It looks like Hillary won the popular vote. Gore Mark II

O'Sullivan Bere

Moderator
Joined
Nov 14, 2005
Messages
16,647
Fox Facts: @HillaryClinton got lower support among union households than any Democrat since 1980. https://t.co/WLhzgISPEy

@RalstonReports thinks the result in Nevada suggests the exit polls showing HRCs vote among Hispanics in the 60s rather than the 80s (Latino decisions poll pushed by Dems) more likely true as HRC only won there by around 2%.
The first thing I'd buy. HRC was successfully painted--to a degree fairly but also exaggerated--on the trade issues that hard hats blame for their ills (often unfair, but it's a powerful scapegoat).

Due to the multiethnic and leafy nature of the Democrats' leaders, it's also been increasingly depressing the white vote. No Democrat has won the majority of the white vote since Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act back in the 60s. With the economic decline of the coal regions and Rust Belt, it's been gradually losing white union voters that otherwise would have often voted GOP on race and culture grounds.

The talk about a very sizable Hispanic Trump vote? Just gratuitous turd polish and spin by Trump/GOP to revise what happened and why.
 


O'Sullivan Bere

Moderator
Joined
Nov 14, 2005
Messages
16,647
Fairest outcome would surely be if people in Seattle squats and upper Westside NY 72th to 96th apartments facing the Park got to decide :)
Fairest method is "one citizen, one vote" and let the winner win...an alien concept in the American 'democracy' isn't it?
 

mangaire2

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2011
Messages
10,463
There are flaws in any system including ireland.

1) On a basic methodological basis the system of estimating transfers is imprecise and , laughably, was being carried over to the e-voting systems

2) All votes are not equal since elimination and transfer is a one time "analog" deal. A "perfect" system would look at oall the preferences and of all votes simultaneously and run the numbers accordingly.
For example in the election you cite robinson got in because curry was eliminated. Therefore Curry voters in effect got extra weighting i.e your favorite, no.1 ,iddnt get in so what is your second choice.
On the other hand Lenihan voters could argue they were discriminated against by this sequential elimination because, for example, their overwhelming second choice might have curry in which case he ,and not Robinson, might well have been the overall most favored candidate.

If the irish system was run on a electronic system with paper backup which did a pretty basic weighting mean etc. rather than a sequential elimination and transfer then you could argue all votes are equal. But not truly under the current system

I wouldn't get too wokred up about this but any system that attempts to temper the crudity of FPTP will have flaws.
Personally given the structures of this nation and the real and daily impact of state legislation, services and taxation on daily lives I think a general election system to elect POTUS must give some nod to the federal system of government.

however as I said elsewhere I woudl like to see an analysis of just what is the biggest possible popular vote deficit that a candidate could overcome via the electoral college. My gut is that the percentage would not be huge but I could be wrong.
yes “There are flaws in any system”, but some Electoral Systems are particularly flawed – like IMO the EC system for the election of the US President.
the Irish Single Transferable Vote System for the election of President produces a result similar to the French Two Round System, without the need for a 2nd round.
a Single Non Transferable Vote System, where the winner of the Popular Vote is elected is ok too, but I see the Transferable Vote as a refinement.
however IMO, either system is way fairer than the EC system, which I see as daft & a relic from a long gone era.

i disagree with you that “the biggest possible popular vote deficit” could not be “huge” – the system has the potential to produce such a huge deficit, & the reason that it has not done so to date, is possibly due to the fact that there are really only two political parties in the US, & the electorate switch between tweedledumb & tweedledumber on a cyclical basis.

i don’t know if the counting is finaly finished, but the last time I checked Clinton was 1.2 million votes ahead of Trump in the Popular Vote – that’s a lot of votes – a lot of people.

take Calfornia for eg.
Repubs got in excess of 3 million votes, but they didn’t elect a single EC elector !
if the Repubs didn’t get a single vote in California, Trump would still be elected !
if the Repubs didn’t get a single vote in any of the States won by the Dems, Trump would still have won !

if that isn't daft, I don't know what daft is.
 

