# Hillary Clinton's popular vote victory only based on 3 small areas of country? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [December 10, 2016, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-popular-vote-victory-only-based-on-3-small-areas-of-country/774376 "2016-12-10T20:14:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2016, 8:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-popular-vote-victory-only-based-on-3-small-areas-of-country/774376/61 "2016-12-12T08:36:45Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > A two or three million vote margin out of 128 million cast is not a huge margin. It’s a difference of approximately 2%, maybe less. If 51% of the vote isn’t significant, then 49% of the vote is even less significant. ---
**Author:** ![naita](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naita/32/5862_2.png) [@naita](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/naita)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2016, 8:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-popular-vote-victory-only-based-on-3-small-areas-of-country/774376/62 "2016-12-12T08:40:16Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > There are also a lot of other places that she won, and a lot of other places that Trump won. That’s the way votes work. You could pick any three million Clinton voters from anywhere in the country and similarly say that they elected her. This, the first real reply in the thread, demolishes the OP. Funny how s/he has totally ignored it. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2016, 9:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-popular-vote-victory-only-based-on-3-small-areas-of-country/774376/63 "2016-12-12T09:16:09Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > “Please stop doing the right thing; people don’t like it”. > > I love how your line-one items involve open bathrooms _and_ accusations of transphobia. As if these issues are both suuuuuper important\*, and it isn’t a straight-up acknowledgement that the accusations of transphobia are entirely justified. See? This is part of the problem right here. It’s entirely possible to accept transsexualism and bear transsexuals no ill will while still being squicked out/concerned over open bathrooms. But no, not to people like you for whom there is no middle ground. It’s either wide open acceptance completely and immediately or the person involved has to be a “phobe”. This is the kind of crap you think of as “doing the right thing”, I’m sure, but try to get through your head that you are not the actual arbiter of what is and what isn’t the right thing, nor are you the arbiter of who is or isn’t a good person. It’s this “agree with us all the way on everything or you’re an asshole” attitude that is much of the problem, and it’s in large part what has brought you to where you are today politically. People are complex creatures who all have different opinions and who come to different beliefs and acceptances at differing rates and times. Yes, acceptance of homosexuality and transsexualism is a good thing. Expecting - indeed demanding - everyone else to come to it as soon as you have and in all its permeations which in the beginning can seem extreme, is not…especially when it’s accompanied by arrogance, superiority, insults and denigration. Patience and education are much better ways to bring these types of results about. They result in less offensive pushback, less determination not to give in on the issue, and a more genuine and heartfelt acceptance as opposed to one that exists only on the surface so as to avoid confrontation in order to mask an unconvinced mind. > [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Similarly, so-called “sanctuary cities” are hated by rural conservatives for some reason or another… Despite the fact that they’re clearly not taking their jobs, because if they were they wouldn’t be in sanctuary cities any more… But we shouldn’t worry about racism or racial resentment. Of course not. See, here you go again. Believe it or not, a lot of people in this country simply don’t like it when people break or flaunt the law and it has nothing to do with race. Doesn’t it piss you off (assuming you typically obey the law because you think it’s the right thing to do) when someone runs a stop sign or tailgates you because they’re doing something _wrong_? Do you ever find yourself wishing there was a cop around to catch these people breaking the law? If you’re like most people you do. But what if the cop was of the attitude that what these people were doing wasn’t all that bad and he was gonna keep on allowing them to do it? And what if his superiors made it known that traffic law breakers were welcome in their city and they would not only be protected from prosecution for misdeeds they commit there but shielded from attempts to arrest and prosecute them in other municipalities where they had similarly broken the law? You’d probably be pissed and think it was ridiculous. And then suppose someone came along defending these people and they started calling you names and accusing you of bias of some sort. You’d think they were total assholes, would you, because you know damn good and well that what you object to is people breaking the law, and even moreso for people in authority to protect them while they do it. This, in reality, is the way most of the people who voted for Trump view the issue. So-called ‘race’ has nothing to do with it. But instead of taking this information to heart I fully expect you to continue to try “to do the right thing” by calling anyone and everyone who believes we shouldn’t just throw our borders open to anyone and everyone a “racist”. And you can know you’re right in calling everyone who disagrees with you names because after all Hillary got more votes than Donald. :rolleyes: > [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > But if you’re cisgendered and “I’m worried about being raped by a tranny in the bathroom” was