November 9, 2016

Not much talk about the popular vote.

Is that odd? It looks as though Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, but there's little talk about that. I guess we Americans understand the Electoral College. I think it's obvious that if Trump had been going for the popular vote, he would have campaigned in California and New York. There were stores of potential votes that could have been opened up in many places. Clinton too could have drummed up more votes in states she couldn't win or in states she knew she'd win by a wide margin. The popular vote is a stray statistic relating to a game that wasn't played.

Do Americans understand that much better than we did in 2000, when Al Gore won the popular vote? Probably not. What was different in 2000 that generated so much talk about the popular vote was that the Electoral College vote was decided by such a narrow edge that it felt like a tie, and the popular vote seemed to point at the fairer outcome. I mean, it seemed that way if you were for Gore.

But the Electoral College is decisive this time, and that is how the Electoral College usually functions, sparing us the delay and anxiety of nationwide recounts.

131 comments:

dreams said...

That was the 2000 election. Been there, done that.

Michael K said...

Look at the map. Hillary's popular vote came from small crowded cities and immediate suburbs. Plus of course the 60,000 felons in Virginia.

Mac McConnell said...

The popular vote means as much as one's dart skills on the golf course.

CJ said...

Turnout actually down from 2004 - GWB got 62 million votes, Romney got 58 million.

I was sorta hoping that the disingenuously nonpartisan "go vote!" campaigns from celebrities would end as soon as they saw that driving white turnout would go badly for Democrats, but it seems that they need to Rock The Vote and Vote or Die! even harder since HRC's vote totals are down so far from Obama's.

Also - are we going to get some columns on how sexist it was that blacks didn't turn out for HRC the way women turned out for Barack?

AprilApple said...

If we did away with the Electoral College - New York and California would select our president.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Are there voter breakdowns yet? I understand he did better with women, blacks and Latinos than Romney. Yet turnout is down or flat. Striking.

Limited blogger said...

Electoral votes should be determined by land mass of the state, not population.

Then we would really see a landslide.

Truthavenger said...

Hillary ran up huge popular vote margins in California, New York, and Illinois. Why should those states dictate the outcome for all the rest of us?

Hurray for the Electoral College!

Simon said...

It is surprising. It'll come, I think, but right now everyone is too shocked to get there.

Simon said...

The concern must be that if she wins the popular-vote, pushing for abolition of the electoral college will become the tentpole around which the Democrats rebuild.

Alexander said...

The minute a Democrat gives you grief about the popular vote and "all votes ought to count", say you completely agree, and that you advocate for a Nebraska/Maine -style being utilized nationwide: including California, Illinois, New York...

Spiros Pappas said...

It must be shocking to wake up to exit polls indicating that 30% of Latinos voted for Trump. Not a dollar or a second was spent on persuading massive Latino populations in New York or California to vote Trump! And if there is a "Shy Trump Effect," then it is more likely to hit Latinos than anybody else. Maybe the exit polls are wrong, maybe more Latinos voted for Trump than are prepared to admit. As a result, the Latino vote can no longer be considered a reliable part of the Democratic coalition. This is completely unexpected.

George Grady said...

Turnout wasn't as far down as it might seem by only looking at the Trump and Clinton totals. Third party candidates got almost 5% of the popular vote, compared to only about 2% in 2012.

David Begley said...

Splitting Electoral College votes in Nebraska must stop. There have been bills to repeal this and NE Gov is behind it.

traditionalguy said...

I bet Venezuela and Cuba would settle for any honest election at all. Communist Gulag Prisoners must be feeling the hopes the USSR's did when Reagan spoke about freedom.

To bad they were disarmed by noble Gun Control.

Matthew Sablan said...

"The minute a Democrat gives you grief about the popular vote and "all votes ought to count", say you completely agree, and that you advocate for a Nebraska/Maine -style being utilized nationwide: including California, Illinois, New York"

-- That's not fair to people who want a pure popular vote though, as you're substituting a slightly more popular vote-ish solution without accepting what they're actually proposing. [Note: I am actually a fan of a district-by-district style used nation wide, but it feels disingenuous to offer that in place of a pure popular vote as a sort of equivalency.]

n.n said...

crowded cities and immediate suburbs

Exactly. Debased capital and labor, and class diversity (e.g. racism, sexism), are key issues in areas served by liberal fiscal policies (e.g. debt, leverage), high density population centers, and large minorities with chauvinistic ambitions. A target population served and exploited by perpetual smoothing functions, class warfare, a robust abortion industry, and Planned Parenthood.

lemondog said...

Also - are we going to get some columns on how sexist it was that blacks didn't turn out for HRC the way women turned out for Barack?

Tried to post at another site.......how ‘about the stupid white male voters....

