A new poll shows an astonishing 52% of Republicans incorrectly think Trump won the popular vote - Polidicks

[URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/12/18/a-new-poll-shows-an-astonishing-52-of-republicans-think-trump-won-the-popular-vote/?postshare=5171482070097470&tid=ss_fb-bottom"]Washington Post[/URL] [QUOTE]Amid the speculation on whether the electoral college will refuse to make Donald Trump president, many Trump opponents are pinning their hopes on one glaring fact: Hillary Clinton’s sizable win in the popular vote. Clinton’s lead now exceeds 2.8 million votes (more than 2.1 percent of the total vote) and continues to grow. Many Democrats hope this fact alone might persuade Republican electors to reject Trump in favor of some alternative. But this hope faces a serious challenge: Half of all Republicans actually think Trump won the popular vote. In a nationally representative online survey of 1,011 Americans conducted by Qualtrics between Dec. 6 and 12, we asked respondents, “In last month’s election, Donald Trump won the majority of votes in the electoral college. Who do you think won the most popular votes?” Twenty-nine percent said Donald Trump won the popular vote. This is a slightly larger proportion than in a recent Pew survey in which 19 percent said Trump won the popular vote. Respondents’ correct understanding of the popular vote depended a great deal on partisanship. A large fraction of Republicans — 52 percent — said Trump won the popular vote, compared with only 7 percent of Democrats and 24 percent of independents. Among Republicans without any college education, the share was even larger: 60 percent, compared with 37 percent of Republicans with a college degree. [/QUOTE] [img_thumb]https://s30.postimg.org/3yboq7e01/wood.png[/img_thumb]

"Popular" vote means the very vocal minority IMO.

He did win the popular vote, where it mattered. There is no national popular vote

A winner takes all system is bad in a democratic republic.

[QUOTE=Conscript;51547437]He did win the popular vote, where it mattered. There is no national popular vote[/QUOTE] Which is really stupid

[QUOTE=Conscript;51547437]He did win the popular vote, where it mattered. There is no national popular vote[/QUOTE] Which is fucking retarded. That's not how republics work.

[QUOTE=Conscript;51547437]He did win the popular vote, where it mattered. There is no national popular vote[/QUOTE] Yeah but we can track the national popular vote, you know the one Trump did not win. It may not have been the determinant of who won but it's still valuable information unless you're someone who likes to cover his ears when there are facts that don't agree with what's going on in your protective bubble

[QUOTE=Primigenes;51547450]My roommate literally showed me something on his instagram or facebook that said Trump won the popular vote. Fake news really is a bitch[/QUOTE] There should be a class in high school for showing kids how to identify a good source and a bad source.

post-fact indeed

[QUOTE=Kyle902;51547453]There should be a class in high school for showing kids how to identify a good source and a bad source.[/QUOTE] Wouldn't matter because the same dumb alt-right and alt-left will just ramp up that the education system is indoctrinating your kids to only read the news sources that /they/ want you to and to wake up sheeple.

This raises the question: why do we even bother having national polls when the popular vote doesn't determine the outcome? Shouldn't we just have state polls in the run-up to the election, and then add up the number electoral votes of states each candidate wins as a way to project the winner?

[QUOTE=Kyle902;51547453]There should be a class in high school for showing kids how to identify a good source and a bad source.[/QUOTE] That falls under critical thinking which is criminally under taught by school or parents.

That 12% of HS educated Democrats thinking he has more popular votes is still funny to think too.

[QUOTE=Tudd;51547545]That 12% of HS educated Democrats thinking he has more popular votes is still funny to think too.[/QUOTE] Makes me wonder if they actually care about politics, or just vote the same as friends/family.

[QUOTE=Tudd;51547545]That 12% of HS educated Democrats thinking he has more popular votes is still funny to think too.[/QUOTE] Fake news arrive to all kinds of people,no matter their ideology or political outlook. That,or they just hate Hillary that much.

[QUOTE=Kyle902;51547453]There should be a class in high school for showing kids how to identify a good source and a bad source.[/QUOTE] just finished high school last year, no class like that except "dont use wikipedia!!!!1" but i will say i just finished my first semester in college and we spent two weeks going over good sources vs bad sources

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;51547447]Which is fucking retarded. That's not how republics work.[/QUOTE] Actually that is exactly how a Republic works in this case. You are thinking of a Direct Democracy, which doesn't put restrains (This case the electoral college) on the Majority vote like a republic does. A Republic is armed with a constitution or some written document that protects the individual from the majority. Hence why America is a Democratic republic. If America were a Democracy then the majority always rules regardless of anything.

