@smeagolheart Clearly it didn't upset the voting people of USA that much. It does paint a picture about the people.
The majority of people in the USA didn't vote for him. The majority of people don't agree with his social positions. The people he's alienated and scapegoated are upset.
As Michael Moore says in his Morning After to do list: The MAJORITY of our fellow Americans preferred Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump. Period. Fact. If you woke up this morning thinking you live in an effed-up country, you don't. The majority of your fellow Americans wanted Hillary, not Trump. The only reason he's president is because of an arcane, insane 18th-century idea called the Electoral College. Until we change that, we'll continue to have presidents we didn't elect and didn't want. You live in a country where a majority of its citizens have said they believe there's climate change, they believe women should be paid the same as men, they want a debt-free college education, they don't want us invading countries, they want a raise in the minimum wage and they want a single-payer true universal health care system. None of that has changed. We live in a country where the majority agree with the "liberal" position.
During the latest Russian Parliament elections, because of the low voters' presence, the ruling party got absolute generality. In the end, it had approval of a little more than 5% people living in Russia. But because the majority of people didn't even go to the elections, the party got more than 50% votes. It was enough to create one of the strongest representation in the Parliament in the history of modern Russia. Reason? Well, the first reason was that people didn't believe their votes meant anything. The second reason was that there were no real alternative to the ruling party. But the third reason was that people didn't approve the direction the country had been taking for the last several years. The mistake was to think that not coming to the elections would help.
@smeagolheart No. First of all, approximately 50 % of eligible voters bothered to vote in the first place. And of those, only 52.5 % voted not Trump. Hence, 26 % of eligible voters voted against Trump and 24 % for Trump. In conclusion, 74 % of the voting public were not upset enough to oppose Trump.
If Anerica would not have made it harder for democracy to win, Trump probably wouldn't have. Clinton did get the most amount of votes, but their are other factors determining who wins the election. Can't recall it now.
"A majority is the greater part, or more than half, of the total. It is a subset of a set consisting of more than half of the set's elements. "Majority" can be used to specify the voting requirement, as in a "majority vote". A majority vote is more than half of the votes cast."
If you do understand what he means why do you have to just wiggle your way around. It feels so unnecessary. Oh, btw he didn't say "majority vote" he said "majority of the people".
@smeagolheart No. First of all, approximately 50 % of eligible voters bothered to vote in the first place. And of those, only 52.5 % voted not Trump. Hence, 26 % of eligible voters voted against Trump and 24 % for Trump. In conclusion, 74 % of the voting public were not upset enough to oppose Trump.
"A majority is the greater part, or more than half, of the total. It is a subset of a set consisting of more than half of the set's elements. "Majority" can be used to specify the voting requirement, as in a "majority vote". A majority vote is more than half of the votes cast."
You didn't say anything about majority vote. The majority of the people that voted did vote for Hillary. I don't see why you, @FinneousPJ, have to twitch it around, when you clearly knows what he means.
The word for which you seek is plurality. Clinton's 47.7 to 47.5 edge is a plurality, not a majority. The word "majority" is reserved for results of >= 50.1% like Obama's results in both 2008 and 2012.
Voters in Maine have the right idea--they just approved a ranked voting system. If you vote for Candidate A but your candidate doesn't actually win by a majority, your vote then defaults to your second choice of Candidate B. Combined with the votes actually cast for Candidate B then B would wind up with an actual majority rather than a plurality. This way, no matter how you look at the results Candidate B is clearly the winner (even if not your first choice). This would help mitigate some of the dreaded "damned if you do; damned if you don't" choices with which we are faced in the average election.
@RelSundan Look at the first sentence. "A majority is the greater part, or more than half, of the total."
@smeagolheart This whole semantic debate is irrelevant anyway. My point is the majority of Americans did not actually choose to oppose the nonsense of Trump. Period. Fact. Sorry to burst your bubble, but be afraid. Be very afraid
For example, if there is a distribution of one 2 % group and 98 1 % groups, the 2 % group is not a majority. It is the largest group, yes, but not a majority. This should be clear to anyone. Similarly, a 47.7 % is not a majority, although that's not nearly as extreme.
Meh--rounding. Most people don't care about any portion smaller than 0.1%, so I round to that. For a population of people, the absolute minimum for a true majority would be (floor(total population/2) + 1); I am presuming that you are already familiar with the "floor" function so I won't explain it here.
I suppose I should have said > 50% for greater accuracy.
@RelSundan Look at the first sentence. "A majority is the greater part, or more than half, of the total."
@smeagolheart This whole semantic debate is irrelevant anyway. My point is the majority of Americans did not actually choose to oppose the nonsense of Trump. Period. Fact. Sorry to burst your bubble, but be afraid. Be very afraid
I am afraid thanks. So are many other Americans. I'm not a woman, minority or Muslim I can only imagine the fear many of those groups might be feeling. Many people around the world are afraid of him.
I was using the first definition of majority which was "the greater number". "The greater number" of voters voted for Hillary Clinton. She's winning the popular vote.