Philadelphia Inquirer columnist:

It appeared that uneducated white male voters were about to have their way. Instead of putting someone into office who was eminently qualified and just happened to be a woman, they went for a reality-TV star as their commander-in-chief. What did they think this was, a video game?


Shame on them.





Matthew Sablan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Luke Lea said...

People talk about making popular vote decisive in a true democracy. But the Electoral College is baked into the Constitution and can never be changed, realistically speaking. The smaller states will never go for it. The best you can hope for, if you favor the popular vote, is for more states to go the way of Nebraska and Maine, making division of electors proportional to the popular vote. Now that is imaginable. What ways Ann?

mikee said...

When in 2012 Obama, much to my surprise, won his second term, I made a $100 bet with my wife that Hillary would be the next president. I did so in the fully cynical assumption that the US was absolutely beyond redemption, in the hands of corrupt government and corrupt business and corrupt culture.

It is with great pleasure that today I have to go to the bank and get a nice crisp $100 bill to pay my wife her winnings.

Maybe, if I am humble enough about it, she will use it to take us both out to eat somewhere nice.

n.n said...

crowded cities and immediate suburbs

This is an example to justify the electoral college as a democratic firewall. The issues in high density population centers are creations of circumstance and opportunity that cannot and should not affect the rest of the country.

Bill Peschel said...

IIRR, the problem was the vote count in Florida, which if it had shifted to Gore would have won him the presidency.

Later, The New York Times unleashed its investigative reporters who had to conclude, very reluctantly, that Bush had won Florida fair and square.

And forgot to mention that if Gore had won Tennessee, he would have won the presidency.

As for Trump, The Hill's recent article listed this breakdown:

"An Associated Press analysis found Clinton bested Trump by 13 points among women — no better than the margin Obama got in 2008 or 2012.

"Trump, meanwhile, got the support of 70 percent of white men without a college education, besting Mitt Romney’s showing by 10 points, the AP study found.

"Whereas Obama received about 33 percent support from white men without a college degree, Clinton received just over 20 percent support."

tim in vermont said...

The electoral college is the only firewall we have against wholesale fraud in certain states.

Seeing Red said...

Dead white slave owners rule! SNARK!

Our Founding Fathers were brilliant.

Darrell said...

Trump will take the popular vote, too, in the end. By about 0.7% . . .

tim in vermont said...

It was nice to see Inga again, arrived to gloat over the flawed exit polls that had PA going to Clinton already early in the day.

traditionalguy said...

The best attack angle that I saw on the enemy media was that this was a mere one time aberration because it was from Trump's unrepeatable talent, one time.

The end of White Supremacy is still the war cry of the brainwashed and immigration will do it.

Seeing Red said...

Dead white slave owners rule! SNARK!

Our Founding Fathers were brilliant.

tim in vermont said...

I wish Mick would show up again, just once, even if he was a sock puppet meant to mock us. Whoever was running him should be magnanimous and give him a curtain call. I suspect PB&J.

tim in vermont said...

Talked a little more to my personal trainer, Hispanic Trump voter. She has a lot of religious faith, which the Democrats mock.

Gusty Winds said...

Luckily wide margins in liberal places like NY and California are not what determines everything for the rest of the country.

n.n said...

She has a lot of religious faith

A moral philosophy to guide individuals capable of self-moderating, responsible behavior. Competing interests to prevent others from running amuck.

mccullough said...

Winning the popular vote means getting over 50%. This is the 4th time in the last 8 elections that no candidate has broken the 50% mark. He did it in 1988, W did it in 2004 and Obama did it twice. If we are going to amend the Constitution to use the popular vote, which isn't a bad idea we should require the winner to break 50%. If the winner doesn't break 50%, then the governors of the 50 states get to select whoever they want who must get at least 30 votes

Darrell said...

Mick already showed on other threads. Find them

MaxedOutMama said...

Still waiting for the Hillary put-it-to-bed speech.

I feel sorry for her, until I recall that she sold the country out as Secretary of State. Nonetheless, I'd like to see her carry this off with some dignity.

lemondog said...

Livestream concession speech if you are interested

Ooops......wrong link Livestream

protestmanager said...

It will be weeks before we have a final popular vote.

We have an Electoral College answer now.

Hell, when most people went to bed, Trump was still leading the popular vote.

madAsHell said...

I suspect PB&J.

Really, Mick a sock puppet? I don't think so. He's been around for several years, and seems quite sincere in his comments.

Do we have to wait for the inauguration to appoint a special prosecutor? They'll have two months to destroy evidence.

lemondog said...

Livestream disappeared.......sorry

madAsHell said...

How likely is it that Hillary won the popular vote? I'm surprised she had any votes.

This is one of the factoids that is spread by the George Stephanopolis's of the world. It's a talking point lie that can't be proved, but does advance the notion that the system is rigged.

Quaestor said...

If we did away with the Electoral College - New York and California would select our president.

