About the popular vote...

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Rogifan, Dec 21, 2016.

  1. Rogifan macrumors P6

    Rogifan

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    #1
    Bill Clinton won with 43% of the popular vote in 1992. 57% voted for someone else.

    [​IMG]

    Did anyone on the Left push for getting rid of the electoral college then? No, Time magazine said Clinton had a "Mandate for Change".

    [​IMG]

    Btw, Clinton only carried ONE state with more than 50% of the popular vote (Arkansas). He took 4 states getting less than 40% of the popular vote. Donald Trump carried 22 states with more than 50% popular vote (9 of them 60% or more). Why is the electoral college bad now but A-OK in 1992?
    --- Post Merged, Dec 21, 2016 ---
    I do think it's fair to question a system where `someone who only got 43% of the popular vote could win 69% of the electoral college. Of course 1992 was a strange year in many ways. Funny though that Time magazine says Trump will be President of the "Divided States of America" yet Clinton had a "Mandate for Change". And they still don't get why Trump won.
     
  2. juanm macrumors 65816

    juanm

    Joined:
    May 1, 2006
    Location:
    Fury 161
    #2
    He was still the most voted (43% vs 37.5%). The whole point of the complaints right now is that the candidate with the least votes won.
     
  3. lowendlinux Contributor

    lowendlinux

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2014
    Location:
    North Country (way upstate NY)
    #3
    People whine when they lose??

    You can find hypocrisy anywhere you look
     
  4. A.Goldberg macrumors 68000

    A.Goldberg

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2015
    Location:
    Boston
    #4
    While I haven't studied the statistics of this election too closely, I think the most telling one is this.

    Votes per Candidate
    McCain 2008 - 59,948,323
    Obama 2008 - 69,498,516

    Romney 2012 - 60,933,504
    Obama 2012 - 65,915,795

    Trump 2016 - 62,979,636
    Clinton 2016 - 65,844,610

    Trump ended up having 2m more votes than McCain and Romney, compare Clinton's votes to Obama's 2008 results. The 2012 election obviously has less turnout as incumbent president races often do. Between 2008 and 2016 there are quite a few votes missing that Clinton did not pick up. She failed to even get as many votes as Obama did in his second bid in 2012.

    Now maybe this is because people assumed she was a shoe in and didn't bother going out to the polls.

    The way I see it don't think Clinton was the best candidate to put forward. She had too much baggage and not everyone was in love with her personality. You can blame Comey, Huma, Russia, Sexism, Racism, "Fake news", etc for influencing the election (Comey I would say probably had the only meaningful impact). At the end of the day Clinton was a flawed candidate, unappealing to many, who made some significant blunders ignoring states that she wrongly assumed would vote in her favor. And most importantly she alienated the largest part of the voting base.

    I'm not a fan of Trump by anymeans, but I don't think republicans should have to "justify" his win despite losing in the popular vote. He won the electoral college therefore he won, fair and square. That's the way the system works. For better or worse he will now be or President.
     
  5. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #5
    False equivalence comes to mind. Trump won. It wasn't a "historic" victory (at least in the sense intended). We go forward regardless...que sera sera...
     
  6. pdqgp macrumors 68020

    pdqgp

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    #6
    sure it was. a complete outsider who nearly everyone said wouldn't make it to the debates let alone with the whole thing. knocking out a career politician and a woman for that matter. mix in his personality and manner multiplied by the near 100% hate and bashing from the media and even some in his own party.

    it was absolutely and epic win.
    --- Post Merged, Dec 21, 2016 ---
    Trump will be taking over the divided states but that's mainly due to Obamafail. Not entirely his fault as we've always had some division, but he certainly helped amplify it.

    The whole electoral college whining is nothing more than the lefts attempt to try an neutralize the voice of the working class Middle American White man in favor of their highly populated higher minority base of voters. Nearly everything they bitch about has some type of racial underpinning that they promote. Without race they don't have much.
    --- Post Merged, Dec 21, 2016 ---
    That and that the white vote that people want to try and diminish is what saved us from 4 more years of fail.
     
  7. Rogifan thread starter macrumors P6

    Rogifan

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    #7
    Donald Trump wasn't the candidate with the least votes. Also the only reason Hillary Clinton won the popular vote is because she ran up a huge margin in California. Subtract California from the totals and Trump has more votes.
     
  8. tgara, Dec 21, 2016
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2016

    tgara macrumors 6502a

    tgara

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2012
    Location:
    Somewhere in the Delta Quadrant
    #8
    Right. He was the political novice that played by the rules and beat a seasoned political professional with a huge fundraising advantage and essentially the entire Washington political establishment behind her.

    Cue up Frank Sinatra singing "My Way". :D

    On being an outsider, another thing about Trump is that he is the first president that has not held a previous elected office, or was a general in the military. Interesting stuff, worthy of study I think.
     
  9. thewitt macrumors 68020

    thewitt

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2011
    #9
    You guys ignored the electoral college predictions that went on throughout the race that showed Trump winning by no less than 20 points from the beginning. He bailed on the states he knew would go to Clinton regardless, and focused on the states that he knew were at risk. The strategy was nearly perfect, and frankly exactly what the electoral college was meant to support so candidates had to actually appeal to a wide section of the country rather than just 5 states.
     
