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

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51548909]what incentive does a republican have to vote in california knowing that none of their votes will matter at all?[/QUOTE] Staying at home and wanking has the exact same effect since nothing happens, and you are both made to feel good and filled with despair

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;51547447]Which is fucking retarded. That's not how republics work.[/QUOTE] We are a Democratic republic, we elect people to vote for us

[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] That's exactly what poll aggregate services like 538 do.

I mean, I expected like a 10 point margin compared to republicans vs democrats, but jesus christ. Almost 30 point margin. And most people say that the left needs a reform (they do but it isn't as bad as people think). I honestly think that the right needs a reform if there are surveys that consistently say that the right have a much higher chance of being misinformed than the left.

[QUOTE=Mechanical43;51548906]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] [I]They already do that[/I] [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_apportionment#Changes_following_the_2010_census"]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_apportionment#Changes_following_the_2010_census[/URL] They adjust it based on the census and population of the state [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/OrGoM9q.png[/IMG]

[QUOTE=Svinnik;51549166][I]They already do that[/I] [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_apportionment#Changes_following_the_2010_census"]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_apportionment#Changes_following_the_2010_census[/URL] They adjust it based on the census and population of the state [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/OrGoM9q.png[/IMG][/QUOTE] That's congress. Not the Electoral College. The College hasn't been adjusted in well over 80 years at this point. EDIT: did you [I]really[/I] expect to get away with just posting an image of the graph and a shortened link?

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51549201]That's congress. Not the Electoral College. The College hasn't been adjusted in well over 80 years at this point.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Because the size of a state's total congressional delegation determines the size of its representation in the U.S. Electoral College, congressional apportionment also affects the U.S. presidential election process as well. [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Svinnik;51549225][/QUOTE] Alright, correction: the total Electoral College vote [I]has changed very little.[/I] [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)#Chronological_table"]This table is better representative.[/URL] It also shows that while votes have changed, since the total vote doesn't increase with the total population of the country anymore, voting power is widely different based on where you live. That's a significant problem.

[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.[/QUOTE] Why exactly does that farmer deserve more of a voice than another farmer in California? Or just another citizen, period? All people are created equal, are they not? Why should the presidential election of all things actively disenfranchise people based on an arbitrary series of state lines? And that's not even getting into the fact that you can argue the farmer's vote doesn't matter in the first place, since it's not like Wyoming is going blue anytime soon.

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51549243]Alright, correction: the total Electoral College vote [I]has changed very little.[/I] [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)#Chronological_table"]This table is better representative.[/URL] It also shows that while votes have changed, since the total vote doesn't increase with the total population of the country anymore, voting power is widely different based on where you live. That's a significant problem.[/QUOTE] The point isn't that it "hasn't changed," it's that we locked it years ago to 538 electoral votes [I]by locking the number of federal representatives[/I]. When the count of electoral votes "changes," it necessarily has to borrow votes from other states (unless there's new senators or representatives from new states), because we won't increase the number of representatives and senators to be more in line with modern populations. It has been this way since 1911 - [B]105 years.[/B] It has been 538 electoral voters since 1964. The US population in 1964 was 192 million. Now it's 318 million - 126 million more. Yet we still have 538 electoral voters. Wyoming has two senators and one representative for 584,000 people, which translates to 3 electoral votes. California has two senators and 53 representatives for 38.8 million people, which translates to 55 electoral votes, despite having a population [B]SIXTY SIX TIMES LARGER[/B] than Wyoming. If Wyoming has 3 electoral votes, and California has 66 times the population, California should have 198 electoral votes, not 55. Why is the electoral vote tied to the number of representatives when the number of representatives is locked at 435 + 100 senators? Populations change, yet the actual number of representatives cannot - it can only be shuffled around. Wyoming cannot get any less than 3 electoral votes, ever, because as a state it is guaranteed 2 senators and 1 rep. If ten people lived in Wyoming, they'd still be afforded 3 electoral votes, always, no matter what. The electoral vote should be tied to actual populations, which [I]grow[/I], and not representatives, which are locked and only [I]shuffle around[/I]. How is that unreasonable? Either tie EC votes to population or uncap the representative count to bring it in line with modern populations.