The Founders knew that back in 1787, except they feared the domination of New York and Pennsylvania. They realized quickest way to dissolve the nascent Union was to convince the smaller States that their voices didn't count.

protestmanager said...

traditionalguy said...
The best attack angle that I saw on the enemy media was that this was a mere one time aberration because it was from Trump's unrepeatable talent, one time.

The response is that Obama was certainly an "unrepeatable talent". Which can be seen be the complete destruction of the Democrat Party over his 8 years in office.

Unless same happens to GOP under Trump, shrug.

Curious George said...

"It looks as though Hillary Clinton won the popular vote..."

I think theer should be a 2nd Place Ribbon or something for that.

Bob Ellison said...

Similarly, the red-blue, nation-wide, county-by-county map would indicate a Trump victory of probably 90%-10%. Even in NY, it looks like 75/25, and in CA, it's 50/50 or so.

Flyover citizens look at that and shake their heads.

Smells like Brexit.

damikesc said...

Also, given how Democrats happily rig votes, I wouldn't trust a national popular vote whatsoever.

The concern must be that if she wins the popular-vote, pushing for abolition of the electoral college will become the tentpole around which the Democrats rebuild.

There is literally no path for that. Can't even make a case against in Court.

Turnout wasn't as far down as it might seem by only looking at the Trump and Clinton totals. Third party candidates got almost 5% of the popular vote, compared to only about 2% in 2012.

That the LP couldn't get 5% is great.

Jake said...

If they gripe about the virtue pure majorities they won't be able to easily go back and claim that the filibuster is a necessary tool in the Senate.

Matthew Sablan said...

If third parties want to hit 5%, they need to run on a party that's goal is just to get to the magic number. A Stein/Johnson or Johnson/Stein: Options for America Party could've hit 5%.

Quaestor said...

I just checked the FoxNews site. They still show Michigan, Arizona, Minnesota, Alaska and New Hampshire as un-called. What the fuck is wrong with the voting systems in those states?? I can sorta understand Alaska's untimeliness, having to hand-deliver paper ballots by dogsled or umiak, and Minnesota, having to translate everything from Sudanese-inflected Norwegian, but fucking New Hampshire?

tim in vermont said...

I am really happy to hear that Mick is real! I might buy him a drink if he knows of a bar that takes bitcoin.

Alex said...

The 11 states that have signed up to hand their electoral votes over to the popular vote winner are *surprise* super blue states that vote Democrat anyways! The Trump Wall of red states will never go this way.

AMDG said...

A nationwide popular vote is not practical. Can you imagine having to endure a national recount?

The solution is a modified electoral system. 1 vote for winning a congressional district and two votes for winning a state.

tim in vermont said...

I confess to my shame that I seldom read Mick's comments because I was convinced he was either deluded or a sock puppet. Oh me of little faith.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

You must not be listening to NPR, Professor. They have worked "she won the popular vote" about 4 times in the last 10 minutes.

rhhardin said...

Armstrong and Getty are speculating that Hillary will unconcede in this upcoming speech, and another debate would be a good idea.

tim in vermont said...

Tim Kaine, first words out of his mouth.

tim in vermont said...

Huma is a hottie. I don't blame Hillary.

CStanley said...

So glad that HRC did not become the first female president. I know this defeat must be hard for her but she's showing such a lack of grace. I hope when she finally appears she gives a decent concession.

rhhardin said...

"A bunch of children are being ushered in, Hillary must be coming out."

rhhardin said...

Hillary lost to sexism.

tim in vermont said...

And racism, don't forget that everybody who voted against her or didn't vote for her is racist.

Rick said...

It looks as though Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, but there's little talk about that.

This seems easy to summarize as refusing to accept the results of the election. Given the media histrionics declaiming such are only a few weeks old I suspect this grousing won't be for public consumption. Instead they'll mention this only to the in-group, then it will emerge as left wing conventional wisdom when today's college kids are journalists.

rhhardin said...

The speculation is that Hillary is under heavy sedation.

I'm listening several minutes back on streaming. Some guy is going on and on. Armstrong and Getty screamed at him to shut up.

tim in vermont said...

Checkers! Checkers!

"You won't have Hillary Clinton to kick around anymore..."

rhhardin said...

"We don't need to hear from this guy it's a waste of everybody's time. Turn it down. How long is he going to talk?"

tim in vermont said...

First time I was happy to see her face since before I came to realize what a couple of scum those two are.

Bruce Hayden said...

The electoral college is the only firewall we have against wholesale fraud in certain states.

