Biggest loser ever in popular vote

Posted by | December 14, 2016 19:05 | Filed under: Politics

Republish
Reprint

He’s now 2.8 million votes behind Hillary Clinton.

Donald Trump lost the popular vote in last month’s US presidential election by a bigger margin than any other US president in history.

The Republican is currently trailing Democrat rival Hillary Clinton by 2.8 million votes as the last remaining postal ballots are counted – despite him winning the November 8 election because of the Electoral College system.

That deficit is more than five times bigger than the 544,000 by which George W. Bush lost to Al Gore in 2000 – the second biggest popular vote deficit in history for a candidate who has still gone on to become President.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2016 Liberaland
By: Alan

Alan Colmes is the publisher of Liberaland.

46 responses to Biggest loser ever in popular vote

  1. KABoink_after_wingnut_hacker December 14th, 2016 at 19:56

    The biggest loser and the most ignorant and dangerous as well.

  2. amersham1046 December 14th, 2016 at 20:17

    and Trump is calling his win a landslide

    • Jack E Raynbeau December 14th, 2016 at 21:48

      And the trumpologists believe him.

    • whatthe46 December 14th, 2016 at 23:20

      and his stupid supporters are eating it up. then i fact check them. i love doing that.

      • TuMadre, Ph.D December 16th, 2016 at 02:05

        I wouldn’t consider Trump’s victory a landslide. But it isn’t a particularly large skew of the electoral college, either. Take Reagan, for instance. Dude definitely got a landslide, electorally (525 electoral votes out of a possible 538), but he only won 59 percent of the popular vote.

        But then, it’s not like presidential candidates are going after the popular vote (and it wasn’t even an argument until after Clinton lost – and certainly wasn’t an argument when Obama beat Clinton in the primary). If one side wishes to change the rules, they should do so BEFORE the results come in, not after.

        That said, nobody knows exactly what the final tally will be until the electors actually vote.

        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9c22823b03f543dc3c3b644b3a831b9a1c4b29b16d39b4b429884756de0a3bd3.png

  3. Willys41 December 14th, 2016 at 20:47

    The US and the world are the biggest losers in this election.

  4. Suzanne McFly December 14th, 2016 at 21:21

    I heard priebus said rump has a mandate, I would love for him to say that to my face. I am a female so how bad could one of my punches hurt? Let him find out I say.

  5. Andy Colmes December 14th, 2016 at 21:45

    An Extreme Case of Electoral College System

    While Trump may be the biggest loser in popular vote, by 2.8 million thus far, the figure is far from the largest possible margin of 105M for someone to lose the popular vote yet win the US presidency. Here’s how…

    For simplicity in calculations, let’s assume there are 51 states (as opposed to 50) in the US and each state has one electoral vote and 100 popular votes. Thus, a presidential candidate can receive 0 popular votes (and consequently 0 electoral vote) in 25 states while winning the election with 51 popular votes and 1 electoral in each of the remaining 26 states. His total number of votes will then be 1,326 (popular) and 26 (electoral). His percentages of votes will be 26% (popular) and 51% (electoral). So he wins under the electoral college system.

    Applying the 26% to the actual number of eligible voters in the US (219M), he could, at least in theory, lose the popular vote by 105M (57M vs 162M), assuming every eligible voter voted, while winning the presidency.

    The scenario may sound extreme, but it serves to illustrate the obvious flaws of the electoral college system whereby a supermajority of 74% could lose to a 26% minority.

    • Glen December 15th, 2016 at 13:08

      The gap can be even bigger than that. You’re assuming that all of the states (by the way, including DC, there’s 51 states as far as the Electoral College is concerned) have the same number of electors and same number of electoral votes.

      If you win all of the other states, you can lose the 10 states with the largest electoral college votes (California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, and North Carolina), as well as Washington (which is 13th largest).

      As I can’t quickly find actual numbers for eligible voters per state, I’ll just assume states have the same proportion of total population “eligible” – the true numbers are likely not dramatically different from this, but may sway the totals slightly. I’ll also ignore that two states don’t allocate 100% of votes to a single candidate.

      As an estimate, the top 10 + Washington cover 179.6 million in population, out of 321.4 million (from Wikipedia, numbers may not be perfect) – that’s 55.88% of the total population of the US. If nobody in those states voted for the winner, and 50%+1 of voters in each of the other states did.

      Since those other states have roughly 50/50 each way, we can ignore them when working out the difference. So the margin becomes 55.88% of 219 million, which is about 122 million.

      In terms of percentages, the majority/minority size can be much larger than 74% to 26%, if there’s much larger turnout in the states that all voted against the “winner”. If three people voted in each of the smaller states in favour, and every single person in the largest states voted against, then you could see higher than 99% of the vote going to the “loser”.

