“Within the range of error”? That’s over a hundred times larger than the margin of error. How do you get “within the range”?
As Chronos noted, that’s >100 times the MOE.
Being the sort of geek I am, I’m gonna do the math.
We’ll do a simplified version of the math: we’ll forget about third, fourth, etc. parties, so it’s a strict binomial distribution. We’ll set p and q (the probabilities of Hillary and Donald votes, respectively) at 0.5 each, to make the MOE as large as possible, given the vote totals.
Currently, just over 125,600,000 votes have been cast for either Hillary or The Donald. That’s your n.
The standard deviation, in the binomial distribution, is sqrt(npq) = sqrt(125,600,0000.50.5) which comes to about 5,600.
Hillary’s lead is currently a shade over 1,684,600. That’s >300 standard deviations. At 95% confidence, which is standard, the MOE is +/- 1.645 standard deviations. So Hillary currently leads by >182 times the MOE.
I see that this “issue” still is causing people angst. Not sure why.
No one gets upset when a baseball team gets three hits to their opponents 9, but still wins the game 3-2. Yes, the other team played better offense numerically, and did better in that statistic. But it’s a meaningless statistic.
Winning votes is important. But winning large margins of votes in California and New York (among other states) is not important if it isn’t accompanied by winning sufficient votes in states like, oh, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin (to name three vital states). So keeping track of the overall vote totals in the country is letting yourself be sucked into chasing a red herring.
Now, for those who assert that it shouldn’t BE a red herring, that the overall vote totals should be dispositive of the question “who will preside over our administration?”, I say simply this: mob rule is not anything I would want to be a part of. As exhibit #1, I offer Rodrigo Duterte, President of the Philippines. Which should make the point adequately.
Excuse please? People standing on line to vote, to participate in their own governance, is not “mob rule”. I am restrained to be polite, so I shall be brief.
The EC is brilliant, it has nothing to do with slavery, it forces candidates to appeal to and campaign for a broader swath of the electorate, farmers in the midwest, city folk in NYC, teachers in Minneapolis, etc.
Barky was was lamenting the system where Wyoming has two Senators, same as California. He doesn’t sound like much of a constitutional scholar, if that were the case he would not say things like that. Perhaps a separate body in the legislature, representation based on population could be formed? /s
I got your joke, but I doubt many others did: “Barky” equals Obama, because … I dunno; he might’ve eaten dog meat?
Stay classy.
Edit: just noticed the /s tag -sorry if it applied to the “barky” bit
Running up the score in a highly conservative/liberal state shouldn’t win you the election.
Honestly, I’m surprised that sour grapes continue almost two weeks after the election. Can’t say I’m not enjoying it 
I know! LOL at those Californians and Texans who think that their votes should matter in Presidential races as much as NH and OH residents! What do they think this is, communist Russia?
We are certainly glad to provide you with joy and glee. 
And I guess we’ll never see eye-to-eye on this because I don’t understand this argument at all.
The baseball analogy… baseball is a sport. A game with arbitrary rules for fun. The fact that it’s runs that count and not hits are just the way it is. They’re the rules everyone agrees to when they play. It’s a bit different from deciding how something as fundamental as your vote in a democratic republic should work.
Why should a vote in California or New York matter less than a vote in Wisconsin or Pennsylvania?
It’s not sour grapes to be concerned about real humans who will be hurt by the stupid policies of the GOP and Trump in particular.
When Obama won, the people on the right had to lie about him to scream in outrage. The left gets to point to things Trump has actually said.
In no world does the outcome of either California or Texas-- which is all but assured-- affect the election less than does the outcome in NH or Ohio.
(I should bump the threads from circa 2012.2013 from the board’s liberals singing the praises of the EC because it makes it exceedingly difficult for Republicans to win.)
Russia is the new Bush.
This makes me want to bump the “What do you think of the ACA” thread or whatever it’s called. I’m pretty sure the lot of you still think it’s been a rousing success for everyone.