Look at what we had this election. The VA gov (and loyal Clintonista) pardoned 60,000 felons so that they could vote, and sent them prestamped envelopes to vote with (which wasn't apparently the case for anyone else). And, that was roughly Crooked Hillary's margin of victory there. And, then, you had President Obama telling illegals that they were entitled to vote because, deep down, they were really citizens. The Dems have long opposed purging voting rolls of ineligible voters (including dead ones), along with having to provide any sort of identification in order to vote. I think that it is highly likely that the margin of fraud in this election (esp. if you throw in the VA Gov pardoning all those felons) is probably far higher than Crooked Hillary's popular vote margin (less than 200k last time I looked). With the electoral college, the rampant cheating isn't nearly as important, because it probably mostly occurs in heavily Blue States. Who cares if 100k illegals voted in CA, since her margin of victory was far, far higher there?

Which is to say that the Republicans would never, ever, agree to amending the Constitution to provide for popular election of Presidents until they could guarantee that voter fraud was minimized, and that voting requirements were uniform across the country (which we aren't going to see any time soon, due to federalism).

rhhardin said...

"What do you want to do here? I can't take it. There's five minutes of my life I won't get back. Let's go to commercials."

tim in vermont said...

That lazy eye is something else. Imagine what SNL would have done with that were she a Republican.

tim in vermont said...

Freedom or warship! Paging Dr Freud!

johns said...

I am seeing Trump ahead in the popular vote by 0.1% on RCP. Is that wrong or out of date?
Also, the reason some states have not been declared is partly because of provisional votes. These have to be ruled on. This is often Democratic vote fraud, so I hope it is looked at closely.

rhhardin said...

I propose an election system based on musical chairs.

Bruce Hayden said...

I just checked the FoxNews site. They still show Michigan, Arizona, Minnesota, Alaska and New Hampshire as un-called. What the fuck is wrong with the voting systems in those states?? I can sorta understand Alaska's untimeliness, having to hand-deliver paper ballots by dogsled or umiak, and Minnesota, having to translate everything from Sudanese-inflected Norwegian, but fucking New Hampshire?

I just figured that they weren't complete enough when the "callers" went home last night, after Trump hit 279. It is now a bit absurd though, esp. with states showing 99% complete, and a margin greater than the remaining 1%.

rcocean said...

Did she really win the popular vote? Given the amount of Democrat voter fraud in Blue states and Big cities I doubt it.

Another point, she won Calf and NY over 4 million votes - but large numbers of (R) in both states have given up. They know their vote doesn't count - and don't bother. If those states had Electoral votes by CD, the vote totals would be different.

tim in vermont said...

I still think that Bill and Donnie made a $1 bet in that meeting they had. DJT will light a cigar with it.

rcocean said...

The number of non-citizens who vote in California is staggering. The whole voting process operates on the "honor system". Not only that, but illegals with Drivers Licnenses can automatically vote (Motor voter). Its against the law to ask for proof of citizenship.

Not to mention anyone can cast a mail in ballot, and no one checks to see if the person is alive or even exists. As a joke I've sent in ballots with my dogs name on them, and got them accepted.

tim in vermont said...

Maybe Sandy Duncan can play her in the biopic!

Jack Wayne said...

A liberal conlaw prof does not know about the Tyranny of the Cities? Say it ain't so.

tim in vermont said...

Good bye old pervert!

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Just after the speech, NPR: "this must be especially tough for her since it looks like she will win the popular vote. That could be significant politically just as it was for Al Gore."

They are definitely talking about it, Professor.

rcocean said...

"They are definitely talking about it, Professor."

Of course, we will now be hearing constantly about how Trump has no "mandate" since he didn't win a plurality of the votes. But then, if he'd won a plurality, we'd be hearing he has no "mandate" because of other reason X.

Look forward to the MSM telling that polls show that the American people didn't vote for Trump because of his trade/immigration policies but because they didn't like Hillary or were taken in by Trump's personality.


Fen said...

You must not be listening to NPR, Professor. They have worked "she won the popular vote" about 4 times in the last 10 minutes.


That's sad. NPR is supposed to be more intelligent than this. If the popular vote determined the election, both campaigns would have had entirely different play calls all season long, and the numbers would not be what they are now.

Fen said...

"Look forward to the MSM telling that polls show"

It's amazing how, after beclowning themselves with faulty polls and ignorant analysis less than 24 hours ago, they can just dust themselves off and go right back to it without any sense of shame. These people are wickedly corrupt.

If I was a Dem, I would be demanding they be fired for their incompetence.

prodigal said...

The reason we aren't hearing too much about the EC and why it was conceded when things were still tight is Hillary's unfavorability. It's hard to go to the mat for someone you don't really like. I think her campaign knew this and threw in the towel. I think her supports know this and that is why they are not fighting...

Mark said...

Hillary won California by 2.5 million. Take that one state out of the equation and Trump overwhelmingly won the popular vote in the rest of the country by 2.3 million.

Skipper said...

The Electoral College (apparently more commonly known as the Electorial College by the media), is a feature, not a bug.

