Hillary knew the Americans wouldn't accept

[Shaul]

Yes and no. Unless there are runoff elections, if someone doesn't get a majority, then the [most] "popular vote" would be the one who gets the largest number of votes and would therefore be the winner.

Semantics.

The definition of who “won” the popular vote definitely should be someone that received greater than 50% of the vote and not alternatively the person that got the highest percentage. Semantics can be crucial sometimes. This is such a case.

Saying someone “won” the popular vote who really got less than a majority is misleading.

See my separate post for elaboration.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Except I haven’t made one. You insist that the person that “won the popular vote” be defined as the “person who got the highest percentage of the popular vote”. I have explained that it should be defined as a “person that received over 50% of the popular vote”. Let’s apply your definition to some examples. In the election of 1824 no single one of the four candidates got over 50% of the popular vote. Andrew Jackson received the highest percentage with 41.4% of it. By your definition he “won” the popular vote. Yet 6 out of 10 voters did not vote for him! We could have a hypothetical election with more candidates splitting the popular vote such that a person with much, much less than 50% of the popular vote could be the one that had the highest percentage among the candidates. Your definition would say each of these hypothetical candidates to have “won” the popular vote. How low would that percentage have to be before you could see your definition is faulty? 30%, 25%, 10%? Clearly a percentage less than 50% can be argued against, but above that, not so much. We see a similar definition with the electoral votes, BTW. The Constitution says that a candidate must have over 50% to have “won”. 48% (such as Hillary’s percentage of the popular vote) won’t do. 48% of electoral vote doesn’t ”win” it, 48% of the popular vote doesn’t “win” that.

You are not the one that gets to make up definitions. Not only did I explain your error to you, I found a link that does so as well.

In a popular election the person that gets the largest number of votes wins. Period. Full stop.

Now some areas do have different rules. There are areas that say if there is no outright majority then the top two candidates will run against each other in a special election. But this is not an example of "popular vote". It is an exception for a majority vote.

One more time, both the winner of a plurality and a person that gets a clear majority are both examples of winning the popular vote? I could find other sources for you, but there is no need since you can't independently support your claim.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The definition of who “won” the popular vote definitely should be someone that received greater than 50% of the vote and not alternatively the person that got the highest percentage. Semantics can be crucial sometimes. This is such a case.

Saying someone “won” the popular vote who really got less than a majority is misleading.

See my separate post for elaboration.

Excuses are not an "elaboration". Find a valid source that supports you and you might have something.

Another source that supports me:

United States presidential elections in which the winner lost the popular vote - Wikipedia

Please note they explain how of the five times that a President did not win the popular vote and won the electoral vote and therefore the election, there was only one time where the opponent had the majority.

 

[Stevicus]

you have facts to back all of this?

Just out of curiosity, what does the world look like to you?

You're practically asking for proof that "rain is wet." It's so obvious that any reasonably informed individual should already be aware of the facts that would back what PureX is saying. Why don't you already know?

 

[Audie]

Just out of curiosity, what does the world look like to you?

You're practically asking for proof that "rain is wet." It's so obvious that any reasonably informed individual should already be aware of the facts that would back what PureX is saying. Why don't you already know?

Ok..whatevs

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

If Hillary had been a man her story would have won.

Hillary had 3 million more popular votes than Trump. No one has ever lost a presidential election after getting 3 million more votes than their closest competitor. I don't think it had anything to do with gender.

 

[AManCalledHorse]

George W. Bush won his second election by a clear majority of the popular vote. Something that Bill Clinton did not do in either of his elections.

How can you make the claim Clinton didn't win majority of the popular vote of either of his presidential terms?
American presidential election 1992.
Bill Clinton -Democratic 44,909,889
George Bush -Republican 39,104,545

American presidential election 1996.
Bill Clinton -Democratic 47,402,357
Bob Dole -Republican 39,198,755

American presidential election 2004.
George W Bush -Republican 62,040,610
John Kerry -Democrat 59,028,444

 

[Subduction Zone]

How can you make the claim Clinton didn't win majority of the popular vote of either of his presidential terms?
American presidential election 1992.
Bill Clinton -Democratic 44,909,889
George Bush -Republican 39,104,545

American presidential election 1996.
Bill Clinton -Democratic 47,402,357
Bob Dole -Republican 39,198,755

American presidential election 2004.
George W Bush -Republican 62,040,610
John Kerry -Democrat 59,028,444

Because Bill Clinton got less than half of the total vote. He won the popular vote but he did not win a majority. In both cases he got a plurality. That is winning the popular vote, but not the majority;

In 1992 he only got 43.01% of the popular vote. You forgot to include Ross Perot in your figures:

United States presidential election, 1992 - Wikipedia

And in 1996 he got 49.24% of the popular vote. Again, Ross Perot was a sizable factor: Once again, not a majority.

