Popular vote total

[Zeke55]

As of this morning, November 15, Hillary Clinton has 797,724 more votes than Trump. This is essentially equivalent to telling everyone in Dallas, Texas (population 1.3 million, about 60% eligible to vote) that their vote will be ignored this year. Why do we have the electoral college?  It has served to ignore the will and preference of the people twice in the past 20 years, resulting in Republican presidents when the people chose the Democrat. How is this democracy? Why do we have no respect for the majority vote?

[Redban]

1). The Founders instituted the electoral college to give fair balance to the states because needs, desires, and concerns vary according to location. For example, people in NY confer large significance on public transportation, yet people in Vermont and Idaho care more about highways and traffic regulations. Obviously, the people in NY vastly outnumber the people in Vermont and Idaho. However, a system like the electoral college forces our federally-elected representatives to listen to Vermont and Idaho, regardless.

2). Hillary won the popular vote by a wide margin, but you ought to acknowledge that Trump was playing to win the electoral college, not the popular vote. If we elected by popular vote, then he would have campaigned in NYC, SF, LA, and other densely populated areas. In that scenario, who can truly say that he wouldn't have won the popular vote too? I can't prove that he would have won it, but you can't prove that he would have lost it.

[Erc]

The founders instituted the electoral college in part to provide a check on demagogues.

It clearly is not fulfilling that role this year and is in fact running explicitly counter to it.

[elcorazon]

when the electoral college was put in play, there was no popular vote anywhere. Concerns were completely different. It was not put in as some sort of check on the public since the public wasn't even involved in choosing the electors from each state. Most states chose electors by their legislature.

[Hermit For Peace]

One person, one vote, period. Candidate who gets the most votes wins. Simple.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

The Founders instituted the electoral college to give fair balance to the states because needs, desires, and concerns vary according to location.

Actually, this was the reasoning for giving each state equal representation in the Senate. The framers created the electoral college because a national popular vote for president would have been impractical in 1787, and because voting requirements were lower in the North than in the South. Hamilton took it a step further and argued that ordinary citizens could not be trusted to elect the chief executive, and that the choice of the president must therefore be left to a select group of chosen elites (the electors). The "small state vs. big state" divide was not a large factor in the decision to adopt the electoral college.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

It is also worthwhile to note the old argument that 'the electoral college forces candidates to pay attention to more states," is patently false. As we've seen over the course of the last several elections, the electoral college actually leads candidates to ignore all but a half dozen states or so, as the remainder are all but certain to vote for one party or the other. No presidential candidate will seriously campaign in states like Wyoming or Vermont under the current system because we already know who the majority of the voters in those states will support come election day. The abolition of the electoral college would actually help to nationalize campaigns by incentivizing candidates to campaign in a wider array of locales.

[Beet]

No, it's more like he would have campaigned more in places like Houston, Lubbock, Tuscaloosa, Oklahoma City, Kansas City, Memphis, Fort Wayne, Omaha, Louisville, and other places that were not in swing states but where he had a lot of support.

[Tintrlvr]

No, it's more like he would have campaigned more in places like Houston, Lubbock, Tuscaloosa, Oklahoma City, Kansas City, Memphis, Fort Wayne, Omaha, Louisville, and other places that were not in swing states but where he had a lot of support.

And so would Clinton. I'm not really sure what the point is. Yes, turnout would be higher in Texas and West Virginia and California and Maryland with no Electoral College. Seems like either a wash or even slight advantage Democrats in the popular vote to me since the Democrats dominate with low-propensity potential voters who only vote with substantial prompting and when they feel like their vote matters (so only vote if they live in swing states currently).

[Fusionmunster]

The only solace I take from Hillary's popular vote win is the fact that history will remember her as the wronged party in a rigged electoral system. If we do abolish electoral votes in the coming years, it will be because of 2016 silencing 2 million of her voters.

[Beet]

No, it's more like he would have campaigned more in places like Houston, Lubbock, Tuscaloosa, Oklahoma City, Kansas City, Memphis, Fort Wayne, Omaha, Louisville, and other places that were not in swing states but where he had a lot of support.