Simon said...

damikesc said...
"There is literally no path for that. Can't even make a case against in Court."

You're probably right, but it won't stop them trying. As to the court: Well, they probably won't be able to now, lol. Give Justice Ginsburg enough votes, though, and she'll happily declare that the electoral college is unconstitutional because it violates the (judge-made) one person one vote doctrine.


"That the LP couldn't get 5% is great."

They picked a terrible candidate. Johnson was awful.

damikesc said...

They picked a terrible candidate. Johnson was awful.

I'd say Weld was worse...but Johnson demanded Weld as his VP, so yeah, Gary was awful.

EMD said...

Clinton lost 6 percentage points in the black vote, 8 percent in the Hispanic vote, and 6 percent in the youth vote (18-29).

She blew this big time.

Danno said...

Real Clear Politics, who was calling the states earlier than anyone else and always had more numbers of precincts reporting, is still showing Trump with 47.6% to Clinton's 47.5%, though they don't show the actual vote.

Achilles said...

The popular vote is tainted by states like California. I doubt the voting population there is made up of more 60% legal voters. Washington state is almost as bad.

Achilles said...

Blogger tim in vermont said...
Checkers! Checkers!

"You won't have Hillary Clinton to kick around anymore..."

This is wrong. If we are going to fix corruption in government there must be deference.

There are thousands of people in DC who are millionaires off corruption. Losing their jobs isn't enough. Jail is the only thing that will deter them.

Fen said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
tim in vermont said...

That's sad. NPR is supposed to be more intelligent than this.

Now I need to clean the coffee off my screen. Thanks a lot.

Fen said...

This is wrong. If we are going to fix corruption in government there must be deference.
There are thousands of people in DC who are millionaires off corruption. Losing their jobs isn't enough. Jail is the only thing that will deter them.


Spot on. And this is why conservatives are losing the Long War - whenever we finally pin Moriarty to the ground, we say "well that was a good show chap, and in the spirit of civility, off you go! See you next week, but try not to kill so many innocents next round"

Idiots. My people are dying out here.

Kyzernick said...

Welcome back, Simon.

mikeski said...

"Clinton lost 6 percentage points in the black vote, 8 percent in the Hispanic vote, and 6 percent in the youth vote (18-29)."

She was up 15 percent in the dried-out old crone vote, though!

She had no gains in the "give me free stuff!!" vote, but only because it was already 100% Democrat.

campy said...

That's sad. NPR is supposed to be more intelligent than this. If the popular vote determined the election, both campaigns would have had entirely different play calls all season long, and the numbers would not be what they are now.

NPR knows that perfectly well, and they'd say it — if a rethuglican won the popular vote but lost.

How do I know? Because they were saying exactly that in the weeks leading up to Bush v. Gore, when it was widely thought that might happen.

Simon said...

Kyzernick said...
"Welcome back, Simon."

thankyou! "It's over," lol. I feel like a huge weight has been lifted. I lost this election back in May, and having it just drag on and on and on like an ailing pet was tough. So I'm quite chipper.

robother said...

I think people who watch a lot of NBA are pretty familiar with the concept of "garbage time." Hillary running up her popular vote in non-swing populous states is more like that.

mockturtle said...

From the data I have seen, it looks as if neither Arizona nor Michigan has been counted yet, though Trump leads in both--by over 5% in AZ. He could still win the popular vote.

Also, from date I saw last night [exit polls]: More white college grads voted Trump than voted for Clinton; more white women voted for Trump over Hillary.

These data may have changed by now but there seem to be a few surprises. Obviously, most of the polls were off. I'm sure more liberals answered pollsters than did conservatives, just as there are more liberals than conservatives active in the social media.

mockturtle said...

data, not date

Sigivald said...

Facebook today suggests that, like every election where they don't match, half the people I know (Americans only - I don't expect the Canuckistanis to get it) can't understand basic civics (the EC).

I suspect strongly that a Trump EC loss but popular win somehow wouldn't lead to the same laments about The System Being Broken.

Which answers the other repeated plaint as to "why are we still using the EC" ... because people only complain about it, mostly, for partisan reasons when their guy woulda won under Alternate Rules.

Anyone who would not support the same reform under a Clinton EC win with a Trump popular win can shut up about "reform", because your real complaint is "my guy lost".

A complaint I sympathize with, but do not mistake for a good guide to policy.

Mikio said...

More Americans voted for the Democrat. Fewer Americans voted for the Republican. Conservatives/Republicans see nothing unfair about it.

I've never seen a single counterexample by way of an honest conservative/Republican who sees and admits the unfairness of it. And I never will, will I?

Darrell said...

Should we be subtracting illegal alien votes from Hillary's totals? Considering some people were throwing around expected totals of 14 million illegals voting--and votes from illegals shouldn't be counted--Trump won the legitimate popular vote as well as the ECV. By a big margin.

