Will Clinton win the popular vote and by how much?

[robrecht]

Will Clinton win the popular vote and by how much?

Currently, as I write this, she's ahead by 131,565 (47.6% vs 47.5%) with 91% of the vote counted.

By way of comparison, in 2000, George W Bush lost the popular vote by 543,895 votes (47.87% vs 48.38%).

As we all learned in grade school, we live in a republic, not a democracy, so I am not proposing that we do away with the electoral college or that the election was rigged or anything like that. It's just an interesting question that some people might like to be aware of and even discuss civilly.

[Roy]

Will Clinton win the popular vote and by how much?

I'm gonna predict that the Arizona results will reverse that and Trump will win the popular vote.

But I was wrong yesterday, so...

[Sparko]

It will be close.

[Mountain Man]

The only way to win the popular vote but lose the electoral college is if you get huge numbers of votes in limited geographic regions... sort of like what happens when you cheat.

Remember the infamous "hanging chad" controversy in Florida?

[robrecht]

The only way to win the popular vote but lose the electoral college is if you get huge numbers of votes in limited geographic regions... sort of like what happens when you cheat.

Remember the infamous "hanging chad" controversy in Florida?

Demographic differences are not cheating. It's just a fact that people who live in large cities tend to be more liberal, whereas less populated areas tend to be more conservative. Note, however, there was a greater tendency for economic liberalism among farmers during the dust bowl when they were losing their land to local bankers. The framers of the constitution were concerned about protecting the rights of slave-holding states and even allocated 2/3rds of a slave's 'representation' to such states. The importance of a representative electoral college makes the most sense when there is also a greater focus on the significant roles of state governments and clear delineation of the proper roles of the federal government.

[NorrinRadd]

Last I checked, which was half an hour or so ago, RCP had Trump ahead by about 0.2 percentage points in the popular vote, while FNC had him behind by about 150,000 in the raw numbers.

It's annoying that the various sources don't agree on either the popular or electoral vote counts.

[Sea of red]

Sorry guys, it's screwed up when somebody gets more votes than any other candidate and is not the winner.

[Sparko]

Sorry guys, it's screwed up when somebody gets more votes than any other candidate and is not the winner.

I tend to agree. I think we need to either go to a strictly popular vote, or even to a 1 state = 1 vote system. The current system gives too much power to specific states and renders others powerless to influence anything.

[Mountain Man]

Sorry guys, it's screwed up when somebody gets more votes than any other candidate and is not the winner.

The system is working exactly as intended. If it was a straight popular vote then only the most populated states -- or I should say that only the most populated regions in certain states -- would have any say in national elections. While certain "swing states" are arguably disproportionately important, you still have to win a lot of "flyover" country to reach the magic 270 electoral votes.

The system could probably use some tweaking, but going with a straight popular vote would be a bad idea. I am very fond of the saying, "A democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner."

[alaskazimm]

The system is working exactly as intended. If it was a straight popular vote then only the most populated states -- or I should say that only the most populated regions in certain states -- would have any say in national elections. While certain "swing states" are arguably disproportionately important, you still have to win a lot of "flyover" country to reach the magic 270 electoral votes.

The system could probably use some tweaking, but going with a straight popular vote would be a bad idea. I am very fond of the saying, "A democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner."

So what is the difference between the electoral collage system and a straight popular vote in keeping the more populated areas from having more say? Either way, istm, the large population centers have the most sway in elections. CA has 55(?) votes and we in AK have only 2. Simply by living in AK I feel my vote is essentially useless; same as when we lived in CA and voted Republican as all the electoral votes went to the Democrat candidate (or vice versa).

[Sparko]

The system is working exactly as intended. If it was a straight popular vote then only the most populated states -- or I should say that only the most populated regions in certain states -- would have any say in national elections.

But that is exactly what happens in the electoral system. The most populous areas of the state determine who the state will vote for, and the most populous states have the most electoral votes. You get exactly what you describe. So for example in New York, Just NYC can determine how the whole state votes because it has the most population. So ALL of the electoral votes go to that candidate. Where in a popular vote, 40% of the state could end up going for the other candidate.

[Mountain Man]

So what is the difference between the electoral collage system and a straight popular vote in keeping the more populated areas from having more say? Either way, istm, the large population centers have the most sway in elections. CA has 55(?) votes and we in AK have only 2. Simply by living in AK I feel my vote is essentially useless; same as when we lived in CA and voted Republican as all the electoral votes went to the Democrat candidate (or vice versa).

But that is exactly what happens in the electoral system. The most populous areas of the state determine who the state will vote for, and the most populous states have the most electoral votes. You get exactly what you describe. So for example in New York, Just NYC can determine how the whole state votes because it has the most population. So ALL of the electoral votes go to that candidate. Where in a popular vote, 40% of the state could end up going for the other candidate.

Well, like I said, the system could probably use some tweaking (and I have no idea what those tweaks might be), but the fact that someone can lose the popular vote by a narrow margin and still win the electoral college suggests to me that the system is working as intended. Sure, Alaska in and of itself doesn't have a lot of sway, but Alaska plus a dozen other states can easily offset juggernauts like California and Florida.

[Bill the Cat]

I would propose a 3 pronged approach:

1) Popular Vote
2) 1 State, 1 Vote
3) Electoral College

Win 2 or more, and you win the Presidency. That addresses the majority of the shortcomings of the 3 individually.

[Zymologist]

I'm in kind of a weird mood today, so I'm just throwing this out there....

What if the electoral college was more proportional? For example, if the vote goes 80%-20% in California, instead of the 55 electoral votes going to the 80%, why not do an 80/20 split of the electoral votes (44/11)?

[Sparko]

I'm in kind of a weird mood today, so I'm just throwing this out there....

What if the electoral college was more proportional? For example, if the vote goes 80%-20% in California, instead of the 55 electoral votes going to the 80%, why not do an 80/20 split of the electoral votes (44/11)?

That would work in larger states, but smaller states that have only a few electoral votes, it would not be possible to divide it fairly. and even if you could, it would just end up being a mirror of the popular vote, so why not just go to a popular vote and eliminate the electoral college?

I think they reason the decided on the electoral college was because it was the most efficient way to get a large nationwide vote done before we had easy long distance communications. Each state would have to send representatives to Washington to vote for them. Now we can just count each individual vote easily, which is how we determine the electoral votes live on TV.