Hillary Wins the Popular Vote -- NOT

[SirLinksALot]

SOURCE: AMERICAN THINKER

URL: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/11/hillary_wins_the_popular_vote__not_.html

Steve Feinstein


Okay, let’s address this “Hillary might win the popular vote, isn’t that Electoral College situation just awful” thing head on.

No, it’s not awful. It’s great, and it protects the importance of your vote. It’s also uniquely American and demonstrates yet again the once-in-creation brilliance of the Founding Fathers.

First of all, she’s probably not going to win the actual number of votes cast. She may win the number of votes counted, but not the votes cast.

States don’t count their absentee ballots unless the number of outstanding absentee ballots is larger than the state margin of difference. If there is a margin of 1000 votes counted and there are 1300 absentee ballots outstanding, then the state tabulates those. If the number of outstanding absentee ballots wouldn’t influence the election results, then the absentee ballots aren’t counted.

Who votes by absentee ballot? Students overseas, the military, businesspeople on trips, etc. The historical breakout for absentee ballots is about 67-33% Republican. In 2000, when Al Gore “won” the popular vote nationally by 500,000 votes and the liberal media screamed bloody murder, there were 2 million absentee ballots in CA alone. A 67-33 breakout of those yields a 1.33-.667 mil Republican vote advantage, so Bush would have gotten a 667,000-vote margin from CA’s uncounted absentee ballots alone! So much for Gore’s 500,000 popular vote “victory.” (That was the headline on the NY Times and it was the lead story on the NBC Nightly News, right? No? You’re kidding.)

But... getting back to the “Win the popular vote/lose the Electoral College” scenario: Thank G-d we have that, or else CA and NY would determine every election. Every time.

I’ll draw a boxing analogy for you. In boxing, the scoring for a completed fight (one where there’s no knockout, but instead goes the full distance) is done either on a Rounds basis or a Points basis (agreed upon in advance). Let’s say it’s a 10-round fight, scored on the Rounds basis. The judges decide which boxer wins each round and the fight is scored 7-3 or 6-4 or 8-2.

The other way a fight can be scored is on the Points basis. Under this system, a fighter is given 10 points for winning the round, the loser gets 1-9 points, depending on how close or badly he loses it.

Let’s say Jones has two really big rounds where he knocks Jackson down a few times and really has him in trouble, winning those two rounds by scores of 10-6. But Jones only wins two other rounds, and those by very close 10-9 margins.

Jackson wins the 6 other rounds, all by 10-9 margins. No question that Jackson won those six rounds, but they weren’t overly dramatic. Just solid wins.

So Jackson wins by rounds, 6-4.

Jones wins by points, 94-90.

CA and NY are the 10-6 rounds. Those two states will unduly and disproportionately affect the election --every time. The other big population states are all 10-9 rounds. That means that the vast majority of 48 states and their populations will be subject to the whim and desire of just two states. If those two states have similar demographics and voting preferences at any particular point in time (which they do now), then those two states call the shots for the entire country.

But the Electoral College brilliantly smooths out the variances in the voting proclivities among states and regions. Farmers in the middle of the country and importers/exporters on the shore get roughly equal say, as do Madison Ave execs and factory workers in Tennessee.

Shortcomings? Sure. The EC can make an R vote meaningless in a very few heavily D states or vice-versa. But without the Electoral College, the country’s entire population is subject to the disproportionate voting preferences of the few most populous states.

[Cripplecreek]

The popular vote is a fantasy construct that should be erased from the American political mind.

[Bigun]

SOURCE: AMERICAN THINKER

URL: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/11/hillary_wins_the_popular_vote__not_.html

Steve Feinstein


Okay, let’s address this “Hillary might win the popular vote, isn’t that Electoral College situation just awful” thing head on.

No, it’s not awful. It’s great, and it protects the importance of your vote. It’s also uniquely American and demonstrates yet again the once-in-creation brilliance of the Founding Fathers.

First of all, she’s probably not going to win the actual number of votes cast. She may win the number of votes counted, but not the votes cast.

States don’t count their absentee ballots unless the number of outstanding absentee ballots is larger than the state margin of difference. If there is a margin of 1000 votes counted and there are 1300 absentee ballots outstanding, then the state tabulates those. If the number of outstanding absentee ballots wouldn’t influence the election results, then the absentee ballots aren’t counted.

Who votes by absentee ballot? Students overseas, the military, businesspeople on trips, etc. The historical breakout for absentee ballots is about 67-33% Republican. In 2000, when Al Gore “won” the popular vote nationally by 500,000 votes and the liberal media screamed bloody murder, there were 2 million absentee ballots in CA alone. A 67-33 breakout of those yields a 1.33-.667 mil Republican vote advantage, so Bush would have gotten a 667,000-vote margin from CA’s uncounted absentee ballots alone! So much for Gore’s 500,000 popular vote “victory.” (That was the headline on the NY Times and it was the lead story on the NBC Nightly News, right? No? You’re kidding.)