Mr Aphorisms

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2011
Messages
5,995
Twitter
crimesofbrits
Jesus Christ. He won, get over it. Hillary was an awful candidate. Besides, it looks like he'll be implementing her immigration policies with that dinky goat fence. :lol:
 

NYCKY

Moderator
Joined
Apr 17, 2010
Messages
14,201
yes “There are flaws in any system”, but some Electoral Systems are particularly flawed – like IMO the EC system for the election of the US President.
the Irish Single Transferable Vote System for the election of President produces a result similar to the French Two Round System, without the need for a 2nd round.
a Single Non Transferable Vote System, where the winner of the Popular Vote is elected is ok too, but I see the Transferable Vote as a refinement.
however IMO, either system is way fairer than the EC system, which I see as daft & a relic from a long gone era.

i disagree with you that “the biggest possible popular vote deficit” could not be “huge” – the system has the potential to produce such a huge deficit, & the reason that it has not done so to date, is possibly due to the fact that there are really only two political parties in the US, & the electorate switch between tweedledumb & tweedledumber on a cyclical basis.

i don’t know if the counting is finaly finished, but the last time I checked Clinton was 1.2 million votes ahead of Trump in the Popular Vote – that’s a lot of votes – a lot of people.

take Calfornia for eg.
Repubs got in excess of 3 million votes, but they didn’t elect a single EC elector !
if the Repubs didn’t get a single vote in California, Trump would still be elected !
if the Repubs didn’t get a single vote in any of the States won by the Dems, Trump would still have won !

if that isn't daft, I don't know what daft is.
It's a union of states. If the election was decided by popular vote we would have very different campaigns, likely focused on the populous states trying to gin up turnout and ignoring vast sections of the country. At the end of the day, it is the swing states that are more representative of the country.

Somehow, I get the feeling that if Clinton had lost the popular vote and won the electoral college vote, her shills would be on here praising the electoral college.
 

mangaire2

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2011
Messages
10,463
Jesus Christ. He won, get over it. Hillary was an awful candidate. Besides, it looks like he'll be implementing her immigration policies with that dinky goat fence. :lol:
yeah - we know that Trump won.
I have no prob with that - in fact I enjoy the sour grapes of the extreme feminists & other extremists,

but maybe, you might allow us who have an interest in the EC System, to have a discussion about it ?
 

NYCKY

Moderator
Joined
Apr 17, 2010
Messages
14,201
Your point? Repeat after me...beyond stating the obvious, you're dodging the points I raised as to why the US's defective election process is troublesome and will cause resistance to accepting him on that fact alone, even though he got elected.

You can keep your head in the sand the same way that PULs in Northern Ireland did with old Stormont with gerrymandering and other gimmicks to marginalise and suppress the CNR population. Doing so led to things like Bloody Sunday and the revival of the IRA, etc, and that was regarding a significant minority. In this situation, it's a usual majority getting the screws by the biases of what's usually the minority. If not addressed, eventually then expect a breakdown in public acceptance of the constitution. It doesn't mean a call to arms or secession per se, but even simply by doing what many states are now doing with, for example, rejecting the federal ban on marijuana by fiat.

That's a dodge again of the points raised. Yet, your example is still relevant for the points I raised.

Conveniently you omit that Senate Democrats got 20 million more votes than Senate Republicans in this election, or how in the last election in 2014 the Democrats got more than 1 million votes in the House but the Republicans still controlled more seats thanks to gerrymandering.

My state, PA, is a particular example of gerrymandering in a swing state. In 2014, Democrats won 50.7 per cent of the statewide popular vote to Republicans’ 49.3 per cent. Yet 13 Republicans won their races to the Democrat's 5. 13-5 to the GOP in House seats from PA...with a minority overall PA vote. Let that sink in and argue that's legitimate democracy in action. At the state level, it's gerrymandered even worse by the GOP in favour of it, leaving them in consistent control of the legislation process.

