TanaNari
Verified Dick
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2015
- Messages
- 26,972
- Likes received
- 288,737
There is no reason to believe that.
First: the gap between Trump and Clinton was so slim that it's within the Margin For Error- meaning we currently do not know who won the popular vote. Granted, it is more likely than not Hillary, but that's a 60/40 split on the odds. Those odds may work for Vegas and shitty reporters, but not for me or the future of a country. A nationwide recount would be required, one so thorough that we still, today would not know who won the election.
Then there is this. If the trends from the recounts are accurate to the whole country (which I seriously doubt) then Trump won the popular by at least two or three million votes. But that would still be within margin for error here.
Plus, well, a lot of people see their vote as meaningless, so they don't vote. Over 90 million eligible voters simply chose not to. My mother, as an example, has never in her life voted for anyone. Full stop.
The largest percent of those voters? Live in "already decided" states.
http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-ln-california-voters-20161107-story.html
Now, this is true of both Dems and Reps (states like Texas and California, respectively) but by sheer mass of population, a straight vote actually favors Republicans. Because, well, California and New York. California has 38+ million people, roughly. New York has almost 20 million (8.5 in the NYC itself). Another 11 mil scattered elsewhere.
Turnout in battleground states is always higher.
7.4% greater turnout. Which translates to roughly 15% more of the voting population turning up.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2012/12/23/voter-turnout-swing-states/1787693/
Now, if we look at NY's largest bordered neighbor, PA.
That slammed hard to the Right this time around. Well... you can expect there'd be a lot of New York voters that'd go for Trump if they thought their vote mattered. Numbers would climb for Reps in the big states.
Compared to, say, Texas. Almost 28 million people. Which would get a bunch of Dem voters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_Census
That's all states.
Now, if that 15% voting population increase favors the candidate that cannot win the state by even as much as 2%... (in short, a 6.5% for the winner, and 8.5% for the loser)... well... the only times in recent history that Democrats could have won would have been Obama and Kennedy. Both of whom had unusual and remarkable campaign and demographic outcomes. All other elections would have favored Republicans too heavily.
In other words: you should be glad the Electoral College is there. It's what keeps Republicans in Urban California from bothering to vote. Granted, it also keeps Democrats in Rural Montana from voting. But do you know how many people live in Rural Montana? Twelve. There are exactly twelve people living in Montana.
... On the other hand, a straight vote would force both political parties to behave completely differently to how they currently behave, and thus there is no reason at all to assume anything we know about American Politics would resemble anything as we think about it.
We're in the "so many potential x-factors in this alternate universe that there's a good chance none of our parents' parents would have ever met" realm.
Last edited:
