Running the numbers
For shits and giggles, I decided to go to the Politico Election page and run the numbers on this election.
See, the big bug up the Left’s ass is that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 202,340 votes. That’s about the population of Fayetteville, North Carolina. Hell, Birmingham, Alabama has ten thousand more people than that.
But Hillary’s flock are really apoplectic over the fact that she received 202,340 more votes than Donald Trump.
For that small number, they feel as though they were robbed.
”Hillary got the majority! She was the more popular candidate!!!!”
I got curious. I decided to find out how many of the total votes went to Hillary Rodham Clinton.
So I went down through Politico’s state-by-state vote tallies and added up all the third party candidates’ votes to see what I came up with.
Six million, seventy-thousand, eight-hundred and two people voted for one of the many third-party candidates running for President. To put it into perspective, that’s more than the combined population of Houston and Chicago.
That means that the total number of people who voted against Hillary Clinton was 65,682,480 people.
In other words, Hillary Clinton received 47.6% of the popular vote.
For those keeping score, that means the majority of votes cast did not, in fact, go to Hillary Clinton.
Neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton won a majority of votes.
But our Presidential elections are not determined by majority of votes. Rather, they are determined by the majority of Electors.
We do not live in a pure Democracy. We live in a Republic. Our Presidential elections are not based on majoritarian rule. Voters were casting their ballots to determine which candidate would receive their state’s Electoral votes.
Donald Trump received the most Electoral votes. So he won the election.
It’s not rocket science, kids.
Maybe if these crying children would take a Civics class instead of something like Gender Roles in Comic Books or Queer Musicology, they might be able to grasp that.
—
Hit the tip jar!
Please consider making a contribution to PatriotRetort.com. Hit DONATE button in the side bar. Even a few bucks can make a world of difference!
I don’t believe her numbers. Not even for a millisecond. Take into consideration all the illegal voters, the Philly fraud history and the California cheating and she more than likely lost the pop vote by 2-2.5 million. There just weren’t enough fraudulent votes to win.
Great insight. love the look into the (false) narrative of “she won the popular vote”..when in actuality, no one won the popular vote….thanks again …have shared this to my facebook timeline….
Don’t forget the 60,000 felons that were allowed to vote in Virginia, the same amount she won the state by.
Snowflake!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGblQC4PXg4
The popular vote is irrelevant in our Presidential elections (even for the left to brag about) for a number of reasons.
1. The GOP does not spend a dollar or a minute campaigning in California or New York. They just arent winnable at this point, BUT– in a popular vote only contest, the GOP would spend significant time and energy in population centers like New York City, Los Angeles and Chicago–
Im sure it wouldnt change the final outcome, but if you dont think they would pick up an extra million votes merely from contesting the blue states that are ignored in our current electoral process, you are ignoring the data from every contested election in those states.
2. The House of Representitives— the true measure of fair representation of popular vote across the United States, is a majority Republican.
If you were to vote for a neighborhood watch and 4 houses were to be involved. How would you think they would vote for the position. Say house 1 was a family of 3, house number 2 was a couple (2), house number 3 was a lone widow (1), and house number 4 was a family of 10.
Do you allow every member of one household to control all the decisions in that neighborhood merely do to their large number of children, or do you allow each home a vote.
The 50 states are the homes in this analogy. Its a bit more complex, of course, and population does have some weight, but each state is still given some say.
We are called the United States for a reason.
The United States is a federal Representative Republic, because the founders saw the “homes” situation above as a danger to good and fair government by, of and for the people.
Pure Democracy was never supposed to enter into our national Presidential elections.
The fact that it is a talking point of the left only shows they dont understand how and why our government has worked better than any that have come before it……or, in a few cases, because they dont want it to succeed.
3. The 17th amendment –
One only has to look at how the 17th amendment has negatively effected representation to understand that the founders created our system with specific checks and balances. The problem is they are no longer understood by the average citizen.
The radical left understands that injecting “pure democracy” into a complex system of checks and balances throws a wrench in the machine. Throughout history, pure democracy has led to dramatic upheavals that these radicals feel is their best chance to install an authoritarian form of government, or economic system such a socialism.
Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner.
So when you hear calls for a Presidential election decided by “popular vote”, dismiss it as uninformed or intentional subversion of the process our founders carefully designed.
ARE THOSE REALLY COURSES??!! geezalou, they are SCREWED!
the one in the hat’s kinda cute. i’d hit it.