Hillary Clinton surpasses Donald Trump in popular vote total



Hillary Clinton surpasses Donald Trump in popular vote total

WASHINGTON, Nov. 9 (UPI) – Though Donald Trump mounted a significant victory in the Electoral College, Hillary Clinton has surpassed him in the national popular vote Wednesday morning as vote counts continue to roll in.If the figures hold, it will be the second time in 16 years Democrats captured a majority of the popular vote, but were thwarted by the Electoral College system.
Clinton trailed Trump late Tuesday and early Wednesday in the popular vote, but as California’s massive vote totals came in Wednesday morning, Clinton had overtaken Trump by nearly 200,000 votes, or about 0.1 percent of the total popular vote.

It would be just the fifth time in U.S. history a candidate who won the popular vote did not assume the presidency. The last was 2000, when former Vice President Al Gore defeated then-Gov. George W. Bush nationally, but lost the recount in Florida, a state that proved decisive that year.
Unlike 2000, however, there is no one state that could change the outcome if the winner were reversed. According to UPI/CVoter projections, Trump has won 285 electoral votes and is likely to add at least another four to his final tally, not including Minnesota, Michigan or New Hampshire, which all remain too close to call.


:shrug: In a country of over 300 million, 200,00 isn’t much.


The popular vote is irrelevant. The Electoral College is what decides who becomes president.


Republicans won the Senate and the House - that’s the popular vote!


Actually if there’s a electoral tie isn’t it the tiebreaker? :hmmm:


I read somewhere that if there is a tie that Congress appoints the president.

Could be wrong though.


Clinton did NOT win a majority of the popular vote. She may have won a plurality.


I thought there was a coin toss.


Interested in comments…subscribed.


Ah, but only US citizens voted for Trump. And, there’s the rub.


No. In case of an electoral tie, the election goes to Congress with each state getting one vote. It’s in the 12th amendment to the Constitution.


…but were thwarted by the Electoral College system…

for which we should thank our Founding Fathers!

Last time I checked, I lived in one of the United States of America, I’m not one of the “United Citizens of America.” If the Founding Fathers had intended for the President to be directly elected, they would have written it into the Constitution. But of course they didn’t do that, seeing as they intended to create a government limited in scope and powers.

Power at the national level was split among the three branches, each reflecting a different constituency. Representatives were directly elected by the people (they still are), Senators were chosen by their respective state legislatures (they aren’t anymore, but in my opinion they should be again), and the President was elected by Electors who were appointed by each state (for the time being they still are).

Power was also divided between the national government and the states (though we’ve certainly been seeing less and less of that in the last 75-100 years or so). There’s a lot to be said for federalism… look at all the regional conflicts that trouble large and diverse nations like India, China and Russia. The Electoral College system at least forces presidential candidates to seek support nationwide, thereby making sure no state is left behind.

Direct election of the president would only reflect the will of a majority. In contrast, the Electoral College provides representation for both the population at large and the states. It thereby tempers and limits the power of majority rule.

The main arguments for and against the Electoral College system can probably be summarized as follows:

*]The Electoral System is a unifying force that requires candidates to gather support from different regions of the nation in order to win the presidency.
*]The Electoral System is democratic, since it gives states with larger populations more voting power.
*]The Electoral System works to prevent victories by smaller, lesser-known political parties, and works to prevent elections from being thrown into the House of Representatives.
*]The “Winner Take All” system means that a candidate can win the election by gathering the majority of electoral votes while losing the popular vote.
*]There is nothing that mandates that the Electors have to be faithful to their party’s candidate, so Electors are not bound to the candidate for which the majority of citizens in their state voted.
*]The Electoral System gives the largest states more political power.
By the way, 2000 was not the first time that a U.S. President was elected who received fewer popular votes than his opponent. The “unthinkable” happened twice before, in 1876 (Rutherford Hayes) and 1888 (Benjamin Harrison). In 1976, a shift of a few thousand votes in several key states would have given Gerald Ford an electoral-vote victory, but left Jimmy Carter with a popular vote plurality.

I wonder if the activists who are seeking to eliminate the Electoral College in favor of a popular vote to elect the president (presumably because the EC violates “one person, one vote,” as opined by Sen. Diane Feinstein on Larry King Live) are also willing to abolish the Senate for the same reason. Wyoming, with a population of 533,000, gets the same number of Senators as California with its population of almost 37 million. No “one person, one vote” there… where’s the consistency?


Thank you for sharing all of this information.


That is the way the founding fathers, in their great wisdom, set it up. It has worked well for over 200 years.


Doesn’t surprise me in the least. :o


AFAIK If no candidate receives the required 270 electoral votes, the House elects the President, each state getting one vote. And it doesn’t have to be one of the top two.

This incidentally would have been the default in 2000 had the SCOTUS not ruled for Bush.



Thanks to all who have refreshed my memory on high school American History! :smiley:


Otherwise in a close election, it might take weeks to declare a winner, especially if it was contested and required a recount.

BTW, they are still counting as we speak.

Also BTW, it was set up pretty much to resemble the government of the Roman Empire, which the founders favored (three branches of government for checks and balances, a Senate, a Cabinet, two parties). However, the Roman government had two consuls in the executive branch.


It hasn’t worked well for 200 years. That’s why there’s 27 revisions to it. And 4 more revisions still pending. The great wisdom of the Founders allowed for slavery. Disqualified women, many Native Americans living in the US, Washington DC citizens, citizens from the ages of 18-20, said slaves, and freed men who didn’t obtain citizenship from voting. And it allowed things like: property restrictions to voting and poll taxes.

The main reason the Electoral College was settled upon was, as summed up by James Madison, “There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to the fewest objections.” (Records of the Federal Convention, pp 57) (My bolding for emphasis) James Madison himself preferred a popular vote for President.

History resists simplicity.


No, the House of Representatives decides.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.