular vote lead surpasses two million.
With new votes tallied from New Jersey, Illinois, Maryland and California, Mrs. Clinton’s popular vote lead reached 2,017,563 overnight.
Mrs. Clinton’s lead now exceeds the winning percentages of seven presidents, five of whom also won the Electoral College. And it has given rise to a push from liberal activists to demand audits in three states won narrowly by Mr. Trump: Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

But mainly it is pointing toward a structural disadvantage Democrats have with the Electoral College: Their voters are too concentrated in the bright blue states of the West Coast and Northeast. Democrats have now won the popular vote in six of the last seven presidential elections, but lost two of them (Al Gore in 2000, and Mrs. Clinton now) in the Electoral College.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/23/us/politics/donald-trump-transition.html?_r=0

 

[MomentsofSanity]

While it makes a fun talking point it's irrelevant as long as the popular vote going in was meaningless at the time people were voting. People from the "other team" don't vote as enthusiastically in no contest states.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

While it makes a fun talking point it's irrelevant as long as the popular vote going in was meaningless at the time people were voting. People from the "other team" don't vote as enthusiastically in no contest states.

Completely agree.

It works for both sides for however you want to flip it. People in the north east and california would have voted republican, people in texas and the south east would have voted democrat, etc.. etc...

All in all, a completely useless talking point and another stupid thread to make. Complain about the election process AFTER you lose. Christ, you sound like kids complaining about rules of the sports gamenot being fair after you lose. Pathetic.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Trumps lead in the actual ELECTION remains overwhelming.

 

[fskimospy]

Completely agree.

It works for both sides for however you want to flip it. People in the north east and california would have voted republican, people in texas and the south east would have voted democrat, etc.. etc...

All in all, a completely useless talking point and another stupid thread to make. Complain about the election process AFTER you lose. Christ, you sound like kids complaining about rules of the sports gamenot being fair after you lose. Pathetic.

It seems pretty important to remember that Trump lost the popular vote by the largest margin in history for a winning candidate. It doesn't mean that the election results should be changed or anything but it would be silly not to recognize that in every voter metric that exists: polls of registered voters, polls of likely voters, and actual voters on election day, Clinton was the choice of more Americans.

I don't know why conservatives react with such immediate anger and contempt when this is pointed out other than they feel that it impacts Trump's legitimacy.

 

[Commodus]

Trumps lead in the actual ELECTION remains overwhelming.

I'm not sure I'd call it overwhelming. It is important to remember that, even if all the electoral college votes according to state wins (it won't in at least a few cases), Trump's lead in a few key states is not only small, but has been shrinking as the final vote counts have gone up. That hoopla over demanding audits in certain states? That's because the margin of victory is so slim that an error could hand Clinton the win in some situations.

I'm not expecting Clinton to win the election through audits, but Trump doesn't have the clear mandate from the people that you saw for Obama in 2008 and 2012.

 

[vi edit]

Still want to know why it's not reasonable to award electorate votes per state as a percentage of voting. If the vote is split 75/25 then give 75% of the electoral votes for the state to that candidate and the remaining to the other. Rinse and repeat for all 50 states. Then winner overall of electorate tally takes it.

It'd give Democrats in places like Kentucky and Alabama a voice.
Republicans in downstate IL, upper NY, and huge areas of California a voice and more value in voting.
Would help cut down on the nonstop pandering to swing states where literally a couple thousand votes could swing an entire election.
And then ultimately cut down on some of the angst of popular vote vs. not my vote being as important that always happens.
Hell, depending on just how many votes a 3rd party gets, they could be legitimately disruptive by being able to peel away a few votes here and there.

I think as our country continues to polarize into huge urban centers vs. rural the way that electorates work isn't..well...working. I don't think straight up popular vote is the answer. But some revision is required.