[QUOTE=Timof2009;51547590]Actually that is exactly how a Republic works in this case. You are thinking of a Direct Democracy, which doesn't put restrains (This case the electoral college) on the Majority vote like a republic does. A Republic is armed with a constitution or some written document that protects the individual from the majority. Hence why America is a Democratic republic. If America were a Democracy then the majority always rules regardless of anything.[/QUOTE] This is patently [i]incorrect[/i]. He is [i]not[/i] thinking of a direct democracy, as in a direct democracy the population votes on each issue on a case-by-case basis to determine the course of action. Election of a representative by popular vote [b]is not direct democracy[/b]. This is because you're electing a [b]representative[/b]. The process through which a republic chooses its elected representatives is irrelevant, so long as it's basically democractic it's still a republic. [editline]18th December 2016[/editline] I'm getting really fucking sick of this "The electoral college protects my poor, OPPRESSED republican ass from the scawwy city folk majority!" Argument too. Honestly fuck that shit. If things were historically different, and you told me you wanted to give the votes of people in Arkansas or some shit a hundred times more sway than people in New York, I'd fucking laugh in your face. This is bullshit and you know it, and you're only defending it because you [i]know[/i] it's in your best interest.

[QUOTE=Timof2009;51547590]Actually that is exactly how a Republic works in this case. You are thinking of a Direct Democracy, which doesn't put restrains (This case the electoral college) on the Majority vote like a republic does. A Republic is armed with a constitution or some written document that protects the individual from the majority. Hence why America is a Democratic republic. If America were a Democracy then the majority always rules regardless of anything.[/QUOTE] here we go again in all the fucking threads we ought to have a sticky somewhere for that

[QUOTE=Mechanical43;51547662]here we go again in all the fucking threads we ought to have a sticky somewhere for that[/QUOTE] Do it like Kamiya and link to the most recent reply applicable. Then when it happens again link to the link to the applicable reply and so on, until you end up with a huge link chain that wastes everyone else's time but not yours :eng101:

The UK Referendum on Brexit was an example of [i]direct democracy[/i], because people voted directly on whether a particular course of policy action should be taken. Both the election of a president by electoral college or popular vote would be examples of [i]representative[/i] democratic process, as you're electing a head of state to represent your interests.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;51547447]Which is fucking retarded. That's not how republics work.[/QUOTE] Just to be the devils avocado, it totally is how republics work if they want to. The only thing that would be 'not how a republic works' would be having a king, a queen, a tzar, an emperor or empress. Having actual elections is not a part of making a country a republic, and those elections being fair and balanced certainly isn't.

[QUOTE=Whoaly;51547531]This raises the question: why do we even bother having national polls when the popular vote doesn't determine the outcome? Shouldn't we just have state polls in the run-up to the election, and then add up the number electoral votes of states each candidate wins as a way to project the winner?[/QUOTE] Setting up a national poll and a state poll requires roughly the same amount of work (or it's close), so setting up 50 state polls is a lot of work. The national polls are useful in predicting the final outcome not just because there's generally a correlation between winning the popular vote and the election itself, but because by tracking the national poll you can "adjust" the infrequently taken state polls to make a more or less useful prediction in a state that may not have seen polling for weeks or months. State polls are still essential, but if the national polls have gone down 5% for one candidate, chances are that movement can be generalized with reasonable accuracy to many states - when someone gains popularity, it's generally not because they went from 50% to 100% of the vote in California, but because they made gains everywhere. Of course the process of adjusting a model based on national polls is more involved (not all states track the national average equally well, I'd assume), but they're still much more useful than singular state poll.

You know someone should set up a drinking game for these kinds of threads The drink has to be vodka because putin Every time someone comes in with the BRILLIANT realization that America is a Republic and not a democracy, take a drink. It's kind of like when I hear people deny climate change or something where it's an argument that just kind of makes me sick when I hear it lmao.

[QUOTE=Timof2009;51547590]Actually that is exactly how a Republic works in this case. You are thinking of a Direct Democracy, which doesn't put restrains (This case the electoral college) on the Majority vote like a republic does. A Republic is armed with a constitution or some written document that protects the individual from the majority. Hence why America is a Democratic republic. If America were a Democracy then the majority always rules regardless of anything.[/QUOTE] "democracy" is not synonymous with "direct democracy." Direct democracy is one of many kinds of democracies, with others including social democracy, liberal democracy, participatory democracy, etc. The US is a democracy, the UK is a democracy. "No we're not we're a Republic" is like someone from the UK saying "we're a constitutional monarchy so the Queen can invalidate Brexit," it's wrong. The US is a presidential constitutional democratic republic. All that "Republic" means is that we're not a monarchy and that power is held by elected representatives - it's about as mutually exclusive with "democracy" as butter is to dairy.