one of your biggest worries this election, you might as well start wearing a fucking lightning-proof suit wherever you go. And see, here you go yet again! In your mind there’s absolutely no legitimate reason to object to open bathrooms and therefore the only reason anyone would is that they’re worried about “being raped by a tranny”, and then you follow that up with another insulting and dismissive insult. There are none so blind as they who will not see. Are you gonna be one of them or are you gonna change your ways and start trying to bring about the change you want through a more reasonable and effective approach that involves education and time enough for people to come to realize and accept things on their own? I’d think about it carefully if I were you. Trying to pound a square peg into a round hole and then hurling epithets when that doesn’t work hasn’t taken you where you want to go. Quite the opposite actually. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2016, 9:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-popular-vote-victory-only-based-on-3-small-areas-of-country/774376/64 "2016-12-12T09:23:43Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > What are those very valid reasons? If a majority+1 of the people vote for a candidate, then that candidate should win the election. It shouldn’t make any difference where those people live. Every person’s vote should count equally. He explained perfectly well in the post you just quoted from why that isn’t a good idea and why the framers of the Constitution created the Electoral College to forestall it. > [@Little Nemo](#): > > If 51% of the vote isn’t significant, then 49% of the vote is even less significant. Correct but utterly beside the point. **BPC** claimed Hillary won by a huge margin. A 2% margin is still not huge no matter what percentage the other side drew. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2016, 11:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-popular-vote-victory-only-based-on-3-small-areas-of-country/774376/65 "2016-12-12T11:00:22Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > See? This is part of the problem right here. It’s entirely possible to accept transsexualism and bear transsexuals no ill will while still being squicked out/concerned over open bathrooms. Then you explain to them why their concerns are irrational. And what then, when they refuse to change their mind? Like the vast, vast majority of people I have met who are concerned about this issue, who care more about the phantom harm of transgender predators than they do of the real harm of assault that trans people suffer, the dysphoria made worse by forcing them into the wrong bathroom, and more? There is a right and wrong here. There is, in fact, very little middle ground. > [@](#): > > But no, not to people like you for whom there is no middle ground. It’s either wide open acceptance completely and immediately or the person involved has to be a “phobe”. Well what would you call someone with an irrational fear and/or hatred of transgender people? > [@](#): > > This is the kind of crap you think of as “doing the right thing”, I’m sure, but try to get through your head that you are not the actual arbiter of what is and what isn’t the right thing, nor are you the arbiter of who is or isn’t a good person. It’s this “agree with us all the way on everything or you’re an asshole” attitude that is much of the problem, and it’s in large part what has brought you to where you are today politically. People are complex creatures who all have different opinions and who come to different beliefs and acceptances at differing rates and times. Yes, acceptance of homosexuality and transsexualism is a good thing. Expecting - indeed demanding - everyone else to come to it as soon as you have and in all its permeations which in the beginning can seem extreme, is not…especially when it’s accompanied by arrogance, superiority, insults and denigration. Patience and education are much better ways to bring these types of results about. They result in less offensive pushback, less determination not to give in on the issue, and a more genuine and heartfelt acceptance as opposed to one that exists only on the surface so as to avoid confrontation in order to mask an unconvinced mind. I’m sick and tired of pretending that beliefs with no good reason for existing are justifiable. Particularly when they hurt other people for no good reason. And I’m not going to pretend to give those ideas the time of day here. > [@](#): > > See, here you go again. Believe it or not, a lot of people in this country simply don’t like it when people break or flaunt the law and it has nothing to do with race. Doesn’t it piss you off (assuming you typically obey the law because you think it’s the right thing to do) when someone runs a stop sign or tailgates you because they’re doing something _wrong_? Do you ever find yourself wishing there was a cop around to catch these people breaking the law? If you’re like most people you do. But what if the cop was of the attitude that what these people were doing wasn’t all that bad and he was gonna keep on allowing them to do it? And what if his superiors made it known that traffic law breakers were welcome in their city and they would not only be protected from prosecution for misdeeds they commit there but shielded from attempts to arrest and prosecute them in other municipalities where they had similarly broken the law? You’d probably be pissed and think it was ridiculous. And then suppose someone came along defending these people and they started calling you names and accusing you of bias of some sort. You’d think they were total assholes, would you, because you know damn good and well that what you object to is people breaking the law, and even moreso for people in authority to protect them while they do it. This, in reality, is the way most of the people who voted for Trump view the issue. So-called ‘race’ has nothing to do with it. But