Simon said...

Mikio has left a new comment on the post "Not much talk about the popular vote.":
"More Americans voted for the Democrat. Fewer Americans voted for the Republican. Conservatives/Republicans see nothing unfair about it. I've never seen a single counterexample by way of an honest conservative/Republican who sees and admits the unfairness of it. And I never will, will I?"

Then you're not paying attention, because last week, as Trump surged in the polls, Trumpkin Republicans chafed at being told that a narrow national lead was irrelevant for precisely that reason. "It doesn't matter," I told them. "We don't elect presidents by national plebiscite," and not a few Democrats nodded along cheerfully.

Mikio said...

@Darrell

False. The right-wing bubble air you breathe is stale, polluted, and kills brain cells, and the cigarette smoke you're adding isn't helping.

Here's a dose of fresh air for you.

"For presidential elections, all states require voters to be U.S. citizens, and there is nothing inherent about same-day registration that would make it easier for noncitizens to vote," said Joshua Douglas, an election law professor at the University of Kentucky College of Law.

Douglas noted that some local jurisdictions do allow noncitizens to vote in certain elections, but it’s still illegal for them to vote in federal elections.

Pookie Number 2 said...

More Americans voted for the Democrat. Fewer Americans voted for the Republican. Conservatives/Republicans see nothing unfair about it.

I've never seen a single counterexample by way of an honest conservative/Republican who sees and admits the unfairness of it. And I never will, will I?


Well, people never see things they're committed to not seeing, and I'm neither conservative nor Republican, but it's quite silly to pretend that campaign strategies and the accompanying outcomes wouldn't change if the rules for winning were different.

Mikio said...

Pookie Number 2
Well, people never see things they're committed to not seeing

You don't understand. Liberals and conservatives alike love nothing more than seeing members of the other side go rogue and admit something. So you're wrong, I am not committed to seeing all conservatives as dishonest. I LONG to see a conservative admit that the Republican winning even though more Americans voted for the Democrat is unfair. And yes, obviously I think the reverse situation would be unfair.

So try again. Show me such an honest conservative/Republican. I want to see one admit it.

My name goes here. said...

Simon,

More Americans voting Democratic is not the measure of anything significant in the United States. It is like saying that the Cleveland Indians are better than the Cubs because like every team in their league they make outs faster than the Cubs do.

Here's the example that should point it out. In California the top two winners of the primary advance to the general election. This year the top two vote getters for the Senate were democrats. Given that the presidential votes were a foregone conclusion this creates a situation that incentivizes republican types to not go vote.

Now if you want to change the rules where the greatest vote getter wins two at large Senate seats, then you would incentivize republicans in California to go to the polls.

Just sayin'

readering said...

From now on Trump won't be looking at the vote counts (he can't brag about record turnout like he could for the primaries). Instead he'll be looking at his approval ratings. That may serve to moderate his crazy rhetoric from the campaign (like promising at his last rally to return frequently to Michigan for the opening of new auto plants).

Qwinn said...

If not for the electoral college, candidates would never leave the 5 most populated states. All incentives would be to cater only to them, with the rest of the states getting no attention unless they can be fleeced to buy votes from Californians. Would that be fair?

I'd think you guys never think these things through, but you do. You'd be saying the same thing if the situation were reversed. You're just being dishonest, and like all lefties, your strategy is to always project whatever fraud you're trying to get away with on our side. Maybe you didn't notice, but enough people are on to you now, and it's not working anymore.

Harold said...

If we had a national popular vote, right now as I type this every ballot in the United States would be under lock and key waiting to be officially recounted, and that every voting machine with no paper trail would be investigated to ensure proper functioning- and what a nightmare if it were found not to be so. 0.16% difference is within the margin of error for counting, and also well within the margin of Democrat fraud. The election might not be over until after January. I computed the 0.16% at about noon today; it may have changed a tiny bit one way or the other.

Oh, and think of the battle royale to be fought over absentee ballots and provisional votes! It would come to bloodshed.

I'm all for splitting each states EVs as Nebraska and Maine provide for. The results would be less likely to mirror the popular vote. Democrats are much more concentrated then Republicans. Also the number of representatives should be increased so the house actually represents the population as the Constitution Amendment 14 section 2 requires. State population divided by smallest state's population following each census should determine the number of congresscritters.

Mikio said...

Qwinn
If not for the electoral college, candidates would never leave the 5 most populated states. All incentives would be to cater only to them, with the rest of the states getting no attention

That's a bogus and inane argument. Your gripe about most-populated states vs. less-populated states should likewise be about swing states vs. non-swing states. That it's not is inconsistent.

Under the EC, do you think the presidential candidates visit the least populated states like Idaho, Wyoming, and Nebraska enough? If your answer's no, then the EC isn't solving your problem. If your answer is yes, then the candidates will still keep visiting them enough for whatever reasons they do now.

