Point of Information: Majority of the Popular Vote.

[Captain Adverse]

I keep seeing this "Clinton got a majority of the popular vote" combined with "she would have won without the electoral college" argument. Let's see if we can debunk this position right now.

First, this "Majority of the Popular vote" ideology:

Let's look at a few facts. (Taken from Voting Turnout Statistics – Statistic Brain )

1. 126,622,225 were votes cast in this election, 55.6% of eligible voters in the U.S.A. This means that 44.4% of the eligible voters opted not to vote at all for whatever reason.

2. Clinton received 60,319,493 of the votes cast or 47.64%, while Trump got 60,034,250 or 47.41%; a difference of 0.23% or 285,493 votes.

3. The remaining 6,549,181 votes (4.95%) were cast for other candidates.

4. Aside from the fact that 44.4% of eligible voters opted not to vote at all, 52% of that 55.6% who did vote chose someone other than Hillary Clinton.

Therefore, Clinton did not get a "majority of the popular vote;" she got a plurality of the votes which were cast.

Now for the Electoral College argument.

1. The United States is not a pure Democracy, it is a Republic. In a pure Democracy all citizens eligible to vote are compelled to do so on every issue and concern. In a Republic citizens elect other citizens to represent them with powers to act in their interests.

2. Our nation, unlike others, has maintained a fairly stable form of Republican government because those men who founded it thought long and hard, arguing over the best methods to prevent future ills that might divide us. Many compromises were reached; including our tripartite branches, a bill of rights, a method to amend the government contract, and an equitable method of ensuring the President would be elected to represent as diverse and invested segment of our nation as possible. That method was the Electoral College.

Without the Electoral College our nation would soon become balkanized; with various segments of the country feeling isolated and unheard as the States with the largest populations would always be the focus of election campaigning. This would mean that those large State interests would always be the primary focus of government function, creating a de facto Tyranny of the Majority which is always the downfall of pure Democracy.

This would be clearly evidenced in this election, where the candidate with a so-called "majority of the popular vote" really did not have a true majority of those who actually voted, much less of the total population of the nation eligible to vote.

Consider how most Americans living outside the five or six States with large populations would feel seeing those States always picking who wins and so could always push their political agendas on the rest of the population. Isn't that why history shows so many "pure democracies" always end up failing?

So, no...Hillary Clinton was not the choice of a "Majority of the American People," (nor is Trump, so he should NOT think that he has a "mandate").

She lost the election fair and square under the wise rules set up by some very smart individuals over 200 years ago.

 

[Harshaw]

A difference of ~0.2% is within the margin of error, which, AGAIN, means that it's not 100% certain that she DID get more votes than Trump.

But all these people droning on and on about Clinton "winning" the "popular vote" have no idea, and do not CARE, how close it was.

If any Democrats ACTUALLY gave a **** about the Electoral College, they would have made at least AN effort to do away with it after 2000. But they didn't. Not a peep. Not even a hair on a finger lifted to do it.

And they don't care NOW. They're just in a post-election fury, clinging to whatever "victory" they think they can squeeze out.

 

[Grand Mal]

A difference of ~0.2% is within the margin of error, which, AGAIN, means that it's not 100% certain that she DID get more votes than Trump.

But all these people droning on and on about Clinton "winning" the "popular vote" have no idea, and do not CARE, how close it was.

If any Democrats ACTUALLY gave a **** about the Electoral College, they would have made at least AN effort to do away with it after 2000. But they didn't. Not a peep. Not even a hair on a finger lifted to do it.

And they don't care NOW. They're just in a post-election fury, clinging to whatever "victory" they think they can squeeze out.

There's a 'margin of error' in vote counting? What is it?

 

[Beaudreaux]

I keep seeing this "Clinton got a majority of the popular vote" combined with "she would have won without the electoral college" argument. Let's see if we can debunk this position right now.

First, this "Majority of the Popular vote" ideology:

Let's look at a few facts. (Taken from Voting Turnout Statistics – Statistic Brain )

1. 126,622,225 were votes cast in this election, 55.6% of eligible voters in the U.S.A. This means that 44.4% of the eligible voters opted not to vote at all for whatever reason.

2. Clinton received 60,319,493 of the votes cast or 47.64%, while Trump got 60,034,250 or 47.41%; a difference of 0.23% or 285,493 votes.

3. The remaining 6,549,181 votes (4.95%) were cast for other candidates.

4. Aside from the fact that 44.4% of eligible voters opted not to vote at all, 52% of that 55.6% who did vote chose someone other than Hillary Clinton.

Therefore, Clinton did not get a "majority of the popular vote;" she got a plurality of the votes which were cast.

Now for the Electoral College argument.

1. The United States is not a pure Democracy, it is a Republic. In a pure Democracy all citizens eligible to vote are compelled to do so on every issue and concern. In a Republic citizens elect other citizens to represent them with powers to act in their interests.

2. Our nation, unlike others, has maintained a fairly stable form of Republican government because those men who founded it thought long and hard, arguing over the best methods to prevent future ills that might divide us. Many compromises were reached; including our tripartite branches, a bill of rights, a method to amend the government contract, and an equitable method of ensuring the President would be elected to represent as diverse and invested segment of our nation as possible. That method was the Electoral College.