I got curious, so I looked up the voting differences by state.
In Texas, Trump had 4,681,590 votes; Clinton had 3,867,816 votes. That’s a difference of 813,774 votes. Conversely, in California, Clinton had 7,230,699 votes while Trump 3,841,134 votes. That’s a difference of 3,389,565 votes. That’s more than 4x the votes that Trump won Texas by (for the record, Trump won Texas by about 9%, whereas Clinton won California by nearly 30%). Meanwhile, in the rest of the country, the vote totals were a lot closer, usually with a few thousand votes separating the candidates.
Hell no we shouldn’t go to a popular vote. Liberals would win every election simply because of California. There would be no way for the rest of the non-California country to make up what amounts to a guaranteed 3M vote cushion right off the bat-- and it would probably be higher because of the west coast.
So you basically want to keep the Electoral College just because you think your couldn’t win without it. Thanks for your honesty.
Or-- and bear with me here-- I want to keep the EC because one or two states shouldn’t guarantee that one party always wins? It’s extreme hubris to think, or even believe, that the people of California adequately represent the interests of the rest of the country. Because they don’t. And they shouldn’t decide every election. Which they would.
No they wouldn’t - the people of the United States would decide.
Simply put, you don’t have the votes to force the states to surrender their state’s right to hold general elections, and to select the POTUS.
I believe you’ll eventually have to pass a Constitutional Amendment. FYI, I won’t vote in favor of it. just sayin’
You are extremely confused. It’s with the EC that a couple of states decide the election–and not even particularly populous ones at that. Ohio and Pennsylvania going the other way, for instance, would have flipped the results.
This isn’t even a red state/blue state thing. Although the variable voter/EV ratio is also deeply undemocratic, the bigger problem is the per-state winner-take-all system. Republican voters in California and Democratic voters in Wyoming have equal influence on the election results: that is to say, zero. We have a system where only the swing states matter.
Again, why shouldn’t one or two states decide (which is misleading, since it’s not those two states, it’s the fact that a ton of people live in those states)? It’s a pretty simple concept - every person’s vote should be equal, regardless of arbitrary state boundaries.
This isn’t the 1700s any more, we’re not worried about large states bossing around small states in a fledgling nation of 13 former colonies.
Be as pithy and lengthy as you like; doing so would only advance my argument.
The so-called “founding fathers” considered the possibility of being ruled by the votes of the common masses something to be avoided. I tend to agree. Rule by the “mob”, that is, rule by the people getting some idea in their head and running with it to the exclusion of common sense or constitutional propriety, is to be avoided.
Rule by the mob put all Japanese-Americans in concentration camps in this country for four years. If you don’t think that was a wildly popular idea at the time, you’ve not studied the history of those camps, or of the general feelings in the “white” populace of the country, especially the West Coast, about Japanese in particular, and Asians in general. No, we didn’t vote on it, but never doubt that it wasn’t done in large part because it would make the masses happy.
That’s just one example. I might cite the numerous silly California initiatives which have passed over the years (coughProp 13cough) because of mob rule. I won’t bother; anyone familiar with California politics for the last 40+ years knows.
If Donald Trump had been running in a race that was determined by national popular plurality, I consider it even MORE likely he would have been the victor. He has the ability to stir people up, and to get them motivated, as demonstrated by this election. And had he won such a vote, you’d be screaming bloody murder about how the “mob” had been duped by him into voting him President.
The simple fact is that just because you have more people, residing in limited geographic areas, receptive to your message should not mean that a federation of states should be ruled by the will of those people. You dislike that, because you’re in favor of the party that currently commands such popularity. If the shoe were on the other foot, you’d be just as fervently arguing that the uneducated masses shouldn’t be determining things for everyone. There’s nothing inherently better about having that sort of system.
No. The system worked exactly as designed. There are no corrections needed.