Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by nearly 2.9 million
Source: International Business Times
The Electoral College began voting Monday, and barring some unforeseen, unprecedented move from the electors, it will confirm Donald Trump as the president-elect of the United States. But even as that vote takes place, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton earned some 2.9 million more total votes than Trump.
The latest count from a Cook Political Report analysis, had Clinton at 65,844,594 votes, compared to 62,979,616 for Trump. That's a difference of 2.86 million votes. In all, 48.2 percent of the electorate voted for Clinton, while 46.1 percent voted for Trump.
Interestingly, a large number of Americans seemingly remain confused or uninformed about the election results. A Washington Post poll released Sunday found 52 percent of Republicans, and 29 percent of all Americans, thought Trump won the popular vote.
In fact, Trump won the presidency through the Electoral College system, with victories in key swing states such as Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin. He earned 306 electoral votes to Clinton's 232. The former secretary of state garnered the large popular vote lead through lopsided victories highly populous states such as New York and California.
-snip-
Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/2016/12/hillary-clinton-won-the-popular-vote-by-nearly-2-9-million/
tenorly
(2,037 posts)Does anyone seriously believe that Snotty Bown and Waterboy didn't engage in the most electoral fraud they thought they could get a way with?
still_one
(92,130 posts)the "real America"
At least according to the scam that is the electoral college
citood
(550 posts)This website gives a great insight into what was considered a 'large' or 'small' state in any given year:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ElectoralCollege1792-Large.png
An interesting wrinkle in the electoral college is the 'Reapportionment Act of 1929', which sets the 435 congressional seats we know today (plus 100 senators and 3 for DC = the electoral college). This has had a dramatic effect on the power of rural states in congress and presidential elections ever since.
still_one
(92,130 posts)hughee99
(16,113 posts)If they didn't count, Trump would have won in a massive electoral landslide.
still_one
(92,130 posts)hughee99
(16,113 posts)and it's winner take all in most places so winning a state by 1 vote is the same as winning by 2 million.
Look, I don't like the system either, but lets not pretend, after the fact, that Clinton and her team didn't know exactly how the electoral college works or that we were blindsided by an unforeseen technicality. If the popular vote was what mattered, both candidates would have had VERY different campaign schedules.
still_one
(92,130 posts)hughee99
(16,113 posts)I'm not sure that a national popular vote is the way to go, but at the very least, the number of voters per EV should be close to uniform across the states. I don't believe they can do this without adding more EV's though. Whatever they do, I think it's probably going to require a constitutional amendment. I don't think having states pledge themselves to cast their EV's for the popular vote winner is going to work.
jaxind
(1,074 posts)Every single time, there is even mention in the media about Trump saying he won by a landslide, the media must say "it was NOT a landslide" and explain why!
Coyotl
(15,262 posts)But don't expect to see or hear it on the propaganda streams.
EL34x4
(2,003 posts)I've never understood the point of that graphic.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)Gothmog
(145,126 posts)Cha
(297,136 posts)MrPurple
(985 posts)What's maddening is that a minority of votes are going to usher in such drastic, irrational, corrupt changes.