Hillary did not win the popular vote

[Derec]

Not really. She did win more votes than Trump, but she did not win the majority, not even close. She won 48% compared to Trump's 46.2%. Note that every system I know where people directly elect president it is not a "first past the post" plurality vote. If neither candidate wins a majority, there is a runoff between the top two. That's how it is in France, where they will vote for president next year. And that's how it is in Austria where, while the position is ceremonial, the voters rejected the candidates of the two major parties in the first round and chose a Green and a Freedom Party (right populist) candidate for the runoff. Austrians will, btw, go to polls for the runoff this Sunday again after the previous runoff was invalidated by the courts.

And note also that the turnout was just 54%. So a very small minority of eligible voters voted for either of them. In most states the outcome of the election is a foregone conclusion and many don't bother to vote because it doesn't matter. If the popular vote decided the elections, turnout would likely be significantly higher and the campaigns would have very different strategies and focus. Thus to say that Hillary "won the popular vote" is misleading at best.

 

[Juma]

The popular vote = who got most votes, and she did. A lot more.

If US had had the same voting system as France or Australia she would be the next president.

 

[Derec]

The popular vote = who got most votes, and she did. A lot more.

As I have explained, she is ahead in the popular vote, but she only got 48%, so she did not win it. That means 52% of votes cast for president were against her.

If US had had the same voting system as France or Australia she would be the next president.

Australia is not a Republic (kind of like Sweden is not one either). Their Head of State is Queen Elizabeth II, who chooses a governor general as her proxy. And the Prime Minister is not directly elected by the people either.

And as far as France, I have already explained it. If we had the same system as France, she would not be the next president, at least not yet, because she did not win the majority. She would have to go through a runoff and then it would depend whom the Gary Johnson voters prefer and who actually turns out for the runoff. Also in such a system smaller parties would get more votes because there would be no need to vote strategically to avoid the spoiler effect.

 

[skepticalbip]

As I have explained, she is ahead in the popular vote, but she only got 48%, so she did not win it. That means 52% of votes cast for president were against her.
.

Is there any country in the world that would seat their chief executive if they only got a plurality of the votes? I don't know of one but there may be.

But then the US doesn't elect the President and VP by popular vote. The States elect them sorta like the leadership of the EU is selected by the member states, not by a popular vote.

 

[Juma]

As I have explained, she is ahead in the popular vote, but she only got 48%, so she did not win it. That means 52% of votes cast for president were against her.

If US had had the same voting system as France or Australia she would be the next president.

Australia is not a Republic (kind of like Sweden is not one either). Their Head of State is Queen Elizabeth II, who chooses a governor general as her proxy. And the Prime Minister is not directly elected by the people either.

And as far as France, I have already explained it. If we had the same system as France, she would not be the next president, at least not yet, because she did not win the majority. She would have to go through a runoff and then it would depend whom the Gary Johnson voters prefer and who actually turns out for the runoff. Also in such a system smaller parties would get more votes because there would be no need to vote strategically to avoid the spoiler effect.

Sigh...

1. she won the popular vote sonce she had the most votes. You do not need more than 50% to be the most voted for...

2. I did not say that australia has a president.

3. I did not say that using French voting system Hilkary would have won this voting. But she clearly would have won the next one between her and Trump.

 

[J842P]

The popular vote = who got most votes, and she did. A lot more.

If US had had the same voting system as France or Australia she would be the next president.

While Derec is being silly by denying the plain meaning of the words "winning the popular vote," the idea that Hillary would have won if the US had the same voting system as France or Australia is not something you can take for granted for the reasons Derec stated.

- - - Updated - - -

I did not say that using French voting system Hilkary would have won this voting. But she clearly would have won the next one between her and Trump.

How do you know that? How could you possibly know?

 

[Harry Bosch]

As I have explained, she is ahead in the popular vote, but she only got 48%, so she did not win it. That means 52% of votes cast for president were against her.
.

Is there any country in the world that would seat their chief executive if they only got a plurality of the votes? I don't know of one but there may be.

But then the US doesn't elect the President and VP by popular vote. The States elect them sorta like the leadership of the EU is selected by the member states, not by a popular vote.

Fair enough. However, is there another so-called democracy in the world that allows the minority party to win all branches of the government?

 

[laughing dog]

Not really. She did win more votes than Trump, but she did not win the majority, not even close.

In your 2nd sentence, you acknowledge that Mrs. Clinton won the most votes. That means she won the popular vote. While you recognize she did not win the majority of votes cast, winning the popular vote means getting the most votes. So, your OP title is not only misleading and factually wrong, your own post explicitly acknowledges that it is factually wrong.

Thus to say that Hillary "won the popular vote" is misleading at best.

At this point, to say Mrs. Clinton "won the popular vote" is an accurate statement. Any claim to the contrary is either an example of
1) utter ignorance,
2) hatred blinding reason, or
3) an outright lie.

 

[whichphilosophy]

The popular vote = who got most votes, and she did. A lot more.

If US had had the same voting system as France or Australia she would be the next president.