[QUOTE=Kyle902;51547445]Which is really stupid[/QUOTE] The electoral college system is shitty but better than just tallying up all votes in to one bucket - it allows less-densely populated areas to actually have their votes count and matter, which it wouldn't otherwise. California has 38M people, Wyoming only 600k. If the election was just national popular vote, campaigners would only campaign in the top 10~ or so populated areas and the rest probably wouldn't even vote. Why would a poor farmer in Wyoming bother taking work off to vote for his issues knowing that there's a juicy possible 38M Californian votes against him? At the moment people don't bother to vote if they're voting against their states color. Without the electoral college only about 10-20 states would bother voting. I think the most annoying thing about hearing the American left complain about the electoral college saving Trumps ass is that if it saved Hillary, they'd be lapping it up and explaining to salty republicans why its a good idea even if its flawed in implementation. The system has made a democrat/third party (if you count non demo/repub 1800 parties third party) win in the past yet I only ever hear that the electoral college is a "alt-right election rigging system" which is bullshit if you just look at the history books.

[QUOTE=Sheer Visor;51548829]The electoral college system is shitty but better than just tallying up all votes in to one bucket - it allows less-densely populated areas to actually have their votes count and matter, which it wouldn't otherwise. [B]California has 38M people, Wyoming only 600k. If the election was just national popular vote, campaigners would only campaign in the top 10~ or so populated areas and the rest probably wouldn't even vote.[/B] Why would a poor farmer in Wyoming bother taking work off to vote for his issues knowing that there's a juicy possible 38M Californian votes against him? At the moment people don't bother to vote if they're voting against their states color. Without the electoral college only about 10-20 states would bother voting. [B]I think the most annoying thing about hearing the American left complain about the electoral college saving Trumps ass is that if it saved Hillary, they'd be lapping it up and explaining to salty republicans why its a good idea even if its flawed in implementation.[/B] The system has made a democrat/third party (if you count non demo/repub 1800 parties third party) win in the past yet I only ever hear that the electoral college is a "alt-right election rigging system" which is bullshit if you just look at the history books.[/QUOTE] you don't think a californian having the third of the voting power of someone living in wyoming is more deleterious to democracy? why would one person have more voting power than another? are we living in the 18th century? and that is some fine projection you're doing right now. all i see is donald trump saying its a good thing now that he won, but when obama won he used to say it was a disaster for democracy, so ya

[QUOTE=Mechanical43;51548868]you don't think a californian having the third of the voting power of someone living in wyoming is more deleterious to democracy?[/QUOTE] I didn't say it was a perfect system. I literally said it's a flawed system. With a country as geographically and economically large and varied the USA it'd be unfair for the populated and rich coasts to dictate the poor and rural inland. IMHO USA is far too big/varied to run under one umbrella government and states should have more power to tailor local laws/regulations bette accordingly, but that's another argument. [QUOTE=Mechanical43;51548868]all i see is donald trump saying its a good thing now that he won, but when obama won he used to say it was a disaster for democracy, so ya[/QUOTE] This isn't even related to anything that I was saying. Trumps a cunt, I agree. So what? [QUOTE=Yahnich;51548876]you all miss the point, whats retarded about the electoral college is the winner takes all principle[/QUOTE] It's shitty but having lived in a country with a hung parliament for 12 years where nothing got done because the 50/50 government would cockblock everything, I can see why they chose winner takes all.

[QUOTE=Yahnich;51548876]you all miss the point, whats retarded about the electoral college is the winner takes all principle[/QUOTE] no not really, the electors per state hasn't changed for a long time in which some states have became way more populous than they were relative to the others. so if you really wanted to fix the college, you should a) fix the proportion of electors per state to mirror the relative weight of their population in the Union and b) electors are gained proportionally to the vote in that state but wait! when you implement all these changes, you'd get the absolutely same result than just using the national vote. so you see the EC is a waste of time at best, a flawed system at worst.

[QUOTE=Sheer Visor;51548829]The electoral college system is shitty but better than just tallying up all votes in to one bucket - it allows less-densely populated areas to actually have their votes count and matter, which it wouldn't otherwise. California has 38M people, Wyoming only 600k. If the election was just national popular vote, campaigners would only campaign in the top 10~ or so populated areas and the rest probably wouldn't even vote. Why would a poor farmer in Wyoming bother taking work off to vote for his issues knowing that there's a juicy possible 38M Californian votes against him? At the moment people don't bother to vote if they're voting against their states color. Without the electoral college only about 10-20 states would bother voting. I think the most annoying thing about hearing the American left complain about the electoral college saving Trumps ass is that if it saved Hillary, they'd be lapping it up and explaining to salty republicans why its a good idea even if its flawed in implementation. The system has made a democrat/third party (if you count non demo/repub 1800 parties third party) win in the past yet I only ever hear that the electoral college is a "alt-right election rigging system" which is bullshit if you just look at the history books.[/QUOTE] what incentive does a republican have to vote in california knowing that none of their votes will matter at all?