He already maximized his vote share in a lot of those places.  The reality is that increasingly demographics predict how people will vote.  There aren't a lot of persuadable voters.  At the margins there are, and that can impact close races.  But the popular vote is likely not to be all that close.  She could win it by over 2 million.

Respectfully, I disagree with this part, and think it's the kind of reasoning that cost Hillary the election.

[Meclazine for Israel]

I dont mind the electoral college.

After watching "Making a Murderer" , I take comfort from the fact that the future of the USA is decided by 100,000 white rural voters in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

I kind of like that country people get a strong voice.

[Nyvin]

The electoral college was made to protect the slave states.

Ironically it's serving it's purpose now.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I kind of like that country people get a strong voice.

Naturally, so does every rational person. I should hope it is unnecessary to explain that all Americans - including, of course, those in the rural parts of the country - deserve a voice in electing our president. The goal is to ensure all voices are equal at the ballot box; the electoral college prevents this by artificially inflating the value of votes cast in small states to count more than those cast in their more populous neighbors. Because the number of electors is capped at 538, awarding extra votes to states like Wyoming and Rhode Island actually takes votes from states like California and Texas whose citizens comprise a larger share of the U.S. population than their electors do of the electoral college. That is simply undemocratic, and runs contrary to the notion that governments "derive their just powers from the consent of the governed."

[Tintrlvr]

No, it's more like he would have campaigned more in places like Houston, Lubbock, Tuscaloosa, Oklahoma City, Kansas City, Memphis, Fort Wayne, Omaha, Louisville, and other places that were not in swing states but where he had a lot of support.

He already maximized his vote share in a lot of those places.  The reality is that increasingly demographics predict how people will vote.  There aren't a lot of persuadable voters.  At the margins there are, and that can impact close races.  But the popular vote is likely not to be all that close.  She could win it by over 2 million.

Respectfully, I disagree with this part, and think it's the kind of reasoning that cost Hillary the election.

Regardless of whether you disagree with this point, you're still making a not very compelling argument since it presumes that only one candidate would be campaigning outside of what are the current swing states and convincing voters in an EC-less world. If anything, Trump ran a more national, less swing-state-targeted campaign than Clinton, so, if there are a lot of persuadable voters outside of swing states whom the campaigns were ignoring, Clinton should have more to gain from the switch to a national campaign in the EC-less alternative universe than Trump (albeit I'm sure only very marginally).

[Andrew]

If we didn't have the electoral college, then rocks, trees, and air molecules would not be represented.

[The Free North]

As of this morning, November 15, Hillary Clinton has 797,724 more votes than Trump. This is essentially equivalent to telling everyone in Dallas, Texas (population 1.3 million, about 60% eligible to vote) that their vote will be ignored this year. Why do we have the electoral college?  It has served to ignore the will and preference of the people twice in the past 20 years, resulting in Republican presidents when the people chose the Democrat. How is this democracy? Why do we have no respect for the majority vote?

The United States has never claimed to be, nor has ever been a direct democracy where a majority rule dictates our policy on every issue at the national level. Ours is very much a republic first and a democracy second and our tradition of federalism, constitutionalism, and indirect democracy only reinforces this.

[The Free North]

Moreover, I should point out that at no point during the campaign did Clinton (whom I suppose the OP supports) make any consistent effort to argue for abolishing the electoral college and so any protests from her supporters is very much a 'sore loser' effect and nothing else. I commend those who had shown consistency on the issue regardless of who won, but the holier than thou arguments coming from some after the dust has settled is a bit rich.

If Clinton had won 300 EVs and Trump won the popular vote by 2% I would hope the same posters would be lobbying hard on Trump's behalf to have him installed as the rightful leader of the country.

[Tintrlvr]

Moreover, I should point out that at no point during the campaign did Clinton (whom I suppose the OP supports) make any consistent effort to argue for abolishing the electoral college and so any protests from her supporters is very much a 'sore loser' effect and nothing else. I commend those who had shown consistency on the issue regardless of who won, but the holier than thou arguments coming from some after the dust has settled is a bit rich.

