Why is there such an historically large popular vote margin in favor of the loser in this election?

[bigtree]

...I'm so off-balance watching the late returns increase Hillary's vote that I'm inclined to believe anything at this point, conspiracy or process.

At the very least, this result should be followed by an examination/debate by lawmakers of the electoral college system. It's a mockery of what most people understand to be democracy, and it's a poor example to the rest of the world, many countries which have had their own election processes questioned and criticized by the U.S..

By, anyway, what the HELL is going on here?

[Auntie Bush]

1. Fraud?

[brooklynite]

3. Evidence?

[jmg257]

7. Certainly not via exit polls, which so many keep harping on. Then I see for myself...

Penn - trump 4%
Wisconsin - trump 4%
Michigan - trump 1%
Florida - trump 5%
Ohio - trump 10%
NH - tie
Texas - trump 9%

http://www.cnn.com/election/results/states/michigan
http://www.cnn.com/election/results/states/wisconsin
http://www.cnn.com/election/results/states/pennsylvania
http://www.cnn.com/election/results/states/florida
http://www.cnn.com/election/results/states/ohio
http://www.cnn.com/election/results/states/texas

Each state has an exit poll by gender in the lower left corner.

Unless I am reading them wrong, the exit polls seem pretty spot on compared with actual results.

[Retrograde]

2. Electoral College gives more weight to small-pop states

Clinton carried the more densely populated areas - in California she won San Francisco with 85% of the votes cast, Los Angeles county with 72% so far, Santa Clara county (Silicon Valley) with 73%, and Alameda county (Berkeley and Oakland) with 79%. And these are all counties where the percentage of voters who turned out was higher than the national average (the California Secretary of State's elections page has all sorts of crunchy data). Statewide, Clinton has over 4 million more votes than Trump, but we get just 55 electoral votes. All states get a minimum of 3 electoral votes just by dint of being a state, no matter how many people they have or how many voted. And as we've just seen in Michigan, if the more liberal meaning voters decide to sit on their hands and let Trump voters dominate, that state's electoral votes all go in the R column.

Is it unfair? This Californian certainly thinks so. Can it be changed? Not easily - abolishing the electoral college means amending the constitution, and getting those small population states to give up their clout just isn't gonna happen.

[uponit7771]

8. Yeap, the EC was a racist compromise (link inside)

http://fusion.net/story/369039/electoral-college-racist-trump/

[Skittles]

10. it is ridiculously unfair

maybe the EC had its place back in the day but in the digital age, it is seriously fucked - it has now given us TWO UNQUALIFIED PRESIDENTS IN THE PAST 16 YEARS

[JustinL]

4. the main factor is that Clinton won her states by a much larger margin than the fascist

Based on the somewhat outdated wikipedia results, Clinton won her states by a weighted average of 18.2%, while the fascist won his states by a weighted average of only 10.6%.

I see a lot of discussion about how small states are overweighted in the Electoral College, but not as much about how winning by 1% counts the same as winning by 40%.

[bigtree]

9. okay, that sinks in a little

...

[former9thward]

5. Its mostly California.

Democrats have concentrated themselves in CA and it can only be won once. Clinton has a 4 million vote lead over Trump in CA. Nationally Clinton's lead is 2.3 million. So that means in the 49 states other than CA Trump has a 1.7 million lead over Clinton. The huge margins in CA does not help in the electoral college.

[jmg257]

6. She won CA and NY by over 6 million votes. Too many other states not so much. nt

[Skittles]

11. why do the votes in other states count more?

it is utter bullshit

the Electoral College should be declared OBSOLETE

[dumbcat]

13. Because - Electoral College

The Founders never intended that the President be elected by the people. The President is elected by the states, weighted as per the provisions of the Constitution.

We don't like that now. The Electoral College has been declared OBSOLETE by a lot of people. Didn't work. It's still there.

I'm sure you already know this, so your question is obviously rhetorical. Because that's the way it is in the Constitution.

So your question might rather be, "Why haven't we changed the Constitution?" That has also been answered numerous times.

So what to do? Well, we can keep harping on it, and keep trying to convince enough Congresspersons and State Legislatures to agree to change it. That will probably take a long time. And not fun nor instantly gratifying.

Or we can try the "second amendment" solution. Not too sure how far you are going to get with that among your normally peace-loving progressives.

Or maybe a massive General Strike that paralyzes the country and puts many lives at risk. I hear that mentioned a lot, and would actually like to see it tried. But I really don't see it happening.

Frustrating, ain't it?

[Skittles]

14. the EC is BACKFIRING now

it is actually doing what it intended to avoid

[dumbcat]

17. But, ...

it is doing it within the provisions of the Constitution, specifically, how the weighting by state is determined, which is what everyone is bellyaching about.

[JonLP24]

12. It's possible for someone to win 11 states, get to 270

Do badly everywhere else and win with 23% of the vote.

[beaglelover]

15. Because the electoral college is a fucked up arcane institution and should be eliminated!

[Calculating]

16. Couldn't have said it better

We're the only developed nation with voting in the world to use such a stupid system. Either they're all wrong and we're right, or we're right and all the other countries are wrong.

[TuslaUltra]

18. in percentage points, yes. 1876 had a 3% difference between the pop vote loser and winner

Hayes vs. Tilden