Clinton's Lead In Popular Vote Exceeds 2 Million

[Kromovaracun]

For the fourth time in American history, the Presidential candidate who won the most votes managed to lose the electoral college because of how those votes were distributed.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/clinton-lead-popular-vote-2016-231790?cmpid=sf

Is it time for the Electoral College to go, or does it still serve a valuable purpose today as it did 200+ years ago?

Does this historic disparity mean that Trump should not take office, or would that be too damaging to the US political system?

[jim360]

Yes, well, obviously that.

[naomi24]

Chuckle. :o)

[Togo]

Don't worry ichy Boris is going to get Turkey into the EU for you. Haha. Your dreams can come true.

[naomi24]

I do hope not.

http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/News/Question1524444.html

[Togo]

//but necessary, to ignore the popular majority vote lol //

But as I said, your reasoning to enable you to do so, has to flip flop. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

[ichkeria]

Oh take a joke can't you Togo :-)

[mikey4444]

AOG....(13:09)....Britain and America have totally different voting systems, a fact that which you have been informed before.

Under the FPTP ( first-past the post ) system, it doesn't matter what Party came 2nd, 3rd or 4th....its the one that the most votes that wins, or if its close, gets the right to choose a coalition or pact partner, when Betty does the summons to Buck House. That is what happened in 2010 and 2015, and UKIP didn't get the most seats.

The convoluted American Electoral College is a system where the Party with less than the most votes can win. Trump may have indeed won the 2016 Presidential Election by this strange, antidemocratic system, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with UKIP's inability to get enough votes in our Elections.

[-Talbot-]

The convoluted American Electoral College is a system where the Party with less than the most votes can win.






That could be true o our system.

[jno]

four times in history, twice this century, though. The Electoral College seems designed to give Republicans jobs they haven't won.

I've never seen the point of the college. Unlike Britain's parliamentary democracy (which is echoed in the US with congressional voting), the presidential election is a straight popularity poll. The person with the most votes should win.

[mikey4444]

I thought that was obvious DB, otherwise I would have explained it.

But however you look at the figures, UKIP still didn't get enough votes to form a Government. In 2015, votes were cast like this ::

Tories......11,334,576
Labour.....9,247,304
UKIP........3,881,099

So I am still correct...and it still doesn't make any difference......UKIP didn't get enough seats or votes under our FPTP system !

[Jackdaw33]

It happened in 1951 and 1974. The losing party polled more votes.

[mikey4444]

talbot...."that could be true of our system"

In what way ? I have explained the main difference between our system and the American system. The Tories won the 2015 Election fair and square....the party with the most seats AND votes won.

[-Talbot-]

Am I really in bed and actually just dreaming I have been posting on Answerbank?

[jim360]

I'm genuinely not sure what you are going on about mikey. The Electoral College is just FPTP, basically, except even more gerrymandered than our own constituencies are. As a result -- as JD has pointed out -- there have been two elections in modern UK history where the party with the most votes nationally did not win the most seats.

They are the same system at their core (and, therefore, as bad as each other).

[Old_Geezer]

Given that the Presidential vote is a straight contest to elect a single individual by the total population, I do not see what advantage the college adds, neither today, nor in the past for that matter. But if that's how they like it ...

[Old_Geezer]

FPTP is the best system. The problem is that it isn't simply applied here, because there are State weightings added first and all a State's votes go to the same candidate regardless, so one State has more say than another.

[mikey4444]

JIm....

"what I am on about" is pointing out the difference in our voting systems, in order to make it quite clear, to some on here at least, that there is no connection with UKIP not getting more seats. because there are some on here that think that Farage should be given a free seat in Parliament, and his Party given more seats than it deserves.

As I can see it, there is no reason for the Electoral College to exist anymore.
Whatever purpose it existed in the first place, plainly doesn't exist any more, if Clinton can get a whopping 2 millions more votes than Trump, but still come second.

Here is an explanation of how the EC works. I have read it a number of times but still don't really understand it. It even differs from State to State, so it isn't even consistent ::::::

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/06/what-is-the-electoral-college_n_2078970.html

[ichkeria]

It's right that not all states have the same number of delegates of course. But some do seem out of proportion.
Delegates are not obliged to vote for a particular candidate or are they?

[-Talbot-]

Someone please wake me up this is bizarre.