@Harold

That's absurd. All of you pro-ECers seem to be under the impression that a national popular vote erases state borders. It doesn't. Every state will still have its individual tally within its borders. If the dreaded hanging chads problem in FL had happened under a popular vote system, there's no reason other states would have had to recount, especially if they had no chads.

As for your 0.16% difference "margin of Democratic fraud" scenario, that's a meaningless red herring because size of the margin makes no difference. There IS no "outside the margin of Democratic fraud" with Trump and his crowd. Right? So that blows up your bogus and inane argument to smithereens too.

Harold said...

Emilio, hate to be quite so blunt, but your understanding of the underlying math is idiotic. Remember Florida and the hanging chats? Under the current system we have 50 state elections. If the results in Florida had been overturned by unconstitutional actions taken by the Florida Supreme Court, and fraudulent vote counting in Breward County, Gore would have been president. If we go to the national popular vote, whether by amendment or the National Popular Vote Compact, every vote counts. Hence, we'd be in the middle of court battles and recounts right now.

Last I checked, 2 states have a vote margin under 1%. That's close enough to trigger a recount if a candidate asks for one. No one's asking. If one, or the other, or both states flip, it doesn't change the winner. If the popular vote nationwide determined the winner, there would be a recount in not just those states, but every state.

Rusty said...

Mikio said...
@Darrell

False. The right-wing bubble air you breathe is stale, polluted, and kills brain cells, and the cigarette smoke you're adding isn't helping.

Here's a dose of fresh air for you.

"For presidential elections, all states require voters to be U.S. citizens, and there is nothing inherent about same-day registration that would make it easier for noncitizens to vote," said Joshua Douglas, an election law professor at the University of Kentucky College of Law.

Douglas noted that some local jurisdictions do allow noncitizens to vote in certain elections, but it’s still illegal for them to vote in federal elections.

It's common in sanctuary cities once the illegal immigrant has been registered for housing and food assistance for community activists to register them to vote along with getting them a green card and a social security number.

viator said...

Trump’s Geographic Landslide

Mikio said...

Emilio, hate to be quite so blunt, but your understanding of the underlying math is idiotic.

Emilio? Uh, okay, Billy Bob, but that's all irrelevant because a 1% margin recount allowability rule is arbitrary. Someone made it up and others agreed to it. A new rule can be made such as: for the sake of avoiding a national recount, zero margin -- the first popular vote total must be accepted by the loser candidate even if it's only a one vote margin, and can only be challenged if a compelling case can be made pointing to shenanigans, equipment malfunction, what-have-you, and even then only in those specific places would a recount be necessary. I don't know how feasible this is, I'm just now making it up. But the point is new rules can be made.

And if you scoff and say the loser would always find ways to challenge the result, hey, that's your boy Trump's doing. He lowered that bar going forward. He and his supporters were going to challenge the EC result no matter what it was, if he lost, and march on Washington or whatever. "It's rigged against me!" Fucking crybaby.

Darrell said...

Anyone with a drivers license votes in California. They probably accept the licenses the Mexican government hands out--perhaps someone can confirm that. And President Obama urged illegals to vote--pledged nothing bad would happen to them. You sound like an asshole, Mikio, so welcome aboard! Sorry about that huge loss you just suffered. It must hurt. Loser.

Mikio said...

@Darrell

The penalty for voter fraud is a fine up to $15,000 and seven years in prison. But yeah, Pedro is going to risk that so he can cast an extra vote, a benefit to him so minimal it's next to non-existent. That's why there've been only 31 cases of voter fraud recorded in the U.S. between 2000-2014 out of over a billion votes cast. But you conservatives cling to your asinine belief of "widespread voter fraud" because it makes you feel good.

And hey, now with the orange f├╝hrer coming into power, you conservatives can bump up those hard-to-get 31 cases to as many as you want! Because you can just point and they'll be guilty. White power! Heil! KKK in da hoooouuuuse!

Bad Lieutenant said...

Careful somebody doesn't put you in a camp like Manzanar. Oh, wait, that was Democrats.

Pookie Number 2 said...

I LONG to see a conservative admit that the Republican winning even though more Americans voted for the Democrat is unfair.

It's not unfair at all. It's ironic, but that's all.

Republican strategies aren't predicated on winning the popular vote, so the outcome of an electoral college vote isn't an accurate depiction of what the popular vote would have been.

Under your methodology, a football team that loses 14-9 should be the winner, because it scored three field goals, and the winner only scored two touchdowns.

Mikio said...

Pookie Number 2

Wow, you are nowhere close to understanding something as simple as this. Have a good day.

mikee said...

Al Gore tried to steal a presidential election, with the assistance of a corrupt Florida Supreme Court. He was stopped by the Supreme Court, and rightly so.

