Maybe a really dumb question and I’m not from the US but why did Hilary lose in 2016 when she had more votes than Donald Trump? That doesn’t really make any sense to me
Because we have this stupid thing called the electoral college. Basically, each state has a certain number of votes, based (roughly) on population (its a whole other issue), and the states’ votes are cast for whoever won the most votes within their state (barring rogue electors and the few states that use proportional representation for votes.) Theres a total of 538 votes, and all that matters is winning more than half of them. This has made the winner of the popular vote lose the election 5 times (though in 1824, it went to the house of representatives for a final decision because no one had a majority.)
To summarize: not a dumb question, VERY dumb answer.
It’s funny that even even if the weight was distributed equally by population (it isn’t), it’s not based on number of people voted.
so, in theory if only one person votes, their vote still has the same weight as the whole state.
Also to clarify further, the founding fathers created the EC specifically to override the popular vote, because they were afraid that land owning men might be too poorly educated to actually make decisions about our “democracy.”
Really let that sink in. They probably would have opposed the expansion of voting rights to anybody.
What a weird system! Is there a specific reason why the US decided to do elections this way instead of just using the normal tallied vote count? This just adds a huge layer of complexity to the elections - you’d think they’d want to keep it as transparent and simple as possible.
We were supposed to be a representative democracy with one rep for every 33,000 Americans. When voting for president each state gets one vote per rep and one for each of their two senators.
A while back some assholes decided that 33,000 is too representative and we should have a fixed number instead. So now it turns out that Wyoming should get one rep for every 58,000 Americans so their votes are worth far more than a Californian’s.
People don’t vote, states vote. Semi proportionally to number of people, but it isn’t linear. This means that California gets 50 some odd votes and they all go to the democrats most of the time but Wyoming gets 3 (the minimum) despite it being smaller than many cities in population and they all go to the republicans basically every time. That’s why swing states are a thing that exists and matters. Back in the 00s Florida and Ohio were in the sweet spot of big and could go either way (insert joke about my girlfriend) but now they’re both considered firmly Republican states, meanwhile Wisconsin lost its Republican status and now swings as did Arizona. When people talk about texas possibly becoming a swing state as a big deal this is why, it doesn’t matter who gets the popular vote, texas is so big and serves as a counterweight to California and New York for the republicans that if the democrats win Texas without the republicans picking up several states that they never get, all of the swing states, or one of the two big hitters of the Dems then there’s basically no chance for them to win.
Maybe a really dumb question and I’m not from the US but why did Hilary lose in 2016 when she had more votes than Donald Trump? That doesn’t really make any sense to me
Because we have this stupid thing called the electoral college. Basically, each state has a certain number of votes, based (roughly) on population (its a whole other issue), and the states’ votes are cast for whoever won the most votes within their state (barring rogue electors and the few states that use proportional representation for votes.) Theres a total of 538 votes, and all that matters is winning more than half of them. This has made the winner of the popular vote lose the election 5 times (though in 1824, it went to the house of representatives for a final decision because no one had a majority.)
To summarize: not a dumb question, VERY dumb answer.
It’s funny that even even if the weight was distributed equally by population (it isn’t), it’s not based on number of people voted. so, in theory if only one person votes, their vote still has the same weight as the whole state.
That’s my understanding anyway.
True.
Also to clarify further, the founding fathers created the EC specifically to override the popular vote, because they were afraid that land owning men might be too poorly educated to actually make decisions about our “democracy.”
Really let that sink in. They probably would have opposed the expansion of voting rights to anybody.
What a weird system! Is there a specific reason why the US decided to do elections this way instead of just using the normal tallied vote count? This just adds a huge layer of complexity to the elections - you’d think they’d want to keep it as transparent and simple as possible.
The copout answer is “Back in the day it made it easier to do federal elections since the US is so big” afaik
Tho really it’s just hard to change, the democrats are lazy/don’t wanna rock the boat, and the republicans benefit from it and are also evil
Because in the US democracy every vote is equal, but some are more equal than others.
We were supposed to be a representative democracy with one rep for every 33,000 Americans. When voting for president each state gets one vote per rep and one for each of their two senators.
A while back some assholes decided that 33,000 is too representative and we should have a fixed number instead. So now it turns out that Wyoming should get one rep for every 58,000 Americans so their votes are worth far more than a Californian’s.
People don’t vote, states vote. Semi proportionally to number of people, but it isn’t linear. This means that California gets 50 some odd votes and they all go to the democrats most of the time but Wyoming gets 3 (the minimum) despite it being smaller than many cities in population and they all go to the republicans basically every time. That’s why swing states are a thing that exists and matters. Back in the 00s Florida and Ohio were in the sweet spot of big and could go either way (insert joke about my girlfriend) but now they’re both considered firmly Republican states, meanwhile Wisconsin lost its Republican status and now swings as did Arizona. When people talk about texas possibly becoming a swing state as a big deal this is why, it doesn’t matter who gets the popular vote, texas is so big and serves as a counterweight to California and New York for the republicans that if the democrats win Texas without the republicans picking up several states that they never get, all of the swing states, or one of the two big hitters of the Dems then there’s basically no chance for them to win.