But... getting back to the “Win the popular vote/lose the Electoral College” scenario: Thank G-d we have that, or else CA and NY would determine every election. Every time.

I’ll draw a boxing analogy for you. In boxing, the scoring for a completed fight (one where there’s no knockout, but instead goes the full distance) is done either on a Rounds basis or a Points basis (agreed upon in advance). Let’s say it’s a 10-round fight, scored on the Rounds basis. The judges decide which boxer wins each round and the fight is scored 7-3 or 6-4 or 8-2.

The other way a fight can be scored is on the Points basis. Under this system, a fighter is given 10 points for winning the round, the loser gets 1-9 points, depending on how close or badly he loses it.

Let’s say Jones has two really big rounds where he knocks Jackson down a few times and really has him in trouble, winning those two rounds by scores of 10-6. But Jones only wins two other rounds, and those by very close 10-9 margins.

Jackson wins the 6 other rounds, all by 10-9 margins. No question that Jackson won those six rounds, but they weren’t overly dramatic. Just solid wins.

So Jackson wins by rounds, 6-4.

Jones wins by points, 94-90.

CA and NY are the 10-6 rounds. Those two states will unduly and disproportionately affect the election --every time. The other big population states are all 10-9 rounds. That means that the vast majority of 48 states and their populations will be subject to the whim and desire of just two states. If those two states have similar demographics and voting preferences at any particular point in time (which they do now), then those two states call the shots for the entire country.

But the Electoral College brilliantly smooths out the variances in the voting proclivities among states and regions. Farmers in the middle of the country and importers/exporters on the shore get roughly equal say, as do Madison Ave execs and factory workers in Tennessee.

Shortcomings? Sure. The EC can make an R vote meaningless in a very few heavily D states or vice-versa. But without the Electoral College, the country’s entire population is subject to the disproportionate voting preferences of the few most populous states.

Excellent post!  Thanks!

[jmyrlefuller]

Furthermore, there is one other distinction here: Clinton, even if she got "the most votes," did not get a majority, or even close to one. Thanks mostly to Gary Johnson, who picked off a little over 3% of the vote, Clinton finished at about 47%—and considering that no one can realistically assume that all of Johnson's voters would have voted Clinton had he not been in the race, the idea that he's a spoiler is wrong; this is not a repeat of 2000, when Nader arguably deprived Gore of the majority. Clinton was never going to beat all of her opponents combined.

There is no popular vote mandate here.

[goatprairie]

I do wonder how many Pubbies don't vote in California, New York, Illinois, Mass, etc.  because they know their votes won't matter. But I guess there might be an equal number of of Dems who don't vote in heavily Republican states for the same reason.

[jmyrlefuller]

I do wonder how many Pubbies don't vote in California, New York, Illinois because they know their votes won't matter. But I guess there might be an equal number of of Dems who don't vote in heavily Republican states for the same reason.

I can say in upstate New York, turnout is usually pretty high. I recall it being around 70% in my county. As much as it doesn't count, and our local races are usually landslides, we see it as a civic duty.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Furthermore, there is one other distinction here: Clinton, even if she got "the most votes," did not get a majority, or even close to one. Thanks mostly to Gary Johnson, who picked off a little over 3% of the vote, Clinton finished at about 47%—and considering that no one can realistically assume that all of Johnson's voters would have voted Clinton had he not been in the race, the idea that he's a spoiler is wrong; this is not a repeat of 2000, when Nader arguably deprived Gore of the majority. Clinton was never going to beat all of her opponents combined.

There is no popular vote mandate here.

Yes, very true.

[bolobaby]

Poor analysis.

If there is one thing this election was SUPPOSED to have taught us, it was to throw out our assumptions about elections, right?

So, the article is predicated on an OLD assumption that absentee ballots break 67-33 for conservatives. Since when? Because I thought this election changed everything.

So, unless those ballots are actually counted, any assumption we make about them is only "making and ass out of u and not me."

[Cripplecreek]

I can say in upstate New York, turnout is usually pretty high. I recall it being around 70% in my county. As much as it doesn't count, and our local races are usually landslides, we see it as a civic duty.

Same here in Michigan. Locally GOP turnout is usually upwards of 70%.

However Michigan has been moving rightward over the past decade. We've got a GOP supermajority in state government and most of our 83 counties are under GOP control. Most of our representatives in DC are also republican. The popular vote shows itself in races for senators where we're stuck with hard left democrats thanks to the 17th amendment. The best we can do for a republican governor is a moderate like Rick Snyder. Our elected AG and SOS are both republicans as well.