      Seriously, your “Electoral College” system is massively screwed up, America.

      • TuMadre, Ph.D December 16th, 2016 at 02:12

        Remember, its theoretically possible (presuming the entire population can vote) to win the popular vote by over 39 million votes, and still lose in an absolute landslide electorally (lose every single state by a single vote except for California, where you win 100% of the vote).

        Of course, that number would shrink when you counted the illegal aliens, the felons, and the children, but I’m leaving SOME room for them, as the California population is well over 39 million.

        There’s good reason for the electoral college (including the reasoning that democrats have given in their final desperate attempt to block Trump’s presidency), but that’s a rather long-winded explanation that I will presume most here already understand and accept, and simply see Trump as a possible dictator.

        • Glen December 16th, 2016 at 10:01

          There *was* good reason for the Electoral College system. It’s outdated, now.

          • TuMadre, Ph.D December 17th, 2016 at 00:22

            I was unaware it had become outdated. Out of curiosity, what reason do you think that it was originally implemented, and how has that reason become outdated as of now?

            • Obewon December 17th, 2016 at 00:52

              The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an agreement among a group of U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their respective electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the overall popular vote in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The compact is designed to ensure that the candidate who wins the most popular votes is elected president, and it will come into effect only when it will guarantee that outcome.[2][3] As of 2016, it has been adopted by ten states and the District of Columbia. Together, they have 165 (Md 10 = 165) electoral votes, becoming law when 270 EC vote states agree. http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/status

              • TuMadre, Ph.D December 17th, 2016 at 01:03

                Ok. But how does that answer my question? All you have done is explain a group, rather than why you think the EC was implemented, or how it is outdated now, but wasn’t in the past.

            • Obewon December 17th, 2016 at 01:28

              Explore the website explaining it to you e.g. The shortcomings of the current system of electing the President stem from state winner-take-all statutes (i.e., state laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate receiving the most popular votes in each separate state).

              Because of these state winner-take-all statutes, presidential candidates have no reason to pay attention to the issues of concern to voters in states where the statewide outcome is a foregone conclusion. As shown on the map, two-thirds of the 2012 general-election campaign events (176 of 253) were in just 4 states (Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Iowa). Thirty-eight states were ignored. Via http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/written-explanation

              • TuMadre, Ph.D December 17th, 2016 at 01:37

                I agree that the current system isn’t without its problems, but removing it isn’t going to solve that issue, just change the states that the campaign focuses on from the swing states to a handful of coastal states,and that doing so would risk secession from states that produce more,but are lower in population.

                • Obewon December 17th, 2016 at 01:41

                  Go ahead. Thinking teabaggers can violate the 14th A and secede. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c7056ea59da6fec8f42896e84f12b6b1894ff071b272537ec27103cb621534bf.jpg

                  • TuMadre, Ph.D December 17th, 2016 at 01:55

                    Not sure what that image is supposed to mean, but if you are implying that the US would emp or nuke the land they need for food, that would be a mistake. If anything, it would be easier to go to war with a place like New York than the Midwest, as it is easier to control 109 square miles of than it is to control, say, KS and NE, totaling 159,631 square miles. Furthermore, those states produce the things you can’t live without, unlike NYC or CA (which requires water from other states in order to continue farming. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/928ba2593723c6046b11034ab9592f8b7ea7054b0ba7c35c6cb2eefd277771a8.png

                    • Obewon December 17th, 2016 at 01:58

                      You don’t get it (critical thinking). As you’ve admitted, you’re no Ph.D. that’s for certain e.g. ‘nothing electronic is useful after CHAMP delivers, or any other emp wave.’ https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0319afe62c85645149f1963deb1ace5205b93fc46805a29db7a4ec959342b107.jpg

                    • TuMadre, Ph.D December 17th, 2016 at 02:04

                      Your image is too small to read. I also understand what EMP does, but do not understand how you would expect the high population centers to eat after using EMP on the food producers. EMP would also have no effect on fire arms.

                    • Obewon December 17th, 2016 at 02:11

                      Lol! https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/26435f896864aec1c35dde2d352b6dde2fef2659872a104183b25daa7a726fd8.jpg

                    • TuMadre, Ph.D December 17th, 2016 at 02:23

                      I did that, and even whipped out my phone in order to try and zoom it even more, and the text went too fuzzy to read. This image is much clearer, though the argument is tired. How did that mentality fair when Republicans thought that about Iraqi goat herders?

                      You also forget where the majority of the people who make up the military come from (it isn’t NYC), and may underestimate their willingness to allow the federal government to attack their families without sabotage.