Without the Electoral College our nation would soon become balkanized; with various segments of the country feeling isolated and unheard as the States with the largest populations would always be the focus of election campaigning. This would mean that those large State interests would always be the primary focus of government function, creating a de facto Tyranny of the Majority which is always the downfall of pure Democracy.

This would be clearly evidenced in this election, where the candidate with a so-called "majority of the popular vote" really did not have a true majority of those who actually voted, much less of the total population of the nation eligible to vote.

Consider how most Americans living outside the five or six States with large populations would feel seeing those States always picking who wins and so could always push their political agendas on the rest of the population. Isn't that why history shows so many "pure democracies" always end up failing?

So, no...Hillary Clinton was not the choice of a "Majority of the American People," (nor is Trump, so he should NOT think that he has a "mandate").

She lost the election fair and square under the wise rules set up by some very smart individuals over 200 years ago.

Only thing I would add, is that we are a Constitutional Republic. You did a good job describing a Republic, although you eluded to it, I feel it should be stated clearly that our Republican form of government is limited in scope and power by the Constitution. Which means, as we have all heard many times, that we are a country of laws, and not of men. A Democracy is a country of men (the generic term men), not of laws, since what law may exist is malleable and fungible based on the current whims of a simple majority vote, which undermines the law to the point that the "rule of law" no longer exists - it gives way to the "rule of the changing social whims of man." AKA, tyranny of the majority.

 

[joG]

I keep seeing this "Clinton got a majority of the popular vote" combined with "she would have won without the electoral college" argument. Let's see if we can debunk this position right now.

First, this "Majority of the Popular vote" ideology:

Let's look at a few facts. (Taken from Voting Turnout Statistics – Statistic Brain )

1. 126,622,225 were votes cast in this election, 55.6% of eligible voters in the U.S.A. This means that 44.4% of the eligible voters opted not to vote at all for whatever reason.

2. Clinton received 60,319,493 of the votes cast or 47.64%, while Trump got 60,034,250 or 47.41%; a difference of 0.23% or 285,493 votes.

3. The remaining 6,549,181 votes (4.95%) were cast for other candidates.

4. Aside from the fact that 44.4% of eligible voters opted not to vote at all, 52% of that 55.6% who did vote chose someone other than Hillary Clinton.

Therefore, Clinton did not get a "majority of the popular vote;" she got a plurality of the votes which were cast.

Now for the Electoral College argument.

1. The United States is not a pure Democracy, it is a Republic. In a pure Democracy all citizens eligible to vote are compelled to do so on every issue and concern. In a Republic citizens elect other citizens to represent them with powers to act in their interests.

2. Our nation, unlike others, has maintained a fairly stable form of Republican government because those men who founded it thought long and hard, arguing over the best methods to prevent future ills that might divide us. Many compromises were reached; including our tripartite branches, a bill of rights, a method to amend the government contract, and an equitable method of ensuring the President would be elected to represent as diverse and invested segment of our nation as possible. That method was the Electoral College.

Without the Electoral College our nation would soon become balkanized; with various segments of the country feeling isolated and unheard as the States with the largest populations would always be the focus of election campaigning. This would mean that those large State interests would always be the primary focus of government function, creating a de facto Tyranny of the Majority which is always the downfall of pure Democracy.

This would be clearly evidenced in this election, where the candidate with a so-called "majority of the popular vote" really did not have a true majority of those who actually voted, much less of the total population of the nation eligible to vote.

Consider how most Americans living outside the five or six States with large populations would feel seeing those States always picking who wins and so could always push their political agendas on the rest of the population. Isn't that why history shows so many "pure democracies" always end up failing?

So, no...Hillary Clinton was not the choice of a "Majority of the American People," (nor is Trump, so he should NOT think that he has a "mandate").

She lost the election fair and square under the wise rules set up by some very smart individuals over 200 years ago.

Very nice. Thank you. Only one small matter. The USA can be considered a pure democracy. It is not a direct democracy.

 

[Harshaw]

There's a 'margin of error' in vote counting? What is it?

Generally around 0.5%, which is why many states call for an automatic recount if it's that close.

 

[Grand Mal]

Generally around 0.5%, which is why many states call for an automatic recount if it's that close.

I did not know that.

 

[Harshaw]

I did not know that.

Also, numerous jurisdictions don't even count absentee or provisional ballots if the outstanding number of ballots is fewer than the current margin of victory, so those votes which will never be counted could easily make up such a miniscule gap as between Trump and Clinton.

 

[Coldwine]

Yep. And any talk of 'repealing' the Electoral College is nonsense. It's based on the Senate+House model, so it enfranchises flyover states. Since repeal would require a Constitutional Amendment, it requires 3/4 ratification by the states. So you would need states voting to disenfranchise themselves in order to pass it. That will never happen; it's a pipe dream.

 

[RetiredNSmilin]

Only thing I would add, is that we are a Constitutional Republic. You did a good job describing a Republic, although you eluded to it, I feel it should be stated clearly that our Republican form of government is limited in scope and power by the Constitution. Which means, as we have all heard many times, that we are a country of laws, and not of men. A Democracy is a country of men (the generic term men), not of laws, since what law may exist is malleable and fungible based on the current whims of a simple majority vote, which undermines the law to the point that the "rule of law" no longer exists - it gives way to the "rule of the changing social whims of man." AKA, tyranny of the majority.

well said.