If Clinton had won 300 EVs and Trump won the popular vote by 2% I would hope the same posters would be lobbying hard on Trump's behalf to have him installed as the rightful leader of the country.

Distaste for the Electoral College has been pretty universal among Democrats since at least the 2000 election (before that, I'm not sure many people knew what it was). Polling indicates around 70% of the country would vote to abolish the EC. It's hardly a sore loser effect, and claiming otherwise seems to be a lot more holier than thou than you see from any Clinton supporters.

[Frodo]

According to Politico, Hillary's lead in the popular vote has just surpassed 1 million. 

[MAGA]

As of this morning, November 15, Hillary Clinton has 797,724 more votes than Trump. This is essentially equivalent to telling everyone in Dallas, Texas (population 1.3 million, about 60% eligible to vote) that their vote will be ignored this year. Why do we have the electoral college?  It has served to ignore the will and preference of the people twice in the past 20 years, resulting in Republican presidents when the people chose the Democrat. How is this democracy? Why do we have no respect for the majority vote?

There is no national popular vote or national election. There are 50 states and DC elections. Trump won 30 of those (59%to Clinton's 41%) and 306--232 (57% to Clinton's 43%) of the Electoral Votes.

Had Trump wanted/needed to win the national popular vote he would have. Clinton tried to win the majority of Electoral College votes and she failed...she wasn't tryin to win any mythical national popular vote. She rightly didn't care about that.

Only a very stupid person doesn't know this.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

As of this morning, November 15, Hillary Clinton has 797,724 more votes than Trump. This is essentially equivalent to telling everyone in Dallas, Texas (population 1.3 million, about 60% eligible to vote) that their vote will be ignored this year. Why do we have the electoral college?  It has served to ignore the will and preference of the people twice in the past 20 years, resulting in Republican presidents when the people chose the Democrat. How is this democracy? Why do we have no respect for the majority vote?

The United States has never claimed to be, nor has ever been a direct democracy where a majority rule dictates our policy on every issue at the national level. Ours is very much a republic first and a democracy second and our tradition of federalism, constitutionalism, and indirect democracy only reinforces this.

Sorry, but this is just buzzwords to mask the democratic deficit involved.

[Fusionmunster]

As of this morning, November 15, Hillary Clinton has 797,724 more votes than Trump. This is essentially equivalent to telling everyone in Dallas, Texas (population 1.3 million, about 60% eligible to vote) that their vote will be ignored this year. Why do we have the electoral college?  It has served to ignore the will and preference of the people twice in the past 20 years, resulting in Republican presidents when the people chose the Democrat. How is this democracy? Why do we have no respect for the majority vote?

There is no national popular vote or national election. There are 50 states and DC elections. Trump won 30 of those (59%to Clinton's 41%) and 306--232 (57% to Clinton's 43%) of the Electoral Votes.

Had Trump wanted/needed to win the national popular vote he would have. Clinton tried to win the majority of Electoral College votes and she failed...she wasn't tryin to win any mythical national popular vote. She rightly didn't care about that.

Only a very stupid person doesn't know this.

More people voted for Hillary. More people wanted Hillary to be president.

Only a very stupid person doesn't know this.

[The Mikado]

Popular vote, regardless of its "reality," is critical for calculating the PVI of congressional districts, so we should care for that reason if no other.

[NHI]

1). The Founders instituted the electoral college to give fair balance to the states because needs, desires, and concerns vary according to location. For example, people in NY confer large significance on public transportation, yet people in Vermont and Idaho care more about highways and traffic regulations. Obviously, the people in NY vastly outnumber the people in Vermont and Idaho. However, a system like the electoral college forces our federally-elected representatives to listen to Vermont and Idaho, regardless.

2). Hillary won the popular vote by a wide margin, but you ought to acknowledge that Trump was playing to win the electoral college, not the popular vote. If we elected by popular vote, then he would have campaigned in NYC, SF, LA, and other densely populated areas. In that scenario, who can truly say that he wouldn't have won the popular vote too? I can't prove that he would have won it, but you can't prove that he would have lost it.