Clinton's Lead In Popular Vote Exceeds 2 Million

[Kromovaracun]

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.politico.com/story/2016/11/clinton-lead-popular-vote-2016-231790?cmpid=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?

[-Talbot-]

He won on the current rules. Trump has to take office.

[Kromovaracun]

Fair enough, Talbot.

Do you think the rules should be changed in future?

[naomi24]

You say this is the fourth time it's happened. I can't recall anyone making a fuss about it previously, but perhaps I missed it.

[-Talbot-]

That's something for the Americans to chew over ... I can't say that I have really given it much thought.

[Kromovaracun]

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.

[Zacs-Master]

Intersting:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/why-electoral-college-landslides-are-easier-to-win-than-popular-vote-ones/

[anotheoldgit]

How many seats would UKIP now have in Parliament, if we were to alter our system?

[Zacs-Master]

round about 80 AOG, if you mean changing to PR. Other systems are available.

https://fullfact.org/news/how-many-seats-could-ukip-have-under-different-voting-system/

[Kromovaracun]

We at least had a vote on changing our electoral system, AOG. The public voted against it...

[ichkeria]

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?

[-Talbot-]

ichkeria
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



LOL You obviously haven't heard just how gracious she was in defeat.

[Kromovaracun]

Oh, the UK has a much worse track record on this than the US does. If you look at the last few election cycles, it is practically the norm for the governing party to be elected on 40% or less of the popular vote.

[ichkeria]

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)

[Jackdaw33]

Labour out-polled the Tories in 1951 but the Tories had a majority of 17.

[jim360]

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.

[Togo]

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.

[ichkeria]

Trump claimed he'd have won anyway under a different system, which he might have done, of course.
And Clinton, bizarrely, did not campaign hard, if at all, in places like Michigan. Although it looked like it would stay Democrat, it was nonetheless on most people's list of important states.

[ichkeria]

"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

[jim360]

// 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.

[naomi24]

Jim, //Which Remoaners are you referring to, though? I have, at no point ever, questioned the legitimacy of the result of the referendum //

But you have moaned. ;o)