Every vote counts

[D-ECHO]

I think this picture on the wiki article you send (thanks for sending a german one ) showes what I mean: IIRC, many people from states like California(example) voted for Clinton and more from states like Wyomi voted for Trump, while a vote from e.g. California is "less worth" than a vote from Wyomi

[D-ECHO]

About the term "actual vote", I guess that's a matter of interpretation

[IAHM-COL]

because you are thinking at the microscale of an unified and centralized country such as Germany.
US is a completely different beast. Each state enjoys a greater amount of "autonomy" and must enjoy a more equitative amount of electoral power and representation. US although the name implies "united" works in a rather fractionary and decentralized manner.

So the scope (or attempt of the scope) is not that Wyoming people have a more powerful vote than California people. It is about Wyoming as a State to have a comparable electoral strenght that more populous states such as California and NY.

On an important topic: I am not saying, that I either: 1) fully understand the concept behind and all its consequence, 2) declare my agreement with how democracies should elect a president.
But the most important thing is that the rules of election were clear many years before the election began (centuries, in fact), so both candidates already knew, in a very clear manner, that they were being elected on the counts of electoral votes, not person-per-person vote. You clearly are the one who did not know what the rules of the election are.

[IAHM-COL]

@D-eCHO
I said this, for a reason

Good luck to all presidential candidates today.

I wish the U S A electoral college lots of wise today

[Lydiot]

Israel,

The electoral college votes in December. So if you wished "the U S A electoral college lots of wise" earlier then you were actually mistaken, because the electors haven't voted yet.

By "actual votes" D-ECHO can refer to either the votes cast by the electors or by the people. Since only the people have voted so far it's logically correct to say that Clinton got most of the votes, because no votes were cast by electors yet.

Further more, the electors are actually free to vote as they choose. If an elector chooses to vote differently than he has promised then in some states his vote doesn't count and he is replaced (2 states I think) and in some he might face a small fine ($1,000 I think). So there's still a hypothetical possibility of Clinton getting chosen as president, although it's so remote it's very unlikely to happen.

[KL-666]

But the most important thing is that the rules of election were clear many years before the election began (centuries, in fact), so both candidates already knew, in a very clear manner, that they were being elected on the counts of electoral votes, not person-per-person vote.

I do not think anyone is contesting the result. The rules are indeed well known to each party beforehand. It is just interesting to see that in such system you can loose an election with more popular votes. I do understand the explanation you give for this system with different weighted votes, that it is done so that large states do not outweigh small states too much.

Yet such system can lead to very awkward situations when calculated to the extremes. In very extreme cases you can win the election on less than 30% of the votes.

A simple example: 11 constituencies with 100 voters (grand total 1100 voters), each delivering one college vote.
Candidate A gets in 6 constituencies 51% of the votes and 0% in the other 5.
Candidate B gets in these 6 constituencies 49% of the votes and 100% in the other 5.
Candidate A wins the election on (6x51/1100)*100 = 28% of the votes.

Making the numbers bigger makes no difference for this calculation. But adding the weighted votes like it is done between the states, the worst case minimum percentage to win can turn out even lower than 28%, depending on which states are won by 51% and lost with no votes at all.

I am now in a direct voting democracy, but some people here suggest the British system may be good for us. But these possibilities of extreme discrepancy between the popular vote and the winner, make me think twice about such proposals.

Kind regards Vincent

[jwocky]

Did anybody do what I said, took a calculator and added actually the votes up? No ... of course not!

[SHM]

http://www.indiatimes.com/news/world/da ... 65272.html

[D-ECHO]

KL-666, completely explained as I would have

[Lydiot]

http://www.indiatimes.com/news/world/day-one-in-trump-s-america-indians-harassed-and-racially-discriminated-in-broad-daylight-265272.html

There are a lot more reports than that unfortunately. Some of them will have been made up, which is tragic, but since we've already established that truth doesn't matter it's to be expected. What's worse though is that a large amount of the reports are going to be true.

Hatred along racial and religious lines legitimized by an elected president. It won't end well.