When the GOP is the majority in the majority of such states, it makes it easier to also suppress the minority Democratic voices to keep them a minority, such as Voter ID gimmicks that effect urban areas and poorer people and prefer GOP leaning forms of ID such as recognising concealed carry gun permits and military IDs whilst not recognising official state student, library, social welfare cards etc, biased voter roll purges, less voting machines in Democratic precincts, restricting voting processes to patterns favouring GOP turnout and ballots, etc.

Incumbency also matters as an advantage. Once gerrymandering familiarises and entrenches someone, they have the advantages of incumbency of access, name recognition, etc. Gerrymandering also suppresses minority votes because many understandably feel their votes don't matter, etc.

Dodge again. Again, gerrymandering plays a key influence. When it's gerrymandered, it puts the certain party in power. It gives them name brand. It lets them shape how voters vote for reasons explained. It's also going to bring in the big lobbying money for the controlling party because they call the shots, not the minority party.

Further, that lean in conjunction with the federal government, such leans also wind up giving power to amend the constitution itself, and it's now close to that level thanks to bias in the system.

I fully accept that HRC legally lost and the Dems didn't get the necessary levels of pickup they needed for controlling either branch of Congress. As for me, I'm likely the least affected and will personally benefit at predicted public expense given my tax bracket and expected windfall in tax cuts and other financial perks.

That said, Democrats are entitled to have sour grapes and resentments over how bias in the election process contributes to unwarranted awards of power, including the POTUS race where once again Americans as a whole rejected the GOP candidate but he won the election anyway. Given the demographic changes in the US, this is not a aberration but increasingly likely results of a flawed outdated constitution and GOP manipulation of that.

Further, the GOP broke all sorts of longstanding customs of governance whilst Obama and Dems were in office with things like gerrymandering, filibuster abuse, refusing to honour traditions how SCOTUS appointments are made, etc. The GOP chose total war in that regard, and now it deserves any blowback it receives due to the dishonorable ways it contrived its advancements.

Top on that list was putting Trump in office, one of the most unprepared, unqualified, and personally and professionally immoral and disreputable individuals to run for office. Included in that was the disgusting appeals to race baiting more fitting of the Jim Crow era, something shamelessly working its way immediately into his intended governance with picks like Bannon, Gaffney, Kobach, etc. I'm hardly along in judging that not only was his election by Trump voters a mistake, but also unethical and immoral and an act of bad faith citizenry.

So no, Trump and the GOP won't get off so easily in public acceptance. Any blowback the GOP gets is deserved.
There is a good article here on how various people are coping with the Democrats loss.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2016/11/15/daily-202-obama-in-a-state-of-denial-about-trump-as-democrats-work-through-the-stages-of-grief/582a5edee9b69b6085905df3/

You are probably somewhere between anger and denial right now.
 

mangaire2

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2011
Messages
10,463
Somehow, I get the feeling that if Clinton had lost the popular vote and won the electoral college vote, her shills would be on here praising the electoral college.
perhaps they would,
& I would be commenting exactly the same as I have been commenting here.
 

Ardillaun

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
13,170
It's a union of states. If the election was decided by popular vote we would have very different campaigns, likely focused on the populous states trying to gin up turnout and ignoring vast sections of the country. At the end of the day, it is the swing states that are more representative of the country.

Somehow, I get the feeling that if Clinton had lost the popular vote and won the electoral college vote, her shills would be on here praising the electoral college.
I wouldn't be. I am a hater of FPTP wherever it raises its ugly head. In an era of voter apathy, what does a winner-take-all system do to encourage, say, Republicans to vote in California other than voting for the other posts? If you're on the wrong side in a safe seat, you might as well stay home seems to be the message. Same in Canada.

The gerrymandering in the US is quite extraordinary for a mature democracy. I can't understand why people tolerate such shameful manipulation of boundaries.
 
