5 ms·

> when in fact, more people wanted the other person The whole point of the comment you replied to was that you don't know that - can't know that. People voted

> when in fact, more people wanted the other person The whole point of the comment you replied to was that you don't know that - can't know that. People voted under the current system, we don't know what their voting behavior would have been if the voting system would have been based on popular votes! For example, those in states where the winner was always clear from the start might have gone voting instead of staying at home, or they might not have voted for a 3rd party. It's not like the popular vote is 70%/30%, the total difference is far less than a single percentage point. And Trump does have a mandate. The system is at it is - it has been like that since the very beginning of this country. I may not agree personally, but he won, and I really don't see any positive point in attempts that try to reinterpret the result. Remember, some day the roles may be switched.

woofyman 10y ago
It's a factual statement that more people voted for Clinton period. Whether that would have been different without the electoral college is conjecture.
- Noseshine 10y ago
  Yes. It also is a factual statement to say that all those votes were made by people voting in the current system and with the current system in mind. All my points still stand.
  - woofyman 10y ago
    Point taken. If anything, I think the current system suppresses the vote. I'm in a red state so my vote never counts.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
mikeash 10y ago
Not that this changes your argument in general, but the current difference is half (edit: not one, oops!) of a percentage point, and will likely be larger by the time all the counting is done.
- Noseshine 10y ago
  (Right now when I'm writing this) ~660 thousand votes, or 0.5% difference, according to WP: https://www.washingtonpost.com/2016-election-results/us-presidential-race/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/2016-election-results/us-pres...
  - mikeash 10y ago
    Ahem, my brain did a thing. Edited.
alwaysdoit 10y ago
> The whole point of the comment you replied to was that you don't know that - can't know that. People voted under the current system, we don't know what their voting behavior would have been if the voting system would have been based on popular votes! Obviously it's too late for any change to the electoral college to affect this election. But we could know this in the future. You make what you measure and we're measuring the wrong thing.

woofyman 10y ago

It's a factual statement that more people voted for Clinton period. Whether that would have been different without the electoral college is conjecture.

Noseshine 10y ago
Yes. It also is a factual statement to say that all those votes were made by people voting in the current system and with the current system in mind. All my points still stand.
- woofyman 10y ago
  Point taken. If anything, I think the current system suppresses the vote. I'm in a red state so my vote never counts.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

mikeash 10y ago

Not that this changes your argument in general, but the current difference is half (edit: not one, oops!) of a percentage point, and will likely be larger by the time all the counting is done.

Noseshine 10y ago
(Right now when I'm writing this) ~660 thousand votes, or 0.5% difference, according to WP: https://www.washingtonpost.com/2016-election-results/us-presidential-race/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/2016-election-results/us-pres...
- mikeash 10y ago
  Ahem, my brain did a thing. Edited.

alwaysdoit 10y ago

> The whole point of the comment you replied to was that you don't know that - can't know that. People voted under the current system, we don't know what their voting behavior would have been if the voting system would have been based on popular votes! Obviously it's too late for any change to the electoral college to affect this election. But we could know this in the future. You make what you measure and we're measuring the wrong thing.