Popular Vote vs Electoral College: Trump Won The Country, While Clinton Won The Major Cities

United States Presidential Election, 2016 Maps

2016 Presidential Election, Detailed Results

This graphic of the final results of the 2016 election should help some of you to understand why the Electoral College exists.

Clearly this was a devastating landslide for Trump across the board... yet Clinton supposedly won the popular vote.

That's because if the US elections were decided solely by popular vote, major cities like NY, LA, Chicago, and Seattle would decide every Presidential race. If this was the case, the states would not have equal representation and would have most likely never joined the union or seceded a long time ago, and we wouldn't have a country.

a reply to: Konduit

He won fair and square. People should just accept it.

I would never support an election determined by popular vote, but I do feel the states should change how they allocate their electoral votes. Some states split them according to the peoples votes and I think that is better than all in ways that most states do. I don't think that would change this election in any way. It is just something I think would improve the current system, but the way they do it is left up to the individual states.

a reply to: Konduit

The electoral college exists so that the votes of people who don't have neighbors count more?

That's because if the US elections were decided solely by popular vote, major cities like NY, LA, Chicago, and Seattle would decide every Presidential race.

Instead, it's a short list of swing states?

53% DID NOT VOTE FOR HER. She lost the poplar vote.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Konduit

He won fair and square. People should just accept it.

I would never support an election determined by popular vote, but I do feel the states should change how they allocate their electoral votes. Some states split them according to the peoples votes and I think that is better than all in ways that most states do. I don't think that would change this election in any way. It is just something I think would improve the current system, but the way they do it is left up to the individual states.

Congressional District Vote.

The winner of the popular vote for each district gets that 1 single vote, then the winner of the state popular vote gets the 2 remaining 'senatorial' votes. Nebraska and Maine do it that way.

I would like to see that nationally, but only if *every* state did it that way. Safe to say that California and New York won't ever allow it.

a reply to: theantediluvian

My question would be, was it always intended to be all or nothing regarding electors for a whole state?

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Konduit

The electoral college exists so that the votes of people who don't have neighbors count more?

That's because if the US elections were decided solely by popular vote, major cities like NY, LA, Chicago, and Seattle would decide every Presidential race.

Instead, it's a short list of swing states?

It exists so states like New York, California and Texas don't drown the rest of our voices out.

Stop whining. Hillary won California. She really, really, REALLY won California's 55 electoral votes. Good for her!

Hillary got the popular vote just like she got the polls.

Over-Sampling in the polls and Over-Sampling in the heavy over populated "D" pockets.

Thanks, decent map, though I don't believe it's fully accurate for Wash. State(looks like some of the red counties were counted as blue on the coast). I hope that explains the ones who are confused about the entire West Coast only being Dem/Lib voters, that it is in fact not, especially farther north.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: theantediluvian

My question would be, was it always intended to be all or nothing regarding electors for a whole state?

Not always. Each state is allowed to distribute them as they see fit, based on internal voting and legislature.

There was a movement called the "National Popular Vote" that was trying to make it so every state that signed on to their charter would begin to apportion their EV's to the winner of the popular vote, but only once the number of states that agreed to that reached or exceeded 270 electoral votes.

I haven't heard about them in the last year or so. I wonder if they realized it is illegal for the states to enter into such a treaty with each other without the consent of the Federal Congress.

a reply to: theantediluvian

States like Wisconsin only have 10 electoral votes, while California has 55. I would say that is equal representation of the population density, wouldn't you?

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: theantediluvian

My question would be, was it always intended to be all or nothing regarding electors for a whole state?

No. All but a few states are not regulated to cast their electoral votes for the candidate of choice in their precinct

Clinton has more votes. The majority of people who voted voted for her. He has the Electoral College, maybe, but he has NO mandate.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Konduit

The electoral college exists so that the votes of people who don't have neighbors count more?

No. It's because farmers and lower-class/poor people in isolated towns have a beautiful, valuable voice to add. And we want to make those areas are INHABITABLE & LIVABLE, too? Eh?

Those people give voices to the causes that are close to their hearts and pocketbooks. Isolated as they may be...their state's voice matters.

Or maybe you just want everyone in massively overpopulated areas and dependent on a more socialist system to have the loudest voice, because that's the area that's given the most consideration in a popular vote system.

We are the united STATES. Like it or lump it.

originally posted by: LifeMode
53% DID NOT VOTE FOR HER. She lost the poplar vote.

Pardon? She won the popular vote. Maybe you are still looking at the hoax site.

The David Wasserman/Cook Political non partisan count is probably the most accurate and up to date, Not sure if ATS allows a Google Doc

Cook Political


Link works.

originally posted by: cfnyaami
Clinton has more votes. The majority of people who voted voted for her. He has the Electoral College, maybe, but he has NO mandate.

Again, no they did not. Trump votes plus the other quashed dick candidates she only gets 47%. The Country told her to take a hike.

originally posted by: LifeMode

originally posted by: cfnyaami
Clinton has more votes. The majority of people who voted voted for her. He has the Electoral College, maybe, but he has NO mandate.

Again, no they did not. Trump votes plus the other quashed dick candidates she only gets 47%. The Country told her to take a hike.

Nope. She has more single votes than Trump. That is the meaning of winning the popular vote. It would be between the 2 main candidates.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Konduit

He won fair and square. People should just accept it.

Accept he got the title or accept him.

Not necessarily the same thing.

I have not changed my thoughts because of a vote.

The balls in his court.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

If there were to be any change in the electoral vote, that's the one I'd support. It would certainly give political minorities in many states much more reason to actually bother voting in presidential elections. Unfortunately, you're right, though. It'll never happen because states like California and New York will never accept it.

Guess the hicks in the sticks won.

About time ! I have yet to meet a HRC supporter and I live in a very large city, about 16th in ranking as far as largest cities in the US with a good diversity .

The pollsters and HRC didn't care about the common working class people.