Hillary did not win the popular vote

[Derec]

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...

It's misleading in that less than half voted for her. Actually her margin to majority is greater than the margin between her and Trump.

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

Yes, you did.

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

Now you may have confused Austria and Australia, but you did write Australia.

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.

That is hardly clear. It depends for whom Gary Johnson voters vote for and what the turnout it.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

As you said, I acknowledged the facts. The disagreement is what these facts mean.

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.

4. A reasoned argument why what Hillary did should not be described as her "winning the popular vote". As I said, systems that use popular vote to elect head of state do not use plurality.

 

[Derec]

Alright... Trump lost the popular vote by more.

No disagreement.

He's looking at losing the popular vote by around 2% which is unprecedented for someone who won the Electoral College outright.

A lot of things in the Trump campaign were unprecedented.

- - - Updated - - -

Alright... Trump lost the popular vote by more.

He's looking at losing the popular vote by around 2% which is unprecedented for someone who won the Electoral College outright.

Not that unprecedented.

And Tilden, unlike Hillary, actually won the popular vote.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Could you explain what your point is, please?

Derek said "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.", and then commented on how the 48% would not have been enough in some other countries. I provided an example of a real system in which 48% (and more votes than her adversary) would have been enough.

I don't know why you reply in that fashion. I'm not saying the Argentine system is good, by the way. Personally, I think it's bad, even though no worse than the Electoral College system it replaced in 1994 (which was for essentially a copy of the US system). But it was an example of an alternative system where her numbers would have been enough.

Of course, if that had been the system, it's unclear what the outcome would have been. For example, some conservatives in California may well not have voted because they thought Clinton would surely win California anyway. Then again, some progressivists in California may well not have voted because they thought Clinton would surely win California anyway.

I thought in this thread we were making strident emotional points about what would happen if we had used electoral systems that we don't use. Without any hint the vote might be different if the system were different.

My point is if California didn't count Trump would have won the popular vote. Check the math if you like. You'll see it's true.

If California and the Bible Belt states didn't count Clinton would have won.

 

[laughing dog]

4. A reasoned argument why what Hillary did should not be described as her "winning the popular vote". As I said, systems that use popular vote to elect head of state do not use plurality.

A reasoned argument does not need to resort to blatantly misleading statements such as "Hillary did not win the popular vote" when the words are used in their normally understood meaning.

 

[LordKiran]

I get it.

What I'm saying is if he wants to be reelected he needs to widen his appeal. Doubling down on alt reality bullshit isn't the way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If he wants to get reelected, he has to do something good. Unfortunately, he has promised a lot of things that may not be realistic.

If it turns out his administration caters to banks and corporate management, and the officials he puts in place manipulate policy for private advantage, things will go sour. Imagine a Wells Fargo style scandal, but this time Trump appointees benefit from the scheme. Televised Congressional Hearing and all the rest. On top of that, we have a President who goes on TV and quickly reveals he had no idea and no control over his administration.

The problem with winning an election with the support of angry white people is, they don't stop being angry, just because Trump won. They're still angry and their anger will be vented on him, if he doesn't come through.

If he runs again he honestly stands a good chance of winning regardless since incumbents have an innate advantage. He doesn't have to be a good president, he just has to not be so bad that people wont just shrug their shoulders and say "Eh, he got us this far..."

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I thought in this thread we were making strident emotional points about what would happen if we had used electoral systems that we don't use. Without any hint the vote might be different if the system were different.

My point is if California didn't count Trump would have won the popular vote. Check the math if you like. You'll see it's true.

If California and the Bible Belt states didn't count Clinton would have won.

Clinton is at 2.6 million. Only fives times has a candidate received a lower percentage of the popular vote, and typically in many of those cases there was several top level candidates (1824, 1912) or a major historical event about to occur (1860). In each of those cases, the candidate still carried the popular vote, except 1824.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

California will always count so saying the words "If it didn't" is to say some of the stupidest shit in history.

Here are the top eleven states in order of population and electoral votes.

California (55 votes)
Texas (38 votes)
Florida (29 votes)
New York (29 votes)
Illinois (20 votes)
Pennsylvania (20 votes)
Ohio (18 votes)
Georgia (16 votes)
Michigan (16 votes)
North Carolina (15 votes)
New Jersey (14 votes)

If Trump had won just these 11 states and by only one vote, and HRC had won every other state by unanimous vote, she would have had a popular vote win the length and breadth of which would have never been seen before and would not be seen again and guess what, Trump would still be President.

There is an old joke:

If we had bacon we could have bacon and eggs if we had eggs.


If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
If turnips were watches, I'd wear one by my side.
If "if's" and "and's" were pots and pans,
There'd be no work for tinkers' hands.

 

[skepticalbip]

If California and the Bible Belt states didn't count Clinton would have won.