Anyone care to explain to me why the adoption of anyone as the president of an insignificant political confederation is something to bitch about? The shitstorm around this minor event is truly a goldmine of hilarity but I'm feeling like I'm missing something people would deem important
The electoral college is flawed, yes, and needs to be replaced. But it should not be eliminated. One reason it was founded was to prevent more populated states, especially those with large, dense cities, from having too much power and influence over the vote and essentially running an entire county from a few major cities.
Most of the people who voted for Brococlinton lived in the cities. That is why Trumpiflower won, because her supporters were too condensed into small geographical areas. Check out the voter map by using google and typing in "2016 election" and then selecting on the swing states that Trumpiflower won, or most of the other states he won.
Yes, most of the people in the United States voted for Brococlinton...because most of the people in the United States live in cities...which is exactly why the electoral college was founded. This essentially means that people not in the cities banded enough together to vote for Trumpiflower.
Keep in mind that this december, when the electoral college actually casts their votes, they don't all have to even vote the way it turned out. They probably will, but there are few laws that control that.
It is a very flawed system, and I don't support it because it makes it difficult for 3rd party to ever become president. I personally think that if 51% of the vote went to one way, that state shouldn't send all its votes one way. It should be like Maine, where they split their electoral college votes. And the electoral college should have to vote in accordance with the people.
Actually, looking through it, even states like California, Oregon, and Washington, which always go blue, have the same results. Only the cities voted for her as a majority.
I am aware of that taters but the counter argument is that it gives the rural population too much power over the urban areas. The few are controlling the many etc.
Comments
Perhaps he should have run a campaign that did not regularly incite political violence, xenophobia, racism, and misogyny. That tends to upset people.
As Michael Moore says in his Morning After to do list:
The MAJORITY of our fellow Americans preferred Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump. Period. Fact. If you woke up this morning thinking you live in an effed-up country, you don't. The majority of your fellow Americans wanted Hillary, not Trump. The only reason he's president is because of an arcane, insane 18th-century idea called the Electoral College. Until we change that, we'll continue to have presidents we didn't elect and didn't want. You live in a country where a majority of its citizens have said they believe there's climate change, they believe women should be paid the same as men, they want a debt-free college education, they don't want us invading countries, they want a raise in the minimum wage and they want a single-payer true universal health care system. None of that has changed. We live in a country where the majority agree with the "liberal" position.
Maybe the same mistake happened in the USA.
PS. Majority means > 50 %
məˈjôrədē,məˈjärədē/
noun
1.
the greater number.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority
"A majority is the greater part, or more than half, of the total. It is a subset of a set consisting of more than half of the set's elements.
"Majority" can be used to specify the voting requirement, as in a "majority vote". A majority vote is more than half of the votes cast."
More people voted for Hillary than Trump
I'm getting all turned around up in here lol!
Voters in Maine have the right idea--they just approved a ranked voting system. If you vote for Candidate A but your candidate doesn't actually win by a majority, your vote then defaults to your second choice of Candidate B. Combined with the votes actually cast for Candidate B then B would wind up with an actual majority rather than a plurality. This way, no matter how you look at the results Candidate B is clearly the winner (even if not your first choice). This would help mitigate some of the dreaded "damned if you do; damned if you don't" choices with which we are faced in the average election.
@smeagolheart This whole semantic debate is irrelevant anyway. My point is the majority of Americans did not actually choose to oppose the nonsense of Trump. Period. Fact. Sorry to burst your bubble, but be afraid. Be very afraid
50.1 % of 250 million equals 125 250 000. But actually, 125 000 001 is already a majority.
I suppose I should have said > 50% for greater accuracy.
I was using the first definition of majority which was "the greater number". "The greater number" of voters voted for Hillary Clinton. She's winning the popular vote.
The electoral college is flawed, yes, and needs to be replaced. But it should not be eliminated. One reason it was founded was to prevent more populated states, especially those with large, dense cities, from having too much power and influence over the vote and essentially running an entire county from a few major cities.
Most of the people who voted for Brococlinton lived in the cities. That is why Trumpiflower won, because her supporters were too condensed into small geographical areas. Check out the voter map by using google and typing in "2016 election" and then selecting on the swing states that Trumpiflower won, or most of the other states he won.
Yes, most of the people in the United States voted for Brococlinton...because most of the people in the United States live in cities...which is exactly why the electoral college was founded. This essentially means that people not in the cities banded enough together to vote for Trumpiflower.
Keep in mind that this december, when the electoral college actually casts their votes, they don't all have to even vote the way it turned out. They probably will, but there are few laws that control that.
It is a very flawed system, and I don't support it because it makes it difficult for 3rd party to ever become president. I personally think that if 51% of the vote went to one way, that state shouldn't send all its votes one way. It should be like Maine, where they split their electoral college votes. And the electoral college should have to vote in accordance with the people.
Source:
https://www.reference.com/government-politics/purpose-electoral-college-c9f12a8548d434ee?qo=questionPageExploreContent