United States presidential election, 1996 - Wikipedia

EDIT: In the Bush Kerry election Bush got 50.73% of the popular vote. That was a majority, not just a plurality:

United States presidential election, 2004 - Wikipedia

 

[Audie]

Because Bill Clinton got less than half of the total vote. He won the popular vote but he did not win a majority. In both cases he got a plurality. That is winning the popular vote, but not the majority;

In 1992 he only got 43.01% of the popular vote. You forgot to include Ross Perot in your figures:

United States presidential election, 1992 - Wikipedia

And in 1996 he got 49.24% of the popular vote. Again, Ross Perot was a sizable factor: Once again, not a majority.

United States presidential election, 1996 - Wikipedia

EDIT: In the Bush Kerry election Bush got 50.73% of the popular vote. That was a majority, not just a plurality:

United States presidential election, 2004 - Wikipedia

You are mixing up "most" and "majority".

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are mixing up "most" and "majority".

You are mixing up plurality and majority.

A plurality is simply the most votes. A person that wins with a plurality has more votes than anyone else, a winner of the popular vote, but still has less than half of the total vote. More than half qualifies as a majority.

 

[Shushersbedamned]

Hillary had 3 million more popular votes than Trump. No one has ever lost a presidential election after getting 3 million more votes than their closest competitor. I don't think it had anything to do with gender.

Yes. It was hacked and in the end it has nothing to do with gender

 

[Epic Beard Man]

An awful lot of people voted for her because she is a woman.

True. Just as the polar opposite is also true.

 

[AManCalledHorse]

Because Bill Clinton got less than half of the total vote. He won the popular vote but he did not win a majority. In both cases he got a plurality. That is winning the popular vote, but not the majority;

In 1992 he only got 43.01% of the popular vote. You forgot to include Ross Perot in your figures:

United States presidential election, 1992 - Wikipedia

And in 1996 he got 49.24% of the popular vote. Again, Ross Perot was a sizable factor: Once again, not a majority.

United States presidential election, 1996 - Wikipedia

EDIT: In the Bush Kerry election Bush got 50.73% of the popular vote. That was a majority, not just a plurality:

United States presidential election, 2004 - Wikipedia

Indeed. However Bush didn't have to contend with a third wheel. Getting 49.24% out of three is a greater win than getting 50.73% out of two. If Bush would have had two opponents he likely would not have won.

 

[Shaul]

You are not the one that gets to make up definitions. Not only did I explain your error to you, I found a link that does so as well.

In a popular election the person that gets the largest number of votes wins. Period. Full stop.

Now some areas do have different rules. There are areas that say if there is no outright majority then the top two candidates will run against each other in a special election. But this is not an example of "popular vote". It is an exception for a majority vote.

One more time, both the winner of a plurality and a person that gets a clear majority are both examples of winning the popular vote? I could find other sources for you, but there is no need since you can't independently support your claim.

Your sources were some “study.com” site and Wikipedia. (Wikipedia, really?) Those aren’t authoritative sources. On the other hand I referred you to the example of the U.S. Constitution. It’s definition agrees with me.

You
are
wrong.

Someone that receives greater than 50% of the popular vote wins it. If no one does receives more that 50% than nobody won it.
Period, full stop.

 

[Shaul]

You are not the one that gets to make up definitions. Not only did I explain your error to you, I found a link that does so as well.

You should heed your own advice! YOU are not the one that gets to make up definitions. The dictionary defines the winner of the popular vote as someone that receives more than 50%, a majority. To wit,

“Definition of 'to win the popular vote'
to get a majority as regards the votes cast by individual voters”

To win the popular vote definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

Case closed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You should heed your own advice! YOU are not the one that gets to make up definitions. The dictionary defines the winner of the popular vote as someone that receives more than 50%, a majority. To wit,

“Definition of 'to win the popular vote'
to get a majority as regards the votes cast by individual voters”

To win the popular vote definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

Case closed.

Dictionaries are the worst sources to use in such an argument. I found at least three that explained why you were wrong. Why did you ignore those? I found better sources that gave more thorough explanations.

So yes, case closed. You do not know how to use references properly.

 

[Shaul]

Dictionaries are the worst sources to use in such an argument. I found at least three that explained why you were wrong. Why did you ignore those? I found better sources that gave more thorough explanations.

So yes, case closed. You do not know how to use references properly.

Wikipedia, seriously? You are joking, right?

You think Wikipedia is a better source than an authoritative dictionary and the U.S. Constitution’s example.

Hahahahahaha!!!!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wikipedia, seriously? You are joking, right?

You think Wikipedia is a better source than an authoritative dictionary and the U.S. Constitution’s example.

Hahahahahaha!!!!

You only used a dictionary, dictionaries are terrible references when used in the way that you did. Wikipedia beats that idiocy to hell and back. So did the first site that I linked:

What is a Popular Vote? - Definition & Overview - Video & Lesson Transcript | Study.com

As I said, you don't know how to use references properly.

 

[Stanyon]

No one ever seemed to talk about that Hillary would have been the first female president in USA. I know USA is all about proclaming itself as modern and all but really. If Hillary had been a man her story would have won.

Why would having a penis or a vagina make a difference in capability?

 

[Shushersbedamned]

Why would having a penis or a vagina make a difference in capability?

Why would it not make a difference?