Hacker News Reader

Comment by 6d65 | Hacker News Reader

She won the popular vote though. Which partially proves his point. That being said, correlation doesn't mean causation.

If the election had been about the popular vote, both campaigns would have been run totally differently. So you can't really infer anything from her winning the popular vote.

Popular vote doesn't mean much because nobody optimized for it. It's like saying one soccer team won over the other because they touched the ball more times. But that's not the goal of the game, so it proves no point.

As others have already pointed out, the fact that Clinton won a plurality of popular vote in and of itself doesn't matter very much, other than to add support to the idea that the country is pretty divided and that neither side would have had any sort of mandate.

Debatable. Take these sites with grains of salt, but leave with the idea that the results of each in combination taken with salt still skew the results ALOT.

Potentially millions of Illegals voted. (potentially) http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/trump-is-right-...

Here's one illegal that voted FIVE times. http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Trial-Begins-in-Alleged-Ill...

AND the DHS supposedly under Obama administration tried to hack electronic voting polls for six states. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-08/georgia-accuses-hom...

EDIT: I only said supposedly on the third because SIX is the supposed number, but the Georgia one DID happen.

Thanks for the opportunity to educate myself on your questionable new sources: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-29/unmasking...

Illegal voting had nothing to do with Trump's unprecedented loss of the popular vote.

Unprecedented? It happened with George W. Bush not long ago...

Unprecedented in magnitude; Bush lost by a margin of 544,000 votes, Trump received ~3 million fewer votes than Clinton.

Isn't losing an election by running it wrong worse than Win running it right? People are pointing Clinton and DNC incompetence as merit. California alone is responsible for this "magnitude", and it only proves how good was Trump' strategy.

Don't forget that Clinton lost the popular vote too; most voters did not vote for her.

Would you expand on this? By most voters do you mean registered voters? Or that Clinton didn't win a majority? From the popular vote results I've seen, Clinton won a plurality of the votes. Not that the popular vote determines the outcome of the election.

I mean that she gained only a plutority.

The winner of the US presidential election must be elected by majority vote.

Of course, as long as we're hypothesizing the election to be by popular vote, we could make it by plutority too...

From the point of view of how electoral votes are decided (excluding faithless electors), it is determined by plurality, not majority. A state's electoral votes go to the candidate who receives the most votes (a plurality), not the one who receives more than half (a majority).

It's a majority of electoral college.

It's up to each state to choose their electors (plutority of popular vote, as you said being the most common, though not the only method).

You can debate an opinion, not a fact.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com