4 ms·
This is actually a very interesting point. While the current raw data seems to show that this is the case, there are several mitigating factors, some of which
by alphapapa 10y ago
This is actually a very interesting point. While the current raw data seems to show that this is the case, there are several mitigating factors, some of which could even completely reverse it:
1. In at least some states, absentee ballots are not counted unless their number is greater than the difference between the counted results. Some have claimed that absentee ballots historically favor the Republican party. If this is so, it could be that, were all the absentee ballots counted, Clinton would not win the popular vote.
2. It's been claimed that about 3 million non-citizens voted in the election (lawsuits pending--we shall see). Obviously, the vast majority of non-citizens would vote for Clinton. Therefore, if this is true, Clinton did not win the popular vote at all.
3. It's interesting to note that if Los Angeles County alone were not counted in the results, Trump would win the popular vote. And Los Angeles is a sanctuary city.
Of course, it's a matter of opinion whether a few, densely packed urban environments, many of which are sanctuary cities for non-citizens, should be able to effectively overturn the vote of the rest of the country.
So the "Clinton won the popular vote" point is not as straightforward as it may seem.
- mikeash 10y agoIt has also been claimed that every single person who voted for Trump was actually an extraterrestrial wearing a convincing human suit. "It's been claimed" isn't exactly convincing. (For anyone who wants a source on that claim, it's me, I'm claiming it here.)
- grzm 10y agoAnd I read about it on Hacker News. That's two sources.
- mikeash 10y agoQuick, someone call CNN.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- alphapapa 10y agoWhen you're done value-signaling to each other, google it and see for yourself.
- grzm 10y agoPersonally, I was having a bit of fun. I thought about deleting it because it was too light-hearted and non-substantive, not because I thought I was being snarky. I understood his response in the same vein. (And where did all this "signaling" language come from? I must not be reading the right forums.)
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- mikeash 10y agoI assume they meant to say virtue signaling: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_signalling https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_signalling In short, it implies that we're not sincere when we make fun of far-out conspiracy theories, but rather that we're only doing it to enhance our social standing.
- alphapapa 10y agoI think you're quite sincere. :) But, yes, the virtual dogpiling is quite detestable. It's an ugly form of self-congratulatory virtual bullying, like any playground scene where a bunch of kids gang up on another, push him down, and start kicking him, then walk off, high-fiving each other, secure in their social status as demonstrated by their "correct" behavior. In principle, it's no different than this: https://youtu.be/C7zEibNcejA https://youtu.be/C7zEibNcejA And the double-standard is evident here, as in any other situation, such "unsubstantive" comments would bring down the chastisement of the mods and the community downvotes. But since the victim is not left-leaning, it's okay.
- photogrammetry 10y agoYour assumption here: >Obviously, the vast majority of non-citizens would vote for Clinton. is false, obnoxious, and signals how overwhelming your bias is. If the participation rate among noncitizens was that high, my mind would be blown, because it would mean they're 5 times more likely to vote than the average US citizen. When you're done talking about how Donnie may have actually won the popular vote, when it's been plainly fucking obvious for a week that he lost it by more than 1%, come back to HN and make a useful contribution that isn't peddling Alex Jones conspiracy theories.