instead of taking this information to heart I fully expect you to continue to try “to do the right thing” by calling anyone and everyone who believes we shouldn’t just throw our borders open to anyone and everyone a “racist”. And you can know you’re right in calling everyone who disagrees with you names because after all Hillary got more votes than Donald. :rolleyes: That makes considerably more sense. Okay, fine, it’s not necessarily racism. > [@](#): > > And see, here you go yet again! In your mind there’s absolutely no legitimate reason to object to open bathrooms and therefore the only reason anyone would is that they’re worried about “being raped by a tranny”, and then you follow that up with another insulting and dismissive insult. You’ll have to excuse me for not believing that people have convincing reasons for refusing to let people use the bathroom that corresponds to their gender. I’ve looked; I can’t find them. It generally boils down to either “they’re really men in drag” or “I’m worried about being raped”. > [@](#): > > There are none so blind as they who will not see. Are you gonna be one of them or are you gonna change your ways and start trying to bring about the change you want through a more reasonable and effective approach that involves education and time enough for people to come to realize and accept things on their own? I’d think about it carefully if I were you. Trying to pound a square peg into a round hole and then hurling epithets when that doesn’t work hasn’t taken you where you want to go. Quite the opposite actually. Check out my posts on christianforums sometimes. You might be surprised. ---
**Author:** ![tim314](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim314/32/3468_2.png) [@tim314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim314)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2016, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-popular-vote-victory-only-based-on-3-small-areas-of-country/774376/66 "2016-12-12T12:59:12Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > No discussion of tyranny of the masses The Electoral College is completely ill-equipped to protect against the sort of “tyranny of the masses” that exists in modern times. How can anyone in the 21st Century justify a system that is more focused on making sure New York isn’t oppressing Kansas than making sure that White Americans aren’t oppressing Black Americans? The Electoral College actually makes that sort of tyranny of the majority _worse_ by giving more weight to the votes of individuals living in less racial diverse states. The fact that it’s winner take all in almost all states also makes it worse, since it means a substantial Black minority in several large states still won’t control even a single electoral vote, even if it’s numerically superior to the White population of a small, 3 EV state. Maybe this system made sense when only considering the interests of White male landowners in the 18th century, whose voting interests were perhaps largely determined by what state they live in. Nowadays race, income, and level of education (especially in the most recent election) are much more significant factors that what state you live in. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2016, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-popular-vote-victory-only-based-on-3-small-areas-of-country/774376/67 "2016-12-12T14:23:26Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > A two or three million vote margin out of 128 million cast is not a huge margin. It’s a difference of approximately 2%, maybe less. The phrasing of this really tickled my funny bone! Now, in the Fake News era. well-defined arithmetic results are accompanied with qualifiers like “maybe.” 🆒 ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2016, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-popular-vote-victory-only-based-on-3-small-areas-of-country/774376/68 "2016-12-12T15:39:45Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > What are those very valid reasons? If a majority+1 of the people vote for a candidate, then that candidate should win the election. It shouldn’t make any difference where those people live. Every person’s vote should count equally. Funny you never mentioned that during your Senatorial and Congressional elections. Why shouldn’t the people of New York and California decide who your Senator will be, in addition to the President? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2016, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-popular-vote-victory-only-based-on-3-small-areas-of-country/774376/69 "2016-12-12T15:58:12Z")
Imagine a global government, run by direct democracy. Voters in China and India would determine every political choice for us. Would that be ‘fair’? Of course not. Because local representation matters. We aren’t all just ‘one people’, and a system that allows residents of the heavily populated cities to decide how the people of the rural heartland are governed would be unstable and foolish, as their needs and wants are very different. The genius of the U.S. Government structure is that it is very focused on making sure that no regions of the country feel permanently disenfranchised. Federalism, the electoral college, the way the House and Senate are constructed… all if this is set up to prevent the kind of distant, all-powerful government that the U.S. was created to get away from in the first place. Read the Declaration of Independence again. Read the Federalist Papers. Maybe it will help you gain some insight into why things are the way they are, and reflect on how those features have kept the U.S. a stable democracy for more than 150 years. If you are unhappy that California and New York don’t decide most elections, maybe it is time to rediscover a love for Federalism and a weakened central government. If the country is going to elect Trumps, the next best thing you could do is work to isolate your state governance from the rest of the country. ---