 

[Qwertilot]

Of course it would be reasonable, hard to imagine anyone sanely arguing against it actually

The problem is (as I understand it from the outside) that its a matter under state control and obviously no state wants to be the first to move for the very obvious reasons. You'd need to do it for the whole country at once so serious work, and likely bipartisan stuff too, of the sort that seems really quite hard in American politics just now.

 

[fskimospy]

Still want to know why it's not reasonable to award electorate votes per state as a percentage of voting. If the vote is split 75/25 then give 75% of the electoral votes for the state to that candidate and the remaining to the other. Rinse and repeat for all 50 states. Then winner overall of electorate tally takes it.

It'd give Democrats in places like Kentucky and Alabama a voice.
Republicans in downstate IL, upper NY, and huge areas of California a voice and more value in voting.
Would help cut down on the nonstop pandering to swing states where literally a couple thousand votes could swing an entire election.
And then ultimately cut down on some of the angst of popular vote vs. not my vote being as important that always happens.
Hell, depending on just how many votes a 3rd party gets, they could be legitimately disruptive by being able to peel away a few votes here and there.

I think as our country continues to polarize into huge urban centers vs. rural the way that electorates work isn't..well...working. I don't think straight up popular vote is the answer. But some revision is required.

You would probably want to increase the electoral votes then by a factor of 100 or so as otherwise you'd be turning elections based on stupid rounding.

Even then I'm still trying to figure out why a national popular vote isn't the answer. The governor of California is elected by a statewide popular vote. Anyone who's lived in California knows that the rural areas and the urban areas are as different as any two places you're likely to find in the country. Should California adopt a mini electoral college and give extra votes to the rural areas? Same with New York. Downstate and upstate are like two different countries. Should upstate get bonus governor points?

People seem to reject it for governors but embrace it for the presidency and I can't see the difference.

 

[vi edit]

Yes the fractional rounding would certainly be something that would have to be addressed. Either through electoral inflation to address percentages, or just hard set scales where voting percents equate to specific electoral vote amounts. Not every state would round out easily, especially if you have third parties being highly represented in low electorate states.

And that's really why I still think the electorate has *some* value. I think it's the only way a third party candidate could really be viable. Give them a chance to strip away votes little by little. Give people some hope that voting 3rd party is literally not throwing away a vote. They actually get *something* to show for their votes that could actually make a difference over time. It removes a bit of the baked in binary nature of our politics.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes the fractional rounding would certainly be something that would have to be addressed. Either through electoral inflation to address percentages, or just hard set scales where voting percents equate to specific electoral vote amounts. Not every state would round out easily, especially if you have third parties being highly represented in low electorate states.

And that's really why I still think the electorate has *some* value. I think it's the only way a third party candidate could really be viable. Give them a chance to strip away votes little by little. Give people some hope that voting 3rd party is literally not throwing away a vote. They actually get *something* to show for their votes that could actually make a difference over time. It removes a bit of the baked in binary nature of our politics.

But how is it really any different if we 'give' them say, 5% of the electoral votes vs. them just having 5% of the popular vote?

I think the reason why national third parties will likely never exist is Duverger's Law. Basically it says if a plurality of the votes gives you 100% of the representation then people will naturally trend towards two parties because people vote strategically. Any third party will certainly occupy a space slightly closer to either the Democratic or Republican parties and will therefore siphon more votes from one than the other. This basically ensures that the party the 3rd party voters like the least will win most of the time. Voters don't like this and so they naturally abandon third parties.

The way to fix this is with instant runoff voting IMO.

 

[Sunburn74]

The EC is an embarrassment to democracy. An absolute embarrassment. This system has to change.

 

[Commodus]

But how is it really any different if we 'give' them say, 5% of the electoral votes vs. them just having 5% of the popular vote?

I think the reason why national third parties will likely never exist is Duverger's Law. Basically it says if a plurality of the votes gives you 100% of the representation then people will naturally trend towards two parties because people vote strategically. Any third party will certainly occupy a space slightly closer to either the Democratic or Republican parties and will therefore siphon more votes from one than the other. This basically ensures that the party the 3rd party voters like the least will win most of the time. Voters don't like this and so they naturally abandon third parties.