  10. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #10
    Speaking of flawed logic... please inform us which candidate got 57% of the vote?
     
  11. haxrnick macrumors 6502a

    haxrnick

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Location:
    Seattle
    #11
    Someone else. What don't you understand about that? OP didn't say one candidate.
     
  12. juanm macrumors 65816

    juanm

    Joined:
    May 1, 2006
    Location:
    Fury 161
    #12
    How do you get to that conclusion? I've got 65,844,610 to Trump’s 62,979,636. This thread -that you started- is about popular vote, right?

    Okay, so that's like saying "Hey, subtract all the midwest, which doesn't count, and Hillary becomes president!". You cannot pick and choose. You are creating the divide.
     
  13. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #13
    Everyone else.
     
  14. Rogifan thread starter macrumors P6

    Rogifan

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    #14
    So Gary Johnson and Jill Stein don't count? They got fewer votes than Trump.

    And again just pointing out that Hillary's lead in the popular vote is essentially coming from one state. Should California really decide the election?
     
  15. juanm macrumors 65816

    juanm

    Joined:
    May 1, 2006
    Location:
    Fury 161
    #15
    Stein and Johnson, sadly, don't count. They were never even close.

    And California having the largest population, it seems logical that it has proportionately more weight than, say, Montana. If you had 1 state with 4000.000 and 7 states with 200.000 of course the first one counts more than the others. To say otherwise is preposterous.
     
  16. rdrr macrumors 6502a

    rdrr

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2003
    Location:
    NH
    #16
    Or give California the amount of electors that it should have in proportion to ID, WY, or ND. It would be some where around 133 electors. So no, you cannot subtract California or give it more electors, your logic is bunk on Bill Clinton. Stop trying to wow us with spin facts.
     
  17. edk99 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 27, 2009
    Location:
    FL
    #17
    Well if you get rid of CA and NY Trump won the popular vote by 3 Million.

     
  18. Rogifan thread starter macrumors P6

    Rogifan

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    #18
    Change the electoral college so electors are apportioned by congressional district. Makes more sense than winner take all.
     
  19. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #19
    That's right, it's not a valid comparison.
     
  20. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #20
    The country is more or less like Florida. Half and half. Equal opportunity to piss someone off, what's not to like. Good luck to the guy, he'll need it.
     
  21. Strider64 macrumors regular

    Strider64

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2015
    Location:
    Suburb of Detroit
    #22
    What a lot of people don't realize or don't want to admit (mostly liberals) that having popular vote or majority rule would be very bad for the United States. When it comes to the Presidency being decided by popular vote then the biggest 5 states in the union would be deciding who gets in or doesn't, for candidates would only be campaigning in those states. Sure they would be putting token appearances in the remaining states, but they would NOT be investing in those states or discussing their concerns. Heck, personally I wouldn't mind for I wouldn't miss their political commercials. :D However, it would be unfair to the rest of the states, especially the very small states. I read somewhere on the Internet that there was an idea of having the Senate representing the electoral votes. That too would be a bad idea in my opinion and others, for you can imagine there would never be a clear majority with only 100 Senators and then throw in rogue votes creating a big big mess.

    Then if we had majority rule then minorities would be getting screwed majority of the time. A classic point would be gay marriage (no pun intended), for California passed a state law banning gay marriages only to have SCOTUS override that decision. Now, I don't want to get in a discussion over gay marriage, for I was only giving that as an example. However, race (slavery) would probably had stayed in existence in this country a little longer had there been majority rule. Well you can't totally rule out what happen in the Civil War, but even that might had happen a little later in history. Other very important issues would be at the mercy of the majority with minorities having very little to say about them.

    Just my opinion about the subject. This is why the United States is a Republic and not a true democracy.
     
  22. Snoopy4 macrumors 6502a

    Snoopy4

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2014
    #23
    Jill Stein won?
     
  23. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #24
    The subject has been discussed quite often. Even liberals understand the concept of the tyranny of the majority. However, regardless of how any law is voted upon, it still needs to pass the test of whether it is constitutional or not.

    California's propositions are an example of majority rules democracy, and many of our most notable laws have come through that system. But just because the people vote for something doesn't give it any more weight or legitimacy than a law passed by our legislators in Sacramento. Regardless of how that law came to be, it still can be challenged in court and be found unconstitutional.

    So long as there is a check in place, and a constructional test, then the tyranny of the majority should not be an issue that can't be handled.
     
  24. Rogifan thread starter macrumors P6

    Rogifan

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    #25
    What's interesting is we keep talking about smaller population states that no one would visit if we had the popular vote, but with the system we have now 4 out of the 5 most populous states (California, Texas, New York and Illinois) are hardly ever visited by general election presidential candidates outside of fundraising. And of those 4 Texas is the only one that could become competitive in future election cycles. Maybe if we had a system based on congressional districts and not winner take all every state would matter?
     

Share This Page