5 ms·

> especially since nearly 50% of the U.S did vote for Trump after all. This is something I hear a lot. But according to [1] only 54.6% of the voting age popula

> especially since nearly 50% of the U.S did vote for Trump after all. This is something I hear a lot. But according to [1] only 54.6% of the voting age population turned up to vote. Of that Trump got 46.1%[2]. So it's definitely not 50% of the country that voted for Trump. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_States_presidential_elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_St... [2] http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/21/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-popular-vote-final-count/ http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/21/politics/donald-trump-hillary-...

the_watcher 10y ago
You can make that claim about most US elected officials. It's broadly understood that nowhere near 100% of the US voting-eligible population votes in elections, and that when someone says "50% of the population voted for...", it means that 50% of those who bothered to vote at all. It's the same thing as the stories you see citing a study that finds that X% of Y's have Z trait. Everyone understands that it's referencing a percentage of those included in the study, not the entire population.
- tyre 10y ago
  Yes but 50% of America did not vote for Trump. He got nearly 3 million fewer votes than Hillary Clinton. The majority of Americans do not approve of him, after one month in office.
  - rfrank 10y ago
    Depends on who you ask. https://imgur.com/a/MzDa4 https://imgur.com/a/MzDa4
    - kbenson 10y ago
      Why are you linking to approval ratings in a discussion about votes?
      - rfrank 10y ago
        Read the last sentence of the person I replied to's comment.
        kbenson 10y ago
        Ah, I missed that. Fair enough.
    - annnnd 10y ago
      What an interesting distribution... From the table it looks like there is a correlation between method and results. Are people less willing to put their trust in Trump over the phone than in anonymity, or are the people who are making calls biased, or...? :)
- bryondowd 10y ago
  The assumption with the study you mentioned only works when those included in the study are a random sample of the population, expected to be representative. I'd argue that people who vote aren't a random sample and not representative of the population. In other words, when people don't like either candidate, they are more likely to stay home. Therefore, a percentage of the population that voted for a candidate could potentially be an interesting measure. Just pulled together some numbers by dividing the winner's popular vote by the total US population in that year, and was actually surprised at Trump's showing. He's at the median of all presidents since 1960. Not sure what meaning could be extracted from it, though, as there are many factors that would affect turnout. Trump 16 - 19.5% Obama 12 - 20.9% Obama 08 - 22.8% Bush 04 - 21.2% Bush 00 - 17.9% Clinton 96 - 16.9% Clinton 92 - 17.5% Bush 88 - 19.6% Reagan 84 - 23.1% Reagan 80 - 19.3% Carter 76 - 18.7% Nixon 72 - 22.3% Nixon 68 - 15.8% Johnson 64 - 22.3% Kennedy 60 - 18.9% Sources: http://www.multpl.com/united-states-population/table http://www.multpl.com/united-states-population/table http://www.270towin.com/historical-presidential-elections/ http://www.270towin.com/historical-presidential-elections/

the_watcher 10y ago

You can make that claim about most US elected officials. It's broadly understood that nowhere near 100% of the US voting-eligible population votes in elections, and that when someone says "50% of the population voted for...", it means that 50% of those who bothered to vote at all. It's the same thing as the stories you see citing a study that finds that X% of Y's have Z trait. Everyone understands that it's referencing a percentage of those included in the study, not the entire population.

tyre 10y ago
Yes but 50% of America did not vote for Trump. He got nearly 3 million fewer votes than Hillary Clinton. The majority of Americans do not approve of him, after one month in office.
- rfrank 10y ago
  Depends on who you ask. https://imgur.com/a/MzDa4 https://imgur.com/a/MzDa4
  - kbenson 10y ago
    Why are you linking to approval ratings in a discussion about votes?
    - rfrank 10y ago
      Read the last sentence of the person I replied to's comment.
      - kbenson 10y ago
        Ah, I missed that. Fair enough.
  - annnnd 10y ago
    What an interesting distribution... From the table it looks like there is a correlation between method and results. Are people less willing to put their trust in Trump over the phone than in anonymity, or are the people who are making calls biased, or...? :)
bryondowd 10y ago
The assumption with the study you mentioned only works when those included in the study are a random sample of the population, expected to be representative. I'd argue that people who vote aren't a random sample and not representative of the population. In other words, when people don't like either candidate, they are more likely to stay home. Therefore, a percentage of the population that voted for a candidate could potentially be an interesting measure. Just pulled together some numbers by dividing the winner's popular vote by the total US population in that year, and was actually surprised at Trump's showing. He's at the median of all presidents since 1960. Not sure what meaning could be extracted from it, though, as there are many factors that would affect turnout. Trump 16 - 19.5% Obama 12 - 20.9% Obama 08 - 22.8% Bush 04 - 21.2% Bush 00 - 17.9% Clinton 96 - 16.9% Clinton 92 - 17.5% Bush 88 - 19.6% Reagan 84 - 23.1% Reagan 80 - 19.3% Carter 76 - 18.7% Nixon 72 - 22.3% Nixon 68 - 15.8% Johnson 64 - 22.3% Kennedy 60 - 18.9% Sources: http://www.multpl.com/united-states-population/table http://www.multpl.com/united-states-population/table http://www.270towin.com/historical-presidential-elections/ http://www.270towin.com/historical-presidential-elections/