**Author:** ![Bridget\_Burke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7cd45c/32.png) [@Bridget\_Burke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bridget_Burke)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2016, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-popular-vote-victory-only-based-on-3-small-areas-of-country/774376/70 "2016-12-12T16:37:15Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > …This is why you now find yourselves confronted with a big-dog alpha-male Republican president who people believe actually will start to make things happen their way for a change. And it’s why you also now find yourselves confronted with a Republican Senate, a Republican House, mostly Republican governors, and a soon-to-be Republican Supreme Court that will likely rule for a generation. > > But of course you none of this because Hillary won more votes in your big city enclaves (and even there her margin of victory was surprisingly sparse) and you can comfort yourselves that ‘most’ of the people in the country voted for her and therefore your approach wasn’t wrong, you just got screwed by the electoral college. > > But the fact is you’ve way overplayed your hand outside your big city echo chambers and you’re either going to have to learn to moderate your approach or sit and stew in Republican governmental dominance for decades because most of the country outside those echo chambers doesn’t want what you’re selling. Or rather what you’re demanding through insult and accusation that they had better buy. I love that touch of homoeroticism included in an anti-diversity screed. No, we won’t sit down & shut up. (Writing from Houston–where Clinton won. But where the bigots invented The Bathroom Threat to fool the gullible.) Then there’s **Sam Stone** : > [@](#): > > …If you are unhappy that California and New York don’t decide most elections, maybe it is time to rediscover a love for Federalism and a weakened central government. If the country is going to elect Trumps, the next best thing you could do is work to isolate your state governance from the rest of the country… It’s interesting how this definition of “Federalism” does not match the Federalism of Alexander Hamilton–and George Washington. In those days, Federalism meant having a strong executive & a strong central government. (After the Federalists waned in power Chief Justice John Marshall kept the flame going.) Jefferson & the Democratic Republicans were the ones for states rights & “yeoman farmers”–farming the land left over from the plantations. ---
**Author:** ![pleks](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9dc877/32.png) [@pleks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pleks)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2016, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-popular-vote-victory-only-based-on-3-small-areas-of-country/774376/71 "2016-12-12T17:18:26Z")
> [@Mangosteen](#): > > Hillary won New York City, (City, not State) by 1,508,755 votes. (1,969,920 to Trump’s 461,175) _NYC consists of Manhattan, The Bronx, Staten Island, Queens and Brooklyn_. > > She won the City of Chicago by 757,967 votes. ( 890,705 to 132,738). > > She won Los Angeles County by 694,621 votes. (2,464,364 to 769,743) > > She won these 3 areas by a total of 2,961,343 votes. > > She won the _nationwide_ popular vote by 2,654,600 votes. > > In other words, her whole margin of victory in the popular vote is only from three small areas and we should allow the individuals who live in NYC, LA and Chicago to choose the President of the entire USA. > > No wonder the Founders wanted the Electoral College to choose the President. Hood rats voted for Hillary: news at 11. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2016, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-popular-vote-victory-only-based-on-3-small-areas-of-country/774376/72 "2016-12-12T17:39:20Z")
> [@pleks](#): > > Hood rats voted for Hillary: news at 11. Pleks, you’re eating a warning for that. We don’t allow hate speech at the SDMB. Please don’t do it again. ---
**Author:** ![Beware\_of\_Doug](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/278dde/32.png) [@Beware\_of\_Doug](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beware_of_Doug)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2016, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-popular-vote-victory-only-based-on-3-small-areas-of-country/774376/73 "2016-12-12T18:33:20Z")
[QUOTE=Bridget Burke] I love that touch of homoeroticism included in an anti-diversity screed. No, we won’t sit down & shut up. [/QUOTE] It’s not homoerotic if one’s own side is the alpha male dog doing the screwing. ---
**Author:** ![Bridget\_Burke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7cd45c/32.png) [@Bridget\_Burke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bridget_Burke)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2016, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-popular-vote-victory-only-based-on-3-small-areas-of-country/774376/74 "2016-12-12T18:53:37Z")
> [@Beware\_of\_Doug](#): > > It’s not homoerotic if one’s own side is the alpha male dog doing the screwing. **Starving** has expressed his swooning admiration for Trump’s alpha-maleness before… Anyway, Trump will be stumbling around, believing the last person who’s had his ear, vaguely aware that he’s in over his head. There’s not enough Viagra in the world for him to screw us all. In _Fourth Mansions_, R A Lafferty talks of the District of Columbia: > [@](#): > > It is a southern river town with some pretensions of being a city. It is intended to be beautiful, and often it is. It has more greenery than most, and uses its water areas (both natural and contrived) well. There is grace in the general placement of its public buildings, and it has one quality which only the distinctive cities have: It is never seen for the first time. It is always recognized as something once known and forgotten for a while. > > And like every southern river town it has its canker. Every one of them has it somehow, like a beautiful belle with a loathsome disease. There is no point in stirring needless enmity (though it is fun) by naming the names and recounting the venoms. But it’s a fact that they are a mean bunch of towns; many of them are likable, but all of them are mean. (I won’t include the list. Read the book yourself–if you can find a copy.) > [@](#): > > The capital has its own orneriness, as pervading as the others, but it isn’t the same sort. It never was a fun town. It is not a robust sin town. Its fleshpots have no real juice in them. Its vices are effete and heterodox and its moral rot is a dry one. The rest of Trump’s party has plans for us–but less fleshy. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2016, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-popular-vote-victory-only-based-on-3-small-areas-of-country/774376/75 "2016-12-12T19:13:23Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > The phrasing of this really tickled my funny bone! Now, in the Fake News era. well-defined arithmetic results are accompanied with qualifiers like “maybe.” 🆒 Not so well-defined. I’ve heard Clinton’s vote margin stated as anywhere from 1.6 million to 4 million so the 2% figure I stated is an approximation, thus the maybe. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2016, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-popular-vote-victory-only-based-on-3-small-areas-of-country/774376/76 "2016-12-12T19:15:13Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > Not so well-defined. I’ve heard Clinton’s vote margin stated as anywhere from 1.6 million to 4 million so the 2% figure I stated is an approximation, thus the maybe. A wise move for certain. One day, perhaps, humanity will have the ability to resolve such incredible mysteries as “what was Hillary’s popular vote margin”, but until we have the amazing, futuristic ability to count votes, it’s probably safer to be intentionally vague about it. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2016, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-popular-vote-victory-only-based-on-3-small-areas-of-country/774376/77 "2016-12-12T19:17:30Z")
Donald Trump won Pennsylvania by 44,312 votes. He won Westmoreland County, pop 357K, by 66,921 votes, and lost the rest of the state. Trump won Wisconsin by 22,177 votes. He won Washington County, pop 132K, by 30,875 votes, and lost the rest of the state. Trump won Michigan by 10,704 votes. He won Allegan County, pop 111K, by 15,880 votes, and lost the rest of the state. In other words, his whole margin of victory in the electoral vote is only due to three small areas with only 600,000 people between them. Should we allow the individuals who live in these three small counties to choose the President of the entire USA? That’s freakin’ _crazy!_ (FWIW, there were multiple counties in each state that I could have used in place of the ones I chose.) ---
**Author:** ![purplehearingaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7bcc69/32.png) [@purplehearingaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/purplehearingaid)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2016, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-popular-vote-victory-only-based-on-3-small-areas-of-country/774376/78 "2016-12-12T19:20:02Z")
> [@Urbanredneck](#): > > I agree. As a person from Kansas, we would have NO SAY in national politics. Can you just imagine if Hillary HAD been elected? Those persons in those counties you mentioned would be able to pass any damn law they wanted for the whole country. > > This is why Hillary should have actually gotten out and campaigned more. Reach out to areas outside the major cities. Hillary should never had ran in the first place ! I was pissed off that she did , she lost the first b/c people didn’t like her so why would people like her any better the second time ! ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2016, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-popular-vote-victory-only-based-on-3-small-areas-of-country/774376/79 "2016-12-12T19:24:38Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > He explained perfectly well in the post you just quoted from why that isn’t a good idea and why the framers of the Constitution created the Electoral College to forestall it. If those were the best reasons there are, then they’re inadequate. His argument was that California and New York are different. Which is irrelevant. States don’t vote. People vote. So explain why the votes of people in some states should count for more than the votes of people in other states. As a hint, you might want to avoid complaining about the way “urban dwellers” vote. That’s uncomfortably close to Pleks and his “hood rats”. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2016, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-popular-vote-victory-only-based-on-3-small-areas-of-country/774376/80 "2016-12-12T19:28:20Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > If those were the best reasons there are, then they’re inadequate. > > His argument was that California and New York are different. Which is irrelevant. States don’t vote. People vote. So explain why the votes of people in some states should count for more than the votes of people in other states. > > As a hint, you might want to avoid complaining about the way “urban dwellers” vote. That’s uncomfortably close to Pleks and his “hood rats”. Yeah. 80% of the country live in urban areas. The idea that rural people are the “real America” is asinine. People should have an equal weight to vote. Small states have more than enough equalizer in the Senate. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-popular-vote-victory-only-based-on-3-small-areas-of-country/774376.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-popular-vote-victory-only-based-on-3-small-areas-of-country/774376.md?page=5)