4 ms·

No mention of the lower turnout this year (even as the population continues to grow) or that most voters were actually #WithHer. The media are suckers for the

No mention of the lower turnout this year (even as the population continues to grow) or that most voters were actually #WithHer. The media are suckers for the overton window, and this is calling for more of the same kid gloves that they used during the Bush/Cheney years. No, thanks.

helthanatos 10y ago
That's not true at all
- chestervonwinch 10y ago
  Using [1], which is still incomplete, and [2], I calculate: Turnout (2016) = 49.43% = (60071781 + 59791135) / 242470820 * 100 Using [3], back to 1932 (for no particular reason), I calculate: Turnout (1932-2012) = 55.64(± 3.92)% Obviously, caveats are that (1) the 2016 percentage will continue increase slightly, and (2) using turnouts back until 1932 was arbitrary choice. [1]: http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/president http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/president [2]: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/00 https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/00 [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_States_presidential_elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_St...
wtbob 10y ago
> most voters were actually #WithHer. No, they weren't. According to the latest results, Mrs. Clinton received 48% of the popular vote: that means that most voters didn't vote for her. More voted for her than for Mr. Trump, but neither earned a plurality of the popular vote.
- nkohari 10y ago
  Well.. you're parsing a bit, aren't you? Clinton received the most votes, that is, the votes of most voters. The number of votes she received didn't represent a majority of the votes cast, but she still received the vote of most voters.
  - wtbob 10y ago
    > Clinton received the most votes, that is, the votes of most voters. The number of votes she received didn't represent a majority of the votes cast, but she still received the vote of most voters. No, that's precisely not the case. She received the most votes, but not most of the votes. She did not receive the votes of most voters: 52% of voters did not vote for her. If we had instant run-off voting, we might know who would have come in first in a head-to-head matchup, but we don't. Some folks like to blame third parties for their candidates' loss (Bush in '92, Gore in 2000, Clinton in 2016), but I don't think that's fair: we have multiple parties, and the parties are free to nominate the candidate most capable of winning the votes across America. People who voted for a third-party candidate didn't vote for either first-party candidate.
- sk5t 10y ago
  > neither earned a plurality You mean a majority, no?
  - wtbob 10y ago
    Yes, I'm an idiot.

helthanatos 10y ago

That's not true at all

chestervonwinch 10y ago
Using [1], which is still incomplete, and [2], I calculate: Turnout (2016) = 49.43% = (60071781 + 59791135) / 242470820 * 100 Using [3], back to 1932 (for no particular reason), I calculate: Turnout (1932-2012) = 55.64(± 3.92)% Obviously, caveats are that (1) the 2016 percentage will continue increase slightly, and (2) using turnouts back until 1932 was arbitrary choice. [1]: http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/president http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/president [2]: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/00 https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/00 [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_States_presidential_elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_St...

wtbob 10y ago

> most voters were actually #WithHer. No, they weren't. According to the latest results, Mrs. Clinton received 48% of the popular vote: that means that most voters didn't vote for her. More voted for her than for Mr. Trump, but neither earned a plurality of the popular vote.

nkohari 10y ago
Well.. you're parsing a bit, aren't you? Clinton received the most votes, that is, the votes of most voters. The number of votes she received didn't represent a majority of the votes cast, but she still received the vote of most voters.
- wtbob 10y ago
  > Clinton received the most votes, that is, the votes of most voters. The number of votes she received didn't represent a majority of the votes cast, but she still received the vote of most voters. No, that's precisely not the case. She received the most votes, but not most of the votes. She did not receive the votes of most voters: 52% of voters did not vote for her. If we had instant run-off voting, we might know who would have come in first in a head-to-head matchup, but we don't. Some folks like to blame third parties for their candidates' loss (Bush in '92, Gore in 2000, Clinton in 2016), but I don't think that's fair: we have multiple parties, and the parties are free to nominate the candidate most capable of winning the votes across America. People who voted for a third-party candidate didn't vote for either first-party candidate.
sk5t 10y ago
> neither earned a plurality You mean a majority, no?
- wtbob 10y ago
  Yes, I'm an idiot.