                    • Obewon December 17th, 2016 at 02:26

                      You forget why (R FL-teabagger) Alan B. West was forced to resign for torture, or face 10 years+ in Fort Leavenworth MILT Prison

                    • TuMadre, Ph.D December 17th, 2016 at 02:28

                      What does that have to do with anything that has been discussed thus far?

                    • Obewon December 17th, 2016 at 02:30

                      Sad. “You also forget where the majority of the people who make up the military come from”-Faux Ph.D. Buh-bye now.

                    • TuMadre, Ph.D December 17th, 2016 at 02:34

                      OK. Still not seeing the point of your argument. I say, or rather imply, that most of the military comes from the states and families that are stereotypical republican areas/households, and that, if the Midwest and/or South tried to secede, and the US attempted to either use force against them, or EMPs, which would have said families face starvation, the members of the military from those areas might attempt a rebellion or sabotage. Your response is about Alan West being forced to resign for torture.

                      What does that have to do with anything?

                    • Obewon December 17th, 2016 at 02:43

                      Violating direct orders means Article 19 courts martial.-UCMJ. That’s why Alan B. West was forced to resign: Violating orders. Teabagging. 819. ARTICLE 19. JURISDICTION OF SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL http://www.ucmj.us/sub-chapter-4-court-martial-jurisdiction/819-article-19-jurisdiction-of-special-courts-martial

                    • TuMadre, Ph.D December 17th, 2016 at 03:02

                      Yes, and you think that if, conservatively guessing, 25% of the military decided to abandon their posts or become saboteurs, that they would stop over the threat of Court Marshal? I don’t think it would slow them down for a second.

                      Furthermore, but not brought up until now, do you not think that other nations that might have an interest in seeing the federal government fall wouldn’t get involved? Putin has already stated in the past that he would support the Texas secession, so it wouldn’t just be those “teabaggers” (who are usually veterans who have more time to have fun at the range, people who spend a lot of time camping, hunting, and doing things outdoors), you would also have their friend Vlad. The second the US goes to Civil War is the second it becomes a proxy war between NATO and whomever wants to screw America.

                      As for the EMP strike, I’ve stated it before regarding food (urban areas don’t have farms), but the federal government needs the grid a lot more than than the Civilians do. To hit it, you would essentially need to provide fuel for backup gens to US bases, which could then be attacked. Furthermore, by hitting the grid, it would also turn people against the government quicker as it would bring any propaganda from the government to a screeching halt, leaving only the propaganda from the rebels, who can spread via paper and word-of-mouth, left. In fact, considering that fact, and knowing what I know about the grid, a few surgical strikes from Army-tier marksmen (the minimum requirement for the title) hitting certain spots on the grid would be the perfect false flag to generate sympathy with the rebels (and if I know it, you can bet that a lot of other power plant workers know it to, some of whom have to have veteran buddies).

                      Furthermore, you and I both know that it won’t just be a civil war between the Army and the rebels, even ignoring outside influence. There will be rioting and looting. Cities will burn. The National guard can’t both fight rebels and rioters in a city. Furthermore, it would be foolish to think that rebels wouldn’t send instigators into a city (think A Lone Wolf on steroids; think of Timothy McVeigh but instead of one van, they would send a whole fleet of them.

                      All in all, the entire scenario you are describing (going to Civil War over the secession of producing states) sounds like it would be anything but quick, and anything but favorable to the federal government, at least from where I’m sitting, just reviewing what I know, and what would be extremely easy/likely for the rebels to do.

                      I don’t say this because I romance the idea. I don’t. I think the loss of life would be horrible and the war crimes committed catastrophic, but you wanted to open the possibility of Civil War, so we need to look at what that would entail pragmatically.

                    • Obewon December 17th, 2016 at 03:39

                      No problem. Blue states have plenty of food sources and cash: 64% of USA’s Record $19 T GDP Growing +4.4% in Q3-2016 voted for HRC.

                    • TuMadre, Ph.D December 17th, 2016 at 03:52

                      I never said you didn’t have food sources. I just said you didn’t have enough to feed the people in your high-density population centers. And you don’t. That said, you are correct in that you have plenty of cash, and could likely import what you didn’t have from other NATO nations. But a lot of that cash is digital (not a bad thing – just the way our monetary system works – way less physical cash than digital cash), and those precision strikes on the grid would make things more expensive and difficult, even amongst a good trade partner.

                      We also need to remember that if the US is looking internally, it will likely want to bring as much force to bear to try and quell the resistance as quickly as possible, so that it can get back to be independent on food. This means attention will be taken away from other parts of the world. China is getting extremely aggressive in the South China Sea, and has been looking to some of the islands in that area with hungry eyes.