Pookie Number 2 said...

Wow, you are nowhere close to understanding something as simple as this. Have a good day.

When you write things that show your own foolishness, it's best not to criticize people's understanding.

Learn how to think. You'll have many more good days.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Incidentally, this is why I tried to encourage even people in safe states to vote for Trump, precisely because morons like this Mikio are going to try out the popular vote as if it mattered. Which it doesn't. Mikio, I don't know how the system works in your native land, but all you have to do here is get to 270.

But by all means, you go ahead and keep fucking that chicken, Trigglypuff-san.

Mikio said...

When you write things that show your own foolishness, it's best not to criticize people's understanding.

You know what else is fair? The O.J. Simpson verdict. He's not guilty of killing Nicole Simpson. Because for your information, that's how the justice system works here in America. So there's nothing unfair about the jury finding him not guilty.

Bricap said...

I do not buy the idea that it's unfair when the popular vote and the electoral vote results fail to have the same outcome. As it is today, candidates concentrate on about 10 states. If we had popular vote, then it's a 50 state campaign. That's the best argument I've thought of for popular vote. If an amendment actually passed for popular to supplant the EC, I would hope that if any candidate failed to get a majority of votes cast, there would be a runoff between the top two vote getters.

From what I gather, however, and please correct me if I'm wrong here, aside from their desire to not concentrate power among a few large states, the Framers did not want to base it on popular vote and have someone win with a scant plurality of total votes. The solution was that if someone failed to get a majority of electoral votes cast, then it goes to the newly elected House (as happened twice in the 19th Century before the two party system really took hold?), so it's decided by our duly elected representatives as a last resort.

It's a uniquely American tradition to talk about doing away with the EC after every presidential election, that it's outdated, etc. As long as we're a republic, it's here to stay, though, unless there is some truly unforeseen event that causes us to seriously question it. Even if you don't like it, you still have to come up with a better idea, and get 2/3 of each chamber and 3/4 of the state legislatures to ratify it.

That's my layman's take on it.

Mikio said...

I do not buy the idea that it's unfair when the popular vote and the electoral vote results fail to have the same outcome.

So if a Democrat were to win the presidential election having gotten 35% of the popular vote while the Republican got 65% and Democrats cheered, "The people have spoken! America has rejected the Republican agenda!" you would think they're telling the truth? And you would see nothing unfair about that outcome?

(If you think 35/65 isn't possible, it can theoretically go to 23/77.)

Bricap said...

Mikio, I begrudgingly voted and even made some calls for HRC. I usually vote Dem. I'm one of the few on here, I know. I generally avoid the election debates. Those are often more emotionally charged, and I'd rather not push buttons. These arcane legal and constitutional questions are more often why I show up.

My larger point is that there is little incentive to campaign in about 40 states, so we're not necessarily getting a true representation of the popular vote. For that reason, I would be open to a switch to the popular vote that ultimately required a majority of the electorate's votes to win, as I think we would probably be better served with a 50 state campaign. I appreciate your link. Maybe I should have said 'I do not *necessarily* buy the idea' instead. My insomnia brought me here in the first place, as you can tell by the time stamp, so forgive that omission.

We just don't know what would have happened had this been a 50 state campaign instead of a 10 state campaign, regardless, so that's why we have to discount the meaning of the popular vote here. What happens if DJT was spending time in places like Orange County and Spokane, and HRC was spending time in places like northwest Indiana or Kansas City? Would HRC still win the popular vote under this new dynamic? I really don't know the answer.

Thanks for responding.

Ailisha said...

There's currently a petition on change.org asking people to pressure the ELectoral College to vote for Hillary, despite the election results. https://www.change.org/p/electoral-college-electors-electoral-college-make-hillary-clinton-president-on-december-19

They write:

"On December 19, the Electors of the Electoral College will cast their ballots. If they all vote the way their states voted, Donald Trump will win. However, they can vote for Hillary Clinton if they choose. Even in states where that is not allowed, their vote would still be counted, they would simply pay a small fine - which we can be sure Clinton supporters will be glad to pay!

We are calling on the Electors to ignore their states' votes and cast their ballots for Secretary Clinton. Why?
Mr. Trump is unfit to serve. His scapegoating of so many Americans, and his impulsivity, bullying, lying, admitted history of sexual assault, and utter lack of experience make him a danger to the Republic.

Secretary Clinton WON THE POPULAR VOTE and should be President.

Hillary won the popular vote. The only reason Trump "won" is because of the Electoral College."

They already have 3 million signatures. Someone just started a petition for the Electors to vote Trump, but so far it hasn't broken 10,000.

https://www.change.org/p/electoral-college-electorals-electoral-college-ensure-presidential-elect-donal-trump-becomes-president

Seem pretty low-handed to want to try to negate the November 8 results in this way.