It would depend on the following:

Any switch in votes during the run off (even by a small percent)
Who those who voted for the smaller party would vote for during the 2nd round.

 

[James Brown]

I've been holding this hair for weeks now. I'm so glad it's finally been split for me.

 

[Elixir]

As I have explained, she is ahead in the popular vote, but she only got 48%, so she did not win it.

Alt-reality strikes again... at this point Hillary is WINNING the popular vote by over 2½ million votes over the closest competition. Saying she's not winning the popular vote is like Trump telling us of the "dire consequences" that await Companies offshoring jobs, such as massive tax credits, a billion or so in free publicity and freedom to repeal the agreement at any time. All consequences of agreeing to export most, instead of all, of their mfg jobs. Dire indeed. Trump is calling it a big victory.... and his idiot supporters can't tell the difference.

Stupid is as stupid does, and both of the above are stellar examples thereof.

 

[Bronzeage]

What we have here is a deflection from the fact that Trump is a minority President. This is an uncomfortable position to be in. President-elect Trump is not all that concerned, because he is not aware of these kinds of things.

The political professionals who are manipulating his public image(who the fuck wants that job) are very aware of how fast such a thing can turn upside down.

 

[Horatio Parker]

What we have here is a deflection from the fact that Trump is a minority President. This is an uncomfortable position to be in. President-elect Trump is not all that concerned, because he is not aware of these kinds of things.

The political professionals who are manipulating his public image(who the fuck wants that job) are very aware of how fast such a thing can turn upside down.

True, but they're alienating voters they'll need in the future. Working to preserve a 100k margin isn't a winning strategy.

 

[skepticalbip]

Is there any country in the world that would seat their chief executive if they only got a plurality of the votes? I don't know of one but there may be.

But then the US doesn't elect the President and VP by popular vote. The States elect them sorta like the leadership of the EU is selected by the member states, not by a popular vote.

Fair enough. However, is there another so-called democracy in the world that allows the minority party to win all branches of the government?

I don't understand your question for several reasons. The primary one is your apparent assumption that the national popular vote has any meaning in our system of government.

. The US is not a democracy. It is a republic.
. The members of Congress are not elected by national popular vote but by the popular vote within their individual States.
. The Pres. and Veep are elected by the States, not popular vote.
. The members of the Supreme Court are not elected by popular vote and their terms generally span several administrations.

My question about seating a chief executive on a plurality was pointing out a second absurdity of those that keep ranting that Clinton won the popular vote as if it has any meaning in our system. But a system that is somewhat close (but not really) to the US is the EU. It turns out that the US is more democratic in selecting those in power.

 

[ElectEngr]

I, for one, welcome our new Russian overlords...

Later,
ElectEngr

 

[Elixir]

My question about seating a chief executive on a plurality was pointing out a second absurdity of those that keep ranting that Clinton won the popular vote as if it has any meaning in our system.

I guess you are assuming the the specious OP was put up only to provoke "rants" so you could jump in and point out that the popular vote doesn't matter?
Tell it to Derec. He's the one who started this thread, ranting about how Hillary didn't win - and by extension, Trump didn't lose - the popular vote. He seems to care a lot more than those you accuse of "ranting".

 

[funinspace]

As I have explained, she is ahead in the popular vote, but she only got 48%, so she did not win it.

Alt-reality strikes again... at this point Hillary is WINNING the popular vote by over 2½ million votes over the closest competition. Saying she's not winning the popular vote is like Trump telling us of the "dire consequences" that await Companies offshoring jobs, such as massive tax credits, a billion or so in free publicity and freedom to repeal the agreement at any time. All consequences of agreeing to export most, instead of all, of their mfg jobs. Dire indeed. Trump is calling it a big victory.... and his idiot supporters can't tell the difference.

Stupid is as stupid does, and both of the above are stellar examples thereof.

I read something elsewhere that sort of fits

Talking to the alt-reality crowd is like tilting at windmills if you're trying to have a 'normal" discussion. Best to treat them as an entertainment medium, especially since that is their genesis and the extent of their reasoning capabilities/willingness.

 

[Bronzeage]

What we have here is a deflection from the fact that Trump is a minority President. This is an uncomfortable position to be in. President-elect Trump is not all that concerned, because he is not aware of these kinds of things.

The political professionals who are manipulating his public image(who the fuck wants that job) are very aware of how fast such a thing can turn upside down.

True, but they're alienating voters they'll need in the future. Working to preserve a 100k margin isn't a winning strategy.

I never said they are smart. Trumps campaign and most likely his Presidency, as well, was based on illusion. There has never been any substance. The job of his handlers is to maintain the illusion for as long as they can.

 

[dismal]

I would just like to point out Trump won the popular vote.

If you don't count California.

 

[funinspace]

True, but they're alienating voters they'll need in the future. Working to preserve a 100k margin isn't a winning strategy.

I never said they are smart. Trumps campaign and most likely his Presidency, as well, was based on illusion. There has never been any substance. The job of his handlers is to maintain the illusion for as long as they can.

Well damn then....they better find a cabinet position for David Copperfield in a hurry!