Clinton is at 2.6 million. Only fives times has a candidate received a lower percentage of the popular vote, and typically in many of those cases there was several top level candidates (1824, 1912) or a major historical event about to occur (1860). In each of those cases, the candidate still carried the popular vote, except 1824.

One of those times was Bill Clinton in 1992. He only won 43% of the popular vote but that was irrelevant because he won what matters in US Presidential races, the Electoral College vote.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Clinton is at 2.6 million. Only fives times has a candidate received a lower percentage of the popular vote, and typically in many of those cases there was several top level candidates (1824, 1912) or a major historical event about to occur (1860). In each of those cases, the candidate still carried the popular vote, except 1824.

One of those times was Bill Clinton in 1992. He only won 43% of the popular vote but that was irrelevant because he won what matters in US Presidential races, the Electoral College vote.

The difference being that a majority of the Perot voters would have voted for Clinton if Perot hadn't run.

 

[skepticalbip]

One of those times was Bill Clinton in 1992. He only won 43% of the popular vote but that was irrelevant because he won what matters in US Presidential races, the Electoral College vote.

The difference being that a majority of the Perot voters would have voted for Clinton if Perot hadn't run.

 

[Harry Bosch]

The difference being that a majority of the Perot voters would have voted for Clinton if Perot hadn't run.

Oh boy. I'd ask you if you had any link to support your position. But I realized you probably developed your opinion from reading Dan Quale's piece?

https://spectator.org/63682_bushioisie-wrong-ross-perot-didnt-cost-ghw-bush-white-house-1992/

Anyway, I can find link after link that supports my position that Clinton's victory would have been much greater if Perot had not run. Do you have any that support you?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Oh boy. I'd ask you if you had any link to support your position. But I realized you probably developed your opinion from reading Dan Quale's piece?

https://spectator.org/63682_bushioisie-wrong-ross-perot-didnt-cost-ghw-bush-white-house-1992/

Anyway, I can find link after link that supports my position that Clinton's victory would have been much greater if Perot had not run. Do you have any that support you?

In general, my understanding was it was generally a 50-50 split amongst Perot voters.

 

[LordKiran]

Wether or not Hillary won the 'popular vote' as far as this thread is concerned, is a matter of technicalities semantics seemingly put forth to try and detract from the fact that she still got more votes than Trump. Just sayin'...

 

[Harry Bosch]

Oh boy. I'd ask you if you had any link to support your position. But I realized you probably developed your opinion from reading Dan Quale's piece?

https://spectator.org/63682_bushioisie-wrong-ross-perot-didnt-cost-ghw-bush-white-house-1992/

Anyway, I can find link after link that supports my position that Clinton's victory would have been much greater if Perot had not run. Do you have any that support you?

In general, my understanding was it was generally a 50-50 split amongst Perot voters.

Well, we'll never have an absolute correct answer to this. However, if you read all the material on this, the by far consensus is that Perot took more votes from the democratic side than the republican.

Here's what we know: Clinton lead Bush 49% to 36% for Bush (Perot taking 6%) on September 30. By the time the election was held, 40 days later, Clinton's lead fell to 43-37-19 percent. Bush's voter count actually increased by 1%! There are a million different polls, but the dominant polls that I have seen were that Perot took dems from Clinton more than Bush. Again, I'd be happy to entertain facts that counter this. But I'll warn you all in advance, I put zero stock in anything said by Dany Quale or Sarah Palin.

 

[blastula]

Yes, it's a popular myth that Perot gave the election to Clinton. Lot's of media sources still repeat it.

The myths that just won’t die - Salon.com

 

[Toni]

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.

By your reasoning, Trump is a significantly bigger loser than she is, garnering only about 46% of the popular vote, more than 2.5 million fewer votes than Hillary received.

So does this mean that you support awarding the presidency to Clinton?

 

[ZiprHead]

"How Did Trump Win? The FBI and the Russians."

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/12/how-did-trump-win-fbi-and-russians

 

[Elixir]

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.

By your reasoning, Trump is a significantly bigger loser than she is, garnering only about 46% of the popular vote, more than 2.5 million fewer votes than Hillary received.

So does this mean that you support awarding the presidency to Clinton?

Of course he doesn't support awarding the presidency to the person who lost the popular vote by 1.8%, with almost 52% voting against her. He supports appointing the person who lost the popular vote by 3.8%, with almost 54% voting against him. After all, that candidate won the electoral college, thanks to the FBI and Uncle Vlad.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

"How Did Trump Win? The FBI and the Russians."

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/12/how-did-trump-win-fbi-and-russians

Also because the United States had over 60 million people who said to themselves "Hey, I'll vote to make Donald Trump the president"! The majority of the blame lies there.

 

[Malintent]

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.

I think you mean that Hillary did not win the MAJORITY vote.
Hillary won the popular vote, simply by getting more votes than Trump.
The Majority vote is rarely won, I think... more people would need to get out and vote... and the candidates would need to be less equally bad.