ChatterBank0 min ago
Clinton's Lead In Popular Vote Exceeds 2 Million
63 Answers
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.pol itico.c om/stor y/2016/ 11/clin ton-lea d-popul ar-vote -2016-2 31790?c mpid=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?
http://
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?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Kromovaracun. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.That's because most of the other cases happened in the nineteenth century. There was a huge fuss over the result of the 2000 election, though, although that was a narrower gap (about 500,000 votes) than this one.
Here are the other three election years in which this has happened. Not one of them is an example of a winning candidate losing the popular vote by millions, as 2016 is:
1874 - Samuel Tilden (Dem) lost to Rutherford Hayes, despite winning the popular vote.
1888 - Grover Cleveland (Dem) lost to Benjamin Harrison, despite winning the popular vote.
2000 - Al Gore (Dem) - lost to George W. Bush, despite winning the popular vote.
Here are the other three election years in which this has happened. Not one of them is an example of a winning candidate losing the popular vote by millions, as 2016 is:
1874 - Samuel Tilden (Dem) lost to Rutherford Hayes, despite winning the popular vote.
1888 - Grover Cleveland (Dem) lost to Benjamin Harrison, despite winning the popular vote.
2000 - Al Gore (Dem) - lost to George W. Bush, despite winning the popular vote.
round about 80 AOG, if you mean changing to PR. Other systems are available.
https:/ /fullfa ct.org/ news/ho w-many- seats-c ould-uk ip-have -under- differe nt-voti ng-syst em/
https:/
Didn't I read that Clinton 'won' by a bigger margin than JFK in 1960 (!!)
As for 'fuss' erm Al Gore 2000?? Who was actually very gracious as was Hillary
Plainly Trump won fair and square so no protest from me there. His not sinning the popular vote I think beboves him to practise a little humility (and will stop Brexiters making too many comparisons to the 'will of the majority'
As for change, I can see why they do it, as it underlines the Federal nature of the US. But yes I think it needs looking at as the difference is quite large
Incidentally hasn't the UK had the same thing with its elections once or twice? 1974 for example?
As for 'fuss' erm Al Gore 2000?? Who was actually very gracious as was Hillary
Plainly Trump won fair and square so no protest from me there. His not sinning the popular vote I think beboves him to practise a little humility (and will stop Brexiters making too many comparisons to the 'will of the majority'
As for change, I can see why they do it, as it underlines the Federal nature of the US. But yes I think it needs looking at as the difference is quite large
Incidentally hasn't the UK had the same thing with its elections once or twice? 1974 for example?
I think I meant "the largest party not getting the largest vote" kromo
(Having checked, The Tories outvoted Labour by a few thousand in Feb 1974, despite winning 4 fewer seats)
(I haven't heard Hillary Clinton complain about losing despite winning the popular vote: this to a candidate who traduced her as a criminal, threatened to throw her in jail, demeaned her gender, questioned her health, her integrity, just about everything) I think saying what little she did was about as gracious as she could be expected to be: and now Donald is going to help her "heal" by dropping the threat to "lock her up" - made presumably when he thought he wouldn't have to follow it up)
(Having checked, The Tories outvoted Labour by a few thousand in Feb 1974, despite winning 4 fewer seats)
(I haven't heard Hillary Clinton complain about losing despite winning the popular vote: this to a candidate who traduced her as a criminal, threatened to throw her in jail, demeaned her gender, questioned her health, her integrity, just about everything) I think saying what little she did was about as gracious as she could be expected to be: and now Donald is going to help her "heal" by dropping the threat to "lock her up" - made presumably when he thought he wouldn't have to follow it up)
Even Donald Trump has called the electoral college "a disaster for a democracy" (in 2012, when it looked for a period like Obama would come behind Romney in the popular vote) -- and he has, to his credit, stuck to this sort of sentiment in 2016, albeit less forcefully.
It's hard to defend a system that even the winner doesn't like much.
It's hard to defend a system that even the winner doesn't like much.
"Strange is it not that when the "popular" vote actually won in the UK Brexit referendum, it was deemed a false result by the Remoaners due to the populist voters being ill informed short sighted racist Neanderthals. Haha flip flop."
What do the EU Referendum and the US election have in common?
Yes folks, correct: in each case it is hard, but necessary, to ignore the popular majority vote lol
What do the EU Referendum and the US election have in common?
Yes folks, correct: in each case it is hard, but necessary, to ignore the popular majority vote lol
// Strange is it not that when the "popular" vote actually won in the UK Brexit referendum, it was deemed a false result by the Remoaners due to the populist voters being ill informed short sighted racist Neanderthals. Haha flip flop. //
Which Remoaners are you referring to, though? I have, at no point ever, questioned the legitimacy of the result of the referendum -- or, for that matter, Trump's, which is indisputable under the current system. But that doesn't mean the system is above criticism.
Which Remoaners are you referring to, though? I have, at no point ever, questioned the legitimacy of the result of the referendum -- or, for that matter, Trump's, which is indisputable under the current system. But that doesn't mean the system is above criticism.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.