                      North Korea constantly eyes South Korea. You also have the whole debacle in the Middle East, and that’s completely ignoring Israel, which is another added layer. Russia is looking to the EU. And Africa is pretty much a giant clusterfuck (although that isn’t anything new, and the US government, regardless of party affiliation, doesn’t seem to care, as they really aren’t a threat to us or our allies).

                      It wouldn’t be quick, it wouldn’t be easy, and there would be repercussions throughout a lot of the rest of the world.

                      Anyways, this has gotten way off-topic of the electoral college. Secession is a possibility, even if quelled quickly, it would disenfranchise a lot of producers, as they feel their wants/needs aren’t being vocalized/met, and you would quickly encounter USSR levels of production, as nobody would really care anymore, since all the political attention goes to heavy population centers, the vast majority of which are leaning somewhere between Moderate Democrat and Totalitarian Communist.

            • Glen December 17th, 2016 at 03:10

              It was originally implemented, essentially, for three reasons.

              1. It was infeasible to transfer all votes to a central location, and thus having people whose job it was to represent their constituents’ votes in a central voting system was necessary.
              2. It was established in the early days of America, when states would only join if they felt like they had power over the federal government – so the Electoral College meant that states could basically force the vote to go as they wanted (nowadays, people vote to decide how their state will vote – you’re not electing the president, you’re electing those who will elect the president).
              3. It was seen as a way to protect the government from the people electing an inappropriate person.

              It’s outdated because it is now very feasible to transfer votes to a central location, people view themselves primarily as Americans (not as “Californians”, etc) and the federal government should be decided by the people and not the states…

              … and the third point was never a solid one. You have laws which restrict who can be president, you have courts that can judge whether the president-elect satisfies those laws, and otherwise, if the people choose en masse to elect someone who isn’t the best choice, that’s the fault of the people, and they get who they chose.

              Of course, if you remove the Electoral College, the person who was unsuited to being president wouldn’t have won, anyway.

              Mind you, the flaws go beyond the EC itself. Plurality voting is idiotic – if you don’t want the expense of a proper runoff, then use preferential voting (also known as Instant Runoff Voting) like what we have here in Australia. If your concern is large states having too much say, then rescale vote values by state rather than using the raw votecount.

              • TuMadre, Ph.D December 17th, 2016 at 03:18

                But the Electoral College was actually created to mitigate foreign influence and to prevent mob rule, as previous democracies all eventually became low intelligence and selfish, at least as Hamilton explains it in the Federalist Papers. This is why the US is not a democracy (although US politicians like to say otherwise), but a Constitutional Democratic Republic.

                Walking down the logic of your thought process, with the prevalence of smart phones and the internet, the Senate and the House are outdated, and we should just go to a direct democracy. That would be an opinion I would disagree with (as I also disagree with the notion of people electing Senators, rather than Governors selecting them to put the brakes on the will of the sometimes misguided people).

                • Glen December 17th, 2016 at 05:05

                  I can’t see how “foreign influence” would be in any way affected by the Electoral College system over direct popular vote or equivalent. And “mob rule” is pretty much what democracy is… but you put in place protections, in the form of a constitution, that limits what the majority can do to minorities.

                  Let me be clear, when I say “why it was implemented”, I don’t mean vocal reasons given by those who implemented it, but underlying purpose. Note that “mitigate foreign influence and prevent mob rule” both fall within my third reason.

                  Senate and House aren’t outdated, because direct democracy is not comparable to representative democracy. Mind you, the way America’s House and Senate operate *are* outdated, but the concepts are sensible. The Electoral College system is just a rigged version of direct election of president.

                  Direct Democracy is a BAD idea. The average person isn’t capable of being across all issues – they lack the time, the motivation, sometimes the intelligence (both personal and “intelligence community” sense), to actually fully understand each issue and each piece of legislation, etc. So they elect representatives whose job is to do exactly that – keep themselves across all issues for which legislation may come, and make decisions in the best interest of their constituents.

                  Of course, it doesn’t quite play like this in reality, but it does much better than direct democracy, which is a formula for complete societal collapse.

                  On the other hand, your idea that senators should be selected by governors is completely misguided. Not only is it a formula for corruption, but it’s also completely contrary to the principles of democracy, and incredibly elitist.

                  There’s already a mechanism for putting the brakes on the will of the people, where needed – it’s call the judicial branch, along with the constitution. The purpose of the senate is to ensure that large states can’t steamroll small states… but in that regard, it’s referring to the people of those states, not the governments of those states.

  6. Jack E Raynbeau December 14th, 2016 at 23:23

    The headline is misleading. It should be “Biggest Loser To Ever Win”.

  7. Ned Nutley December 15th, 2016 at 14:32

    He’s the hashtag minority president with no mandate.

Leave a Reply