[austingirl]

One unknown factor is how many ballots were cast fraudulently- in the long-standing tradition of the Dimocrap party.

[Lando Lincoln]

A useless and wasted dream, I know... but I wish the state of Illinois had an EC-like system for statewide elections. 

We cannot overcome Cook County in almost any election.

[austingirl]

A useless and wasted dream, I know... but I wish the state of Illinois had an EC-like system for statewide elections. 

We cannot overcome Cook County in almost any election.

I grew up in Chicago and know the Dimocrap machine well. My family was a rarity- Goldwater Republicans- my first political memory is AUH2O. ^-^

My uncle ran against the machine and won but was not allowed to take office in a minor city role. He was intimidated into dropping the matter.

[Cripplecreek]

A useless and wasted dream, I know... but I wish the state of Illinois had an EC-like system for statewide elections. 

We cannot overcome Cook County in almost any election.

It would certainly be a step in the right direction toward correcting the 17th amendment disaster.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

A useless and wasted dream, I know... but I wish the state of Illinois had an EC-like system for statewide elections. 

We cannot overcome Cook County in almost any election.

I think the USSC outlawed that back in the 60's.

[TomSea]

Furthermore, there is one other distinction here: Clinton, even if she got "the most votes," did not get a majority, or even close to one. Thanks mostly to Gary Johnson, who picked off a little over 3% of the vote, Clinton finished at about 47%—and considering that no one can realistically assume that all of Johnson's voters would have voted Clinton had he not been in the race, the idea that he's a spoiler is wrong; this is not a repeat of 2000, when Nader arguably deprived Gore of the majority. Clinton was never going to beat all of her opponents combined.

There is no popular vote mandate here.

The Libertarian party is a dead party unless they regress back to their conservative Ron Paul type roots. I understand William Weld even came out for Clinton.

Trump lost Minnesota by around 1 percentage point, that is around the amount McMullin got.

So, there are other wildcards too.

[RoosGirl]

The issue I have is that, even if the absentee ballot vote split is 67-33 nationally, that doesn't necessarily mean that is the split in any specific state.  And, if absentee ballots are only counted when their outstanding totals could make a difference, is that often enough for the 67-33 split to be a historically accurate account?  And, would a historically accurate account be too historical to apply this year?  Throwing all of this "logic" at the issue just muddies the issue that popular vote doesn't and should never matter.

[bolobaby]

The Libertarian party is a dead party unless they regress back to their conservative Ron Paul type roots. I understand William Weld even came out for Clinton.

Trump lost Minnesota by around 1 percentage point, that is around the amount McMullin got.

So, there are other wildcards too.

 William Weld did NOT come out for Clinton. A notoriously left-wing site twisted his words to the point of libel to make it sound like he did.

It is shameful that conservatives have allowed such a dishonest liberal meme to be propagated.

[SZonian]

The popular vote is a fantasy construct that should be erased from the American political mind.

True, but the reality is far different...many of the millenials and others I have interacted with since the election are pushing popular vote very hard.  They are being taught at some point that the EC is not "democratic".  To which I say...ABSOfrickenLUTEY!  It's designed to protect us from MOB rule (democracy).

I've outed a few socialists who continue to push this idiocy...

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Majority vote and popular vote are two totally different things. This was an important distinction made.

[Cripplecreek]

True, but the reality is far different...many of the millenials and others I have interacted with since the election are pushing popular vote very hard.  They are being taught at some point that the EC is not "democratic".  To which I say...ABSOfrickenLUTEY!  It's designed to protect us from MOB rule (democracy).

I've outed a few socialists who continue to push this idiocy...

Oh yeah I agree and take it more seriously than most. It used to infuriate me to see posters at TOS laughing it off as impossible.

[240B]

Without the Electoral College, every election would be decided by a few dozen major cities, and the 90% of the rest of the entire country would have no voice at all. They would be cut out of the process. That is why it exists.

[cato potatoe]

We need to be vigilant in opposition to interstate pacts for the electoral college.  Leftists would NEVER abide by the pact if the GOP won the popular vote and lost the states with more electors.  The outrage is phony baloney.

[Sanguine]

Interesting points.

[bolobaby]

Without the Electoral College, every election would be decided by a few dozen major cities, and the 90% of the rest of the entire country would have no voice at all. They would be cut out of the process. That is why it exists.

Seven. Seven cities is all you would need to dominate. The analysis has already been done and the magic number is seven.

(All Democrat strongholds, too.)

[libertybele]

Without the Electoral College, every election would be decided by a few dozen major cities, and the 90% of the rest of the entire country would have no voice at all. They would be cut out of the process. That is why it exists.

Exactly and I would bet that the idiots rioting in the streets don't have a clue as to what the electoral college is.