Last edited:

NYCKY

Moderator
Joined
Apr 17, 2010
Messages
14,201
I wouldn't be. I am a hater of FPTP wherever it raises its ugly head. In an era of voter apathy, what does a winner-take-all EC system do to encourage Republicans to vote in California?
Because they know their vote will count. Republicans can typically expect 35 - 40% of the vote in California without even campaigning there. Moving this up even a few percentage points, could be half a million votes.

Republicans win Texas without having to spend a dollar there, they would spend much more time ginnying up turnout too.


As Willie Horton answered when asked why he robbed banks, because that's where the money is. Candidates go to where the votes are up for grabs, like they do now with the electoral college.
 

Leinsterview

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 4, 2014
Messages
841
Gary Johnson was effectively a Republican splinterer -- a former Republican Governor of New Mexico; a Fox News darling; and with a former Republican running mate. Looking at the two broad spectra Trump/Johnson got more votes than Clinton/Stein. This is one important distinction from 2000. The American electorate simply shifted decisively rightwards -- more's the pity.
If the election were simply about the popular vote the Trump campaign would have shifted their focus accordingly and possibly would have still won. We will never know.
 
Last edited:

O'Sullivan Bere

Moderator
Joined
Nov 14, 2005
Messages
16,647
There is a good article here on how various people are coping with the Democrats loss.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2016/11/15/daily-202-obama-in-a-state-of-denial-about-trump-as-democrats-work-through-the-stages-of-grief/582a5edee9b69b6085905df3/

You are probably somewhere between anger and denial right now.
Not at all. Just because I express my POVs doesn't mean it's not taken in stride. As I said, I don't even stand to lose here. I am genuinely looking forward to a conscience-free major tax cut at Trumpkins' expense given my top tax bracket and wealth accumulation. With an EU passport, I can go anywhere to avoid paying the giant deficits and meltdowns when they come due. Oh, and get health care there too besides the Cadillac plans here.

The last thing I want to hear from you or other Trumpians is whinging over how your health care got worse or the big manufacturing jobs didn't come back or the deregulations effed up the markets again, etc. I didn't vote for this toxic clown set...you did, so you can deal with its consequences.
 
Last edited:

NYCKY

Moderator
Joined
Apr 17, 2010
Messages
14,201
Not at all. Just because I express my POVs doesn't mean it's not taken in stride. As I said, I don't even stand to lose here. I am genuinely looking forward to a conscience-free major tax cut at Trumpkins' expense given my top tax bracket and wealth accumulation. With an EU passport, I can go anywhere to avoid paying the giant deficits and meltdowns when they come due. Oh, and get health care there too besides the Cadillac plans here.

The last thing I want to hear from you or other Trumpians is whinging over how your health care got worse or the big manufacturing jobs didn't come back or the deregulations effed up the markets again, etc. I didn't vote for this toxic clown set...you did, so you can deal with its consequences.
I am not a Trumpian and I didn't vote for him either.

My healthcare has declined though, I pay more and get less since Obamacare came in and I don't even use Obamacare.
 

O'Sullivan Bere

Moderator
Joined
Nov 14, 2005
Messages
16,647
I am not a Trumpian and I didn't vote for him either.

My healthcare has declined though, I pay more and get less since Obamacare came in and I don't even use Obamacare.
You're a smart fellow given you posting history and you likely know just how more sh!tty health care is going to get overall without it when all the angles are on the table, and that was hardly a super fix for the major issue of health care.

Trump and the GOP have once again been dumbing down a very serious topic. People want low cost or free coverage and utopian treatment, etc. Not going to happen. Even with your complaints, whilst common and legitimate, surely you shouldn't plan on getting old and/or sick if it's back to how it was before.

Now that demagoguing a better solution than before helped them get in power, it's going to be exposed big time, and they will likely cause far more harms in coverages, costs and services. Add in Paul Ryan's desired gutting of Medicare and Medicaid, and you get the drift.
 

