The Popular Vote is Irrelevant

[Quetzal]

The real relevance of the pop vote is that Democrats can find hope in a losing election being so close.

I think there is a bit of merit to that. If I were on the board the dealt with campaigning, I could say "Well, we had the popular vote but we really struggled in state X,Y, and Z. If we can get that same kind of turn out in those states, maybe next time will be different."

 

[Revoltingest]

Whacha mean?

Dems & Pubs each see themselves as so different.
But they fundamentally aren't.
Pubs imagine they're the party of a strong military, but Dems have expanded military spending too.
Dems imagine they're the party of civil rights, but Nixon advanced them far more than did Obama.

 

[Sunstone]

And in the end is the fact that Donald Trump is your President for the next four years, deal with it boy.

You're so cute when you gloat. It's pretty middle school to gloat like that, but it is cute.

 

[Revoltingest]

Whatever you need to tell yourself.

You're being dismissive instead of addressing the difference?
If that's all you gots, OK.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Dems & Pubs each see themselves as so different.
But they fundamentally aren't.
Pubs imagine they're the party of a strong military, but Dems have expanded military spending too.
Dems imagine they're the party of civil rights, but Nixon advanced them far more than did Obama.

You already know my opinion on this. Both are owned by the same people and we have carefully calculated constructed divisions over things that don't matter on the large scale but only the very personal.

 

[Adramelek]

If you want to play that card, then tying the hands of the electoral college goes against what was originally intended. The college members were supposed to be free to deliberate and decide for themselves who the President should be.

And they overwhelmingly voted for Donald Trump.

 

[Watchmen]

When people talk about Clinton carrying the popular vote, they're talking about the election results.

And the popular vote would have been different if we didn't have the electoral system.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And they overwhelmingly voted for Donald Trump.

... after mostly being required by the law of their states to vote for Trump.

 

[Watchmen]

The fact is the majority of the active electorate was not duped by Trump. You are merely arguing that they could have been if Trump had campaigned in California, etc. That's not a fact, that's a speculation.

And you are equally speculating that Hillary would still have won the popular vote if we didn't have the electorate.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think there is a bit of merit to that. If I were on the board the dealt with campaigning, I could say "Well, we had the popular vote but we really struggled in state X,Y, and Z. If we can get that same kind of turn out in those states, maybe next time will be different."

That's the productive way to face loss, ie, learn from it.
It beats stamping one's feet, & cursing the other side.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And the popular vote would have been different if we didn't have the electoral system.

... because the candidates would have done a better job of building support among the entire people instead of just certain swing states. Again, I don't see why this would be bad.

 

[Watchmen]

No, I don't.

Edit: the will of the people is independent of any particular system. It's the thing you try to set your system up to achieve.

The popular vote would have been different if we didn't have the electorate. We don't know who would have won the popular vote in such a situation.

 

[Sunstone]

And you are equally speculating that Hillary would still have won the popular vote if we didn't have the electorate.

I am not. I've said nothing about that.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

The popular vote is irrelevant because it has nothing to do with how the "game" is played. It's like a baseball team losing a game then complaining that they had more hits. If the game was to win the popular vote then both camps would have campaigned differently, and we have no idea what the result would have been. For example, if it was about the popular vote, do you think Trump would have ignored California during the general? I don't think so. No one can say with any certainty what the popular vote would have been.

Yeah, and what if Hillary had not ignored Texas? She only lost my 6 points. It's a game played both ways.

Yes, Trump gains the office through the electoral college.

But no, he'll still have to govern based in the court of popular opinion. . . and he will soon find this out.

Look, spporters of Trump who still complain about this election business would like nothing better than continue election controversy, maybe forever. Then, you can still talk about Hillary's corruption and those rare instances of liberals acting inappropriately.

But in a few more days, they'll be nothing else for you to do or whine about, outside of the positions, political tactics, and governance of President Trump.

I'm ready to move on. Are you?

 

[Watchmen]

... because the candidates would have done a better job of building support among the entire people instead of just certain swing states. Again, I don't see why this would be bad.

I never said it was bad. My point is the Hillary supporters like to point to the popular vote, but that vote is irrelevant because it is not an accurate representation of the people in an electorate system.

 

[Parchment]

You're so cute when you gloat. Ridiculous. But cute.

I voted for Gary Johnson so I am not gloating but I never pass up a chance to poke a stick at a sleeping kitty cat when I see it - WAKE UP!

 

[Watchmen]

I am not. I've said nothing about that.

You implied it with the first sentence of your last post.

 

[Revoltingest]

You already know my opinion on this. Both are owned by the same people and we have carefully calculated constructed divisions over things that don't matter on the large scale but only the very personal.

I'd forgotten, so it's good that you remind me.
My view is that the similarity results from optimum strategy, ie, both parties fight over the 1% in the
middle because that's where victory lies. Another way to state this is that the maximum number of
votes won will often be attained by being only slightly to one side of the other on the political spectrum.
Dems need be only slightly to the left of Pubs, & Pubs only slightly to the right of Dems.

 

[Quetzal]

It beats stamping one's feet, & cursing the other side.

Great release of stress, though!

 

[Watchmen]

Yeah, and what if Hillary had not ignored Texas? She only lost my 6 points. It's a game played both ways.

Yes, Trump gains the office through the electoral college.

But no, he'll still have to govern based in the court of popular opinion. . . and he will soon find this out.

Look, spporters of Trump who still complain about this election business would like nothing better than continue election controversy, maybe forever. Then, you can still talk about Hillary's corruption and those rare instances of liberals acting inappropriately.

But in a few more days, they'll be nothing else for you to do or whine about, outside of the positions, political tactics, and governance of President Trump.

I'm ready to move on. Are you?

I know it goes both ways. I've repeatedly said we do not know who would have won. Maybe Trump. Maybe Hillary. That's my whole point.