Was Clinton hurt by no shows?

They are still counting votes: as of Saturday,
Clinton received 63,390,669 votes, while Trump received 61,820,845 votes --
Obama received 65,915,795 votes and Romney received 60,933,504 votes

So Hillary had 2.5 million less votes than Obama while Trump had 0.89 million votes more than Romney.

Trump won by the following number of votes and percentages in the six states that crossed over.
148,143 9.50% Iowa
456,087 8.55% Ohio
114,455 1.21% Florida
57,588 0.96% Pennsylvania
27,506 0.93% Wisconsin
13,107 0.27% Michigan

Had Trump lost in Pennsylvania and Michigan it would have come down to that one congressional district vote in Maine.

It still looks like Democratic "no shows" cost her the election.

Quote: Pacomartin

They are still counting votes: as of Saturday,
Clinton received 63,390,669 votes, while Trump received 61,820,845 votes --
Obama received 65,915,795 votes and Romney received 60,933,504 votes

So Hillary had 2.5 million less votes than Obama while Trump had 0.89 million votes more than Romney.

Trump won by the following number of votes and percentages in the six states that crossed over.
148,143 9.50% Iowa
456,087 8.55% Ohio
114,455 1.21% Florida
57,588 0.96% Pennsylvania
27,506 0.93% Wisconsin
13,107 0.27% Michigan

Had Trump lost in Pennsylvania and Michigan it would have come down to that one congressional district vote in Maine.

It still looks like Democratic "no shows" cost her the election.

Was it no shows or Trump Democrats?

Quote: AZDuffman

Was it no shows or Trump Democrats?

Obviously there was some Democrats that voted for Trump. But overall Trump got 1.5% more than Romney ( 0.89 million votes) and Clinton got -3.8% less than Obama (2.5 million less votes).

With only 0.1 million votes determining the sum of three critical states of PA, WI, MI it looks like people who just simply didn't vote.
The population grows by over 6 million in four years, so a drop of 1.5 million voters is significant.

It makes me think Barack could have beaten Trump if he was permitted to run again.

Quote: Pacomartin

Obviously there was some Democrats that voted for Trump. But overall Trump got 1.5% more than Romney ( 0.89 million votes) and Clinton got -3.8% less than Obama (2.5 million less votes).

With only 0.1 million votes determining the sum of three critical states of PA, WI, MI it looks like people who just simply didn't vote.
The population grows by over 6 million in four years, so a drop of 1.5 million voters is significant.

It makes me think Barack could have beaten Trump if he was permitted to run again.

I think there was many candidates that could have beaten Trump. But then, I thought Clinton would have beaten Trump too.

I originally thought polling numbers were up... as they were down, then that makes more sense. Definitely some people held their noses and voted; and others thought the whole circus was best avoided.

Quote: Dalex64

One state just voted to assign all of their electoral votes to the national winner of the popular vote.

The law would only go into effect if states representing a total of over 270 electoral votes elect similar laws.

Which is a pretty safe way to say it is a paper law, since the required number of states are not likely to join them.

I read something that I didn't know about the decision to create an electoral college. The original intention was that each district should vote for an elector who would then vote their conscience. The modern variant is that each elector representing a district votes the same way his district voted. The extra two state electors would vote the same way as the majority of the state.

Seven states only have one district: Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming. Two states, Nebraska and Maine vote per district. The other states are "winner take all", a method that the states decided on their own to increase influence with candidates.

With each district submitting one vote, that it would be difficult to get a majority of EC votes as regionally popular candidates would steal some votes. Without a majority, the top 3 candidates face a run-off in the House of Representatives (one vote per state).

What I didn't know was that the founding fathers fully expected the House of Representatives runoff would actually be a common occurrence, instead of a very rare event.

Quote: Pacomartin

Which is a pretty safe way to say it is a paper law, since the required number of states are not likely to join them.

This has been adopted by 10 states, which have a total of 165 electoral votes.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

States representing 97 electoral votes are labeled as pending current legislative session, but that is most likely out of date.

The last state to join the compact was New York in 2014.

I don't recall which state just adopted this or something similar, but it isn't reflected on the wiki page as far as I can tell.

Quote: Dalex64

This has been adopted by 10 states, which have a total of 165 electoral votes.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

States representing 97 electoral votes are labeled as pending current legislative session, but that is most likely out of date.

The last state to join the compact was New York in 2014.

A state would have to be crazy to pass this, all it does is make sure your state will mostly be ignored.

The Framers didn't expect political parties (really!), and in fact counseled against forming them.

Alas, by the time Washington's second term drew to an end, there were two political parties firmly entrenched: the Democratic-Republicans (later to become the Democratic party) led by Jefferson, and the Federalists (later to become extinct) led by Alexander Hamilton.

What strikes me as odd, is that though parties rise and fall, the US by and large has almost always had a two-party system. Third parties either vanish, or replace one of the major parties. For example, the Republican party replaced the Whig party. The Populist party (or People's party) disappeared.

You'd think a country so large and so diverse would have at least three major parties, maybe even as many as five.

Oh, I know there are a bunch of little parties scattered all over: Libertarians, Socialists, Greens and others. But they're little more than statistical noise even in local elections, never mind Federal ones.

Quote: Nareed

What strikes me as odd, is that though parties rise and fall, the US by and large has almost always had a two-party system. Third parties either vanish, or replace one of the major parties.

Most countries that follow British parliamentary system have multiple parties and most governments are coalition governments. But there are factions within the parties.

USA has almost always considered the five 20th century presidential elections with more than two strong candidates spoiler runs. There were five in the 19th century, but they had less impact (with a notable exception of #10).

Presidential Elections where EC votes were won by more than two candidates.

10th election: First time a strong 3rd and 4th candidate appeared which resulted in a run-off in the House and charges of collusion and a stolen presidency.
12th election: No real effect from 3rd and 4th candidate getting some electoral college votes from single states.
13th election: Five candidates won states and earned EC votes
18th election: Third candidate won one state
27th election: Third candidate won five small states
....
32nd election: Ex president Teddy Roosevelt wins more electoral college votes than his designated Republican successor, Taft. The ULTIMATE spoiler election.
35th election: This party candidate, Robert M. La Follette Sr., wins Wisconsin
41st election: Strom Thurmond wins 4 states and 49 EC votes, not considered to be a spoiler to Truman.
46th election: George Wallace wins 5 states and 46 EC votes. Like Strom they are all southern states.
....
52nd election: Ross Perot wins zero states, but takes 19% of popular vote. Considered a spoiler that gave election to Bill Clinton with only 43% of the vote.

Quote: Pacomartin

Most countries that follow British parliamentary system have multiple parties and most governments are coalition governments. But there are factions within the parties.

Yes, USA system means if a minor party does manage to get a few seats, it just lets the majority party have that much control and the minor party is even more marginalized. Since the early 1970s, the USA has been a mainstream party (GOP) and a collection of special interest groups with narrower focus (Democrat.)

Not that special interest groups cannot maintain power, they can, but if this were a European system the GOP would be 2 parties, the Democrats about 5, and all making deals for a coalition. The USA is lucky this system has worked for so long, though I still see the USA falling apart in a generation.

In some countries, Mexico and Japan to name two, it is more like a large city machine. One party always dominant except once in a generation. In Japan, the USA set it up this way. Mexico seems to have developed more as Chicago did, top-down machine.