4 ms·

More people voted for Hillary than Trump. This is the second time in 16 years that a candidate has received the popular vote but lost the election. It didn't ha

More people voted for Hillary than Trump. This is the second time in 16 years that a candidate has received the popular vote but lost the election. It didn't happen once in the 20th century. The system is in fact broken at this point, thanks to voting rights suppression, gerrymandering, and the sheer madness that is the Electoral College. Even Trump himself in his 60 Minutes interview on Sunday said he would prefer a system in which the popular vote determined the winner, even after his victory.

ewzimm 10y ago
I agree that the system needs to change, but you should also take into consideration that the purpose of the electoral college is to prop up the power of smaller states that don't have large populations, as minority opinions are important too. How people vote is partially a reflection of who the campaigns addressed. Because it's the electoral college that counts, candidates campaign to win the electoral college, not the popular vote. If the popular vote won the presidency, campaigns would adjust their strategy to address the popular vote. This would mean less focus on swing states and more focus on addressing the population overall. Trump winning while losing the popular vote is the system working as intended, but we can definitely debate whether those intentions were good and if the reasons for the system still apply today. The political situation is very different now from when the electoral college was implemented. As it stands, it's entirely up to the states to change the laws binding their electors to the state popular vote. Eleven have already signed on to National Popular Vote Interstate Compact which would bind their electors to the national popular vote if enough states sign on.
- hga 10y ago
  If the popular vote won the presidency, campaigns would adjust their strategy to address the popular vote. Exactly, these complaints are based on an unknowable counterfactual, that if the rules of the game were total votes, a Trump campaign based on them wouldn't have won. All we know is that if you change the rules of the game after it's been played, Hillary "won". Plus states generally don't count absentee ballots unless they could change election results (which wouldn't necessarily be for the presidential race), so we're only talking about votes counted, not votes cast. And absentee ballots strongly break Republican, like 2/3rds to 1/3rd from one source I just read.
  - mikeyouse 10y ago
    There's a certain bit of irony in your critique including an incorrect and unsourced rumor that has been making its way around social media. In case it isn't clear, yes, all ballots are counted in every election. Even absentee ballots. The idea that they're not counted is ludicrous. https://www.fvap.gov/vao/vag/appendix/faq https://www.fvap.gov/vao/vag/appendix/faq
    - hga 10y ago
      While it may be an "unsourced rumor that has been making its way around social media.", it's also something I learned years ago, it's a simple and very obvious economy measure. And whatever that Official Federal Government FAQ might say to, for example, encourage people to vote absentee, it has no bearing on the facts on the ground. The rules of which are, for Presidental elections, the sole prerogative of each state's legislature.
      - mikeyouse 10y ago
        The fact that you learned it years ago doesn't change whether it's an unsourced rumor. Every single state certifies their ballot totals and every single state counts each vote. I challenge you to find a single state where their policy is to only count absentees in close races.
- yolesaber 10y ago
  Your points are all valid and I agree. I can only hope that this election can spur the effort to remove the electoral college. It is a vestige of slavery and oppression - http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/electoral-college-slavery-constitution/ http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/electoral-college-slaver...
T2_t2 10y ago
Popular vote is just not a useful metric. No one knows what the popular vote would be if that was the metric that mattered. Would more Californian Republicans step out? Would Austin, Texas Democrats vote? Would people in small, less populous states STOP voting? Who knows? To say a metric we aren't optimising for shows X is not really anything more than a side effect of something else.

ewzimm 10y ago

I agree that the system needs to change, but you should also take into consideration that the purpose of the electoral college is to prop up the power of smaller states that don't have large populations, as minority opinions are important too. How people vote is partially a reflection of who the campaigns addressed. Because it's the electoral college that counts, candidates campaign to win the electoral college, not the popular vote. If the popular vote won the presidency, campaigns would adjust their strategy to address the popular vote. This would mean less focus on swing states and more focus on addressing the population overall. Trump winning while losing the popular vote is the system working as intended, but we can definitely debate whether those intentions were good and if the reasons for the system still apply today. The political situation is very different now from when the electoral college was implemented. As it stands, it's entirely up to the states to change the laws binding their electors to the state popular vote. Eleven have already signed on to National Popular Vote Interstate Compact which would bind their electors to the national popular vote if enough states sign on.

hga 10y ago
If the popular vote won the presidency, campaigns would adjust their strategy to address the popular vote. Exactly, these complaints are based on an unknowable counterfactual, that if the rules of the game were total votes, a Trump campaign based on them wouldn't have won. All we know is that if you change the rules of the game after it's been played, Hillary "won". Plus states generally don't count absentee ballots unless they could change election results (which wouldn't necessarily be for the presidential race), so we're only talking about votes counted, not votes cast. And absentee ballots strongly break Republican, like 2/3rds to 1/3rd from one source I just read.
- mikeyouse 10y ago
  There's a certain bit of irony in your critique including an incorrect and unsourced rumor that has been making its way around social media. In case it isn't clear, yes, all ballots are counted in every election. Even absentee ballots. The idea that they're not counted is ludicrous. https://www.fvap.gov/vao/vag/appendix/faq https://www.fvap.gov/vao/vag/appendix/faq
  - hga 10y ago
    While it may be an "unsourced rumor that has been making its way around social media.", it's also something I learned years ago, it's a simple and very obvious economy measure. And whatever that Official Federal Government FAQ might say to, for example, encourage people to vote absentee, it has no bearing on the facts on the ground. The rules of which are, for Presidental elections, the sole prerogative of each state's legislature.
    - mikeyouse 10y ago
      The fact that you learned it years ago doesn't change whether it's an unsourced rumor. Every single state certifies their ballot totals and every single state counts each vote. I challenge you to find a single state where their policy is to only count absentees in close races.
yolesaber 10y ago
Your points are all valid and I agree. I can only hope that this election can spur the effort to remove the electoral college. It is a vestige of slavery and oppression - http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/electoral-college-slavery-constitution/ http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/electoral-college-slaver...

T2_t2 10y ago

Popular vote is just not a useful metric. No one knows what the popular vote would be if that was the metric that mattered. Would more Californian Republicans step out? Would Austin, Texas Democrats vote? Would people in small, less populous states STOP voting? Who knows? To say a metric we aren't optimising for shows X is not really anything more than a side effect of something else.