Dimples 77

Duplicate Account
Joined
May 9, 2012
Messages
19,060
Gary Johnson was effectively a Republican splinterer -- a former Republican Governor of New Mexico; a Fox News darling; and with a former Republican running mate. Looking at the two broad spectra Trump/Johnson got more votes then Clinton/Stein. This is one important distinction from 2000. The American electorate simply shifted decisively rightwards -- more's the pity.
If the election were simply about the popular vote the Trump campaign would have shifted their focus accordingly and possibly would have still won. We will never know.

Incorrect.

Over 46% of the US electorate didn't bother to vote. We can make no conclusions about the political leanings of the electorate since almost half of them didn't even bother to vote.

What we do know is that Clinton got 3.3 million fewer votes than Obama did in 2012. Meanwhile Trump got just 400,000 votes more than Romney did in 2012. I don't see that as any sort of shift to the Republican Party. I see it as several million "natural Democrats" staying at home when faced with Clinton being their candidate.
 

O'Sullivan Bere

Moderator
Joined
Nov 14, 2005
Messages
16,647
Incorrect.

Over 46% of the US electorate didn't bother to vote. We can make no conclusions about the political leanings of the electorate since almost half of them didn't even bother to vote.

What we do know is that Clinton got 3.3 million fewer votes than Obama did in 2012. Meanwhile Trump got just 400,000 votes more than Romney did in 2012. I don't see that as any sort of shift to the Republican Party. I see it as several million "natural Democrats" staying at home when faced with Clinton being their candidate.
That's certainly accurate. And amongst those who voted, there were also plenty of write-ins where allowed and third party votes.

Gary Johnson won 3.3 percent of the national popular vote, and Jill Stein 1.0 percent (as of this writing). This is a dramatic improvement over 2012, when the same two won 0.99 percent and 0.36 percent, respectively. Johnson’s showing is the best in Libertarian Party history. Stein’s falls well short of Green nominee Ralph Nader’s 2.7 percent in 2000.

On the one hand, the Libertarians and Greens tripled their vote share from the previous presidential election and further established themselves as the most viable organized alternatives to the two major parties.
5 things you need to know about how third-party candidates did in 2016

Just a sliver of direct evidence, during elections I'm an official poll worker in my county in PA including this past election. PA allows write-ins, and there were plenty I saw when doing the on-site certification and results that get delivered to county officials for the official results.

I'd say it was fairly split between what seemed to be left/Dem and GOP/conservative voters that you could easily tell from the down ballot choices. Quite a few write-ins from left/Dems were for Bernie Sanders, but also on clearly GOP/conservative ballots were write-ins for Kasich or were otherwise GOP linked, e.g., I noticed a Paul Ryan, John McCain, etc.

Some also left the POTUS selection blank and voted in the down ballot races.

Still, she didn't do poorly given her high negatives compared to Obama.

Here are the updated popular vote totals as of November 15:

Clinton: 62,318,079
Trump: 61,166,063

That means Clinton now leads the popular vote by 1,152,016 votes and 47.8% to 46.9%.
. . .
Clinton’s vote total is a historic achievement. Clinton now has the third highest number of votes of any presidential candidate in U.S. history (she also became the fourth presidential candidate to win the popular vote but lose the Electoral College). She is behind only Barack Obama’s two historic elections. However, she just surpassed the tally of George W. Bush.
Popular Vote 2016 Update: Clinton Now Leads by 1 Million | Heavy.com
 
Last edited:

Ardillaun

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
13,170
Because they know their vote will count. Republicans can typically expect 35 - 40% of the vote in California without even campaigning there. Moving this up even a few percentage points, could be half a million votes.

.
So they could have won if they had tried? That makes no sense. If they could have won, they certainly would have campaigned long and hard.

You know as well as I do that the campaign is about battleground states. Much of the country is written off by both parties.

Anyway, I'm in good company in preferring the popular vote system:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...n-he-would-have-lost-a-popular-vote-election/
 
Last edited:


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top Bottom