Hillary Clinton Winning total vote count but loses the Election

by RubaDub 20 Replies latest social current

• 

  RubaDub

  Do those of you outside the USA find it odd that in a Presidential election, the total number of people casting votes means nothing? There is a method we use here called the Electoral College based on each State rather than the total votes cast by actual people.

  This is, I believe the 5th time in America's history that the person with the most votes lost the election (the last was in 2000 when Al Gore beat George W. Bush by about 400,000 votes but lost the election).

  So Hillary (at the moment I last checked) had overall about 200,000 more votes nationwide but lost.

  I'm sure a lot of people in other countries scratch their heads when they see this happening.

  Rub a Dub
  
• 

  darkspilver

  Not really, because that's what happens when distilling millions of votes.

  It's exasperated in the US by having a 'winner-take-all' in each state, particular when, due to the high population, they have a high number of college votes like California and Florida.

  What is odd is that in the Primaries, many States DON'T do a 'winner-takes-all' but do some kind of division depending on how many votes each candidate got - but then they don't do the same for the actual Presidential Election
  .
• 

  dogon

  The main reason for the EC is to give power to small or less populated states so big states like California and NY do not run rough shod over the others. If we did not have it then skankles would not even try to do anything for states like Wyoming or Arkansas. You most likely live in a country that does not have states that are to some deg. autonomous.
  
• 

  Nathan Natas

  I would not require nor expect that anyone outside the USA who is not a Poli-sci major would have the slightest understanding of how the Electoral college works.

  And why should that ignorance be a basis for condemning the Electoral College?

  If you want to change the system, get to work. Rabble-rousing is not work.
• 

  Simon

  Seriously? Why wouldn't anyone understand - it's pretty simple and many other countries have similar representative democracies (many commonwealth countries).

  The reason for a representative democracy is to favour larger, nation-wide parties and prevent smaller extremist types from getting a voice. However, those who argue for proportional representation would argue that it prevents large numbers of people from having a voice simply due to how their support is distributed.

  There is no perfect system and what works well for one party in one election can work against them in the next. The electoral college has little to do with the result of this one IMO.
• 

  RubaDub

  And why should that ignorance be a basis for condemning the Electoral College.

  NN ....

  I was in no way condemning the Electoral College. I was stating facts.

  In all other political races that we have here, I believe, are based on total votes counted.

  I was making a comment based on questions as to why someone can receive more votes and yet lose the election.

  The fact is simply that living and voting in a State with a small population gives your more political clout than in a heavily populated State (New York, California, etc.). But then that is the way that the US Constitution has been established.

  Rub a Dub
  
• 

  Nathan Natas

  Yes, RubaDub, but that's the way it is. If you want change, work for change. King Jesus got out of the fried-chicken delivery business sometime in the 50s. He ain't delivered nutthin' since!

  Yes Simon, but similar isn't identical. Do students in the UK actually waste their time studying the US political system in depth? I cannot think of a greater waste of time for them! US schools stopped teaching "civics" about the same time Jesus stopped delivering fried chicken.
• 

  baker

  What would the US look like if there was just a governing body that made all the decisions? I shutter to imagine it.
• 

  Esse quam videri

  baker '... I shutter to imagine it...'

  I think that's shudder, however, maybe you want to shutter the windows when you imagine a governing body in charge in US politics. Actually not a bad idea,

  ' GB WINDOW SHUTTERS'

  GUARANTEED TO BLOCK OUT ALL OFFENSIVE NEW LIGHT.
  
• 

  RubaDub

  Yes, RubaDub, but that's the way it is. If you want change, work for change.

  NN ...

  I was in no way stating or implying that I was trying to change anything. I was just stating facts for those not familiar with the American Presidential system.

  I told a relative of mine in Europe who actually brought this question up that you have to think of the American system as giving more power to the "smaller" ones. I told him think of 100 people in a room and they vote on making the nearby highway wider. They vote in total 51 to 49 to expand the highway but they lose the election because the people' votes who live on smaller streets count more.

  NN, I was just stating facts, not giving an OpEd piece.

  Rub a Dub