That suggests that Biden has a decent chance of winning the popular vote, like Hillary did in 2016.
The important polls will be in the swing states, where things don't look so good for Biden, at least for now.
This may be of interest to the SEP community:
- Thread starter mikeT
- Start date
The important polls will be in the swing states, where things don't look so good for Biden, at least for now.
It’s kind of messed up how the popular vote doesn’t elect the president.
No, it is not. The Electoral College system gives every state no matter how small a say in who is elected president. If we did not have that, the leftist cities in this country would be the only areas with a say in the outcome of the presidential election. Bill Clinton won one time and he did not have the most popular votes, so it can work in favor of the Democrat candidate at times.
You mean like all the polls that had Hillary beating Trump by a landslide? She had a 98% chance of winning. How’d that turn out?
For good reason.
Michael R2
Well-known member
Not true. There have been only five presidents elected that did not win the popular vote. The first was John Quincy Adams ((D-R) who lost in the electoral college as well but was selected by Congress).
The other four are all Republicans:
Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876, Benjamin Harrison in 1888, George W. Bush in 2000 and Donald J. Trump in 2016.
so you don’t believe that individual citizens should each have an equal say in who becomes president?
I understand you people do not believe in fair play.
Republicans have only won the popular vote once in 35 years.
You have failed at searching the internet. In 1992, Bill Clinton won the Presidency with 44,909,899 votes, (43%) while the combined total of the other two candidates (Bush and Perot) was 58,848,371 (56%). So, it is clear, more Americans voted for somebody not named Bill Clinton.
Michael R2
Well-known member
And yet he still won the popular vote over both Bush and Perot. He wasn't running against their combined vote, was he?
We already do if we vote.
Of course we do. The constitution is our guide for fair play in the election process.
The popular vote is not how the constitution says we decide our Presidential elections. I'm sticking with the constitution.
It does not matter if he had two adversaries. The fact is he only got 43% of the popular vote while the other two got 56% combined. That means that Bill Clinton was elected the POTUS in 1992 without having the most votes of the electorate. You can't change the numbers, more people voted for his opponents.
Michael R2
Well-known member
If you wish to get more technical, he won the plurality of votes. He still received more popular votes than either Bush or Perot.
As well, he did better than Lincoln, who won in 1860 with just under 40% of the popular vote. Breckinridge and Douglas combined to receive 48%. If you include Bell, 60% of the American voters did not choose Lincoln.
Still, Lincoln did receive the most popular votes, just like Clinton..
Stop with the "plurarity" argument, so no, I do not want to get more technical, I am concerned with the raw numbers. The fact is, Clinton won the presidency in 1992 despite only getting 43% of the popular vote. More people voted for other candidates instead of him. You can't change the facts of this situation. As for Lincoln, it's the same thing. Other candidates got more votes than Lincoln, but Lincoln got the Electoral College votes and he became the POTUS. That is how our election system works.
In 1996 Clinton got 47,402,357 popular votes. Meanwhile, the other candidates, all 8 of them, got a grand total of 48,807,988. So, Clinton actually won the presidency twice without getting the most popular votes. He won the presidency by getting the most electoral votes as is our system to the tune of 379 over his nearest rival Bob Dole who got 159 electoral votes.
Last edited:
Michael R2
Well-known member
That's fine. He still received more of the popular vote than any other single candidate.
The same thing happened in 17 other elections. It's not that big a deal. Five had another candidate receive more popular votes (list given in post 26) and the other twelve won with that technical term 'plurality'.
Basically, in 32% of US presidential elections, the President has been selected with less than half of the popular vote.
Oh, it's single candidate now? The raw numbers still do not sustain your claim.
And that is just fine, as that is the system that is spelled out in the constitution.
Michael R2
Well-known member
What claim? That he won the popular vote? He did. He received more popular votes than any other candidate. He did not win a majority of the total vote, but that is not a requirement to winning the popular vote.
Your claim that Clinton got the most popular votes. That did not happen, either in 1992 or 1996.
You are mistaken, he did not win the majority of the popular vote in either of his wins. More people voted for other candidates instead of him, and he won enough of the popular votes in the states that mattered to give him the edge in getting the most electoral votes and that's it. Why is it that you are unable to accept the true numbers concerning this? The numbers do not lie.
Michael R2
Well-known member
He did. He got more popular votes than any other candidate.
I never said he did. That is why I used the proper term plurality.