The way to fix this is with instant runoff voting IMO.

The kicker is that there are many countries where more than two parties stand a realistic chance of winning, and they don't necessarily have runoffs. The two-party dichotomy is mostly a function of systems like that in the US, where it would take a massive surge in popularity for a third party to even stand a chance.

 

[Roflmouth]

Still want to know why it's not reasonable to award electorate votes per state as a percentage of voting..

To anger you.

 

[Roflmouth]

The EC is an embarrassment to democracy. An absolute embarrassment. This system has to change.

Now that Granny has lost with it

 

[Moonbeam]

Now that Granny has lost with it

What a misogynistic sick piece of garbage you are.

 

[Puffnstuff]

In a society where the majority rules I find the electoral college ripe for reform. I know it was created as a way to provide equal representation to states with lower populations but when the popular vote is so wide between the candidates then I believe that there should be some provisional rules that take precedence. In essence it silences the voices of far too many people and needs to be amended.

 

[blankslate]

The EC is an embarrassment to democracy. An absolute embarrassment. This system has to change.

that may be true but if Secretary of State Clinton ran a better campaign she could have won despite the EC just as President Obama did.... twice

but she ran a horrible one. How else can you explain losing to the orange clown of rage? there is no other explanation.


____________

 

[fskimospy]

What a misogynistic sick piece of garbage you are.

It's also funny that Trump is older than she is.

 

[lopri]

Of course it would be reasonable, hard to imagine anyone sanely arguing against it actually

The problem is (as I understand it from the outside) that its a matter under state control and obviously no state wants to be the first to move for the very obvious reasons. You'd need to do it for the whole country at once so serious work, and likely bipartisan stuff too, of the sort that seems really quite hard in American politics just now.

Incorrect. There are 11 states that already made the move.

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/status

 

[raildogg]

So what? It doesn't really matter what puppet is in the White House. There have been many Presidents in the US. What difference do any of them make?

The system gets more and more rigged each year.

Remember, the elected officials are there to serve the elites (various types) and not the average person. The average person enthusiastically votes and spends his time and energy on politics in the false hope of picking a great candidate. His candidates always end up disappointing him.

This is the system that has been created on purpose. It's working very well for the powerful elites. You can vote but it doesn't change a thing.

 

[senseamp]

You are about to find out why it matters.

 

[Jhhnn]

that may be true but if Secretary of State Clinton ran a better campaign she could have won despite the EC just as President Obama did.... twice

but she ran a horrible one. How else can you explain losing to the orange clown of rage? there is no other explanation.


____________

Or, you know, if the public hadn't held her to a much higher standard than Donald for the purposes of honest comparison... Maybe if she wasn't being sniped at continuously as a result of that she'd be president.

Were you part of the problem or part of the solution?

 

[raildogg]

You are about to find out why it matters.

Yes, Trump will pick partisan and "extreme" people who will shock us with their decisions. But really, after Bush, who killed maybe a million+ Iraqis and Afghanis on the basis of "security," how much more shock will there be? Will Trump bring racism as a mainstream movement? Ok, and? These people have already been there. What else? Trump will remove certain things like ACA or make some change to the EPA?

Trump will not be as extreme as people think. This guy is already softening his approach. He said he will think about global warming. He also says he will not go after Hillary. These two things he campaigned on but he is already starting to go back on his word.

Just another lying elite politician. As they all are.

 

[Arachnotronic]

that may be true but if Secretary of State Clinton ran a better campaign she could have won despite the EC just as President Obama did.... twice

but she ran a horrible one. How else can you explain losing to the orange clown of rage? there is no other explanation.


____________

The people who ran her campaign thought they had the rust belt states "in the bag" and told Bill Clinton to stuff it when he told them that they should focus on those voters.

The individuals who ran her campaign might be qualified to run their kids' school president campaigns, but that's about it.