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51549147]I mean, I expected like a 10 point margin compared to republicans vs democrats, but jesus christ. Almost 30 point margin. And most people say that the left needs a reform (they do but it isn't as bad as people think). I honestly think that the right needs a reform if there are surveys that consistently say that the right have a much higher chance of being misinformed than the left.[/QUOTE] No, they don't. Once stupidity reaches critical mass in a democracy, it can be however stupid and still win all elections. There's no pressure to reform because the system means majority is always right. Facts might or might not be advantageous, but mobilizing voters is what in the really matters.

"...an astonishing 52% of Republicans incorrectly think Trump won the popular vote" [quote]In a nationally representative online survey of [b]1,011[/b] Americans...[/quote] Pretty ridiculous title considering the U.S has a population of 318 million people. edit: Turns out my understanding of statistics is what is ridiculous.

[QUOTE=Kyklis;51550472]"...an astonishing 52% of Republicans incorrectly think Trump won the popular vote" Pretty ridiculous title considering the U.S has a population of 318 million people.[/QUOTE] Sample-sizes nearing a thousand are standard for surveys.

[QUOTE=Levithan;51550478]Sample-sizes nearing a thousand are standard for surveys.[/QUOTE] That's honestly what's astonishing to me. I feel like such a small sample size has to be ridiculously inaccurate. To be fair, statistics aren't my strong suit.

[QUOTE=Kyklis;51550486]That's honestly what's astonishing to me. I feel like such a small sample size has to be ridiculously inaccurate. To be fair, statistics aren't my strong suit.[/QUOTE] [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_size_determination]the wiki page on sample sizes[/url] is an enlightening read. It's not exactly phrased in layman's terms but it does give you an idea of the retarded amount of science that's behind statistics and polls.

[QUOTE=Kyklis;51550486]That's honestly what's astonishing to me. I feel like such a small sample size has to be ridiculously inaccurate. To be fair, statistics aren't my strong suit.[/QUOTE] Again, properly sampled that should be about 3% or so. If statistics aren't your strong suit, why call it "ridiculous"? I mean it is counterintuitive, but that's not really the same thing.

[QUOTE=EcksDee;51550501][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_size_determination]the wiki page on sample sizes[/url] is an enlightening read. It's not exactly phrased in layman's terms but it does give you an idea of the retarded amount of science that's behind statistics and polls.[/QUOTE] I've actually been googling my ass off to try and get a better handle on this. Turns out that shit, rolling my eyes at the sample size being 1000 might not be as "gotcha" as I thought. Very interesting stuff to say the least.

[QUOTE=Kyklis;51550486]That's honestly what's astonishing to me. I feel like such a small sample size has to be ridiculously inaccurate. To be fair, statistics aren't my strong suit.[/QUOTE] A sample size of 1,000 is usually more than enough to represent millions and millions of people, unless there was sampling bias or poor sample selection. The vast majority of these kinds of data sets use a sample size of around 1,000. A census, for example, uses a sample size equivalent to the entire population. Research can't afford to do that, obviously. The bigger a sample size you have, the more precise it will be. However, a sample size of 1,000 can easily result in a >95% confidence interval for a population of millions - meaning that they can be 95% confident that the responses from those 1,000 people can be generalized to the entire population, which is the threshold for accuracy in most forms of statistical analysis. That's [I]unbelievably[/I] well-established in the field of statistics - it's literally backed up by explicit math. It's sort of become a meme around here that people will always say "but the sample size is so small this is meaningless" without understanding how statistics works. A proper random sample of 1,000 individuals can be extrapolated onto a very, very large population. Asking for a million samples to cover tens of millions of Republicans is unrealistic and totally unnecessary - there's over 95% (sometimes 98%) confidence that these results are correct.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;51550525]A sample size of 1,000 is usually more than enough to represent millions and millions of people, unless there was sampling bias or poor sample selection. The vast majority of these kinds of data sets use a sample size of around 1,000. A census, for example, uses a sample size equivalent to the entire population. Research can't afford to do that, obviously. The bigger a sample size you have, the more precise it will be. However, a sample size of 1,000 can easily result in a >95% confidence interval for a population of millions - meaning that they can be 95% confident that the responses from those 1,000 people can be generalized to the entire population, which is the threshold for accuracy in most forms of statistical analysis. That's [I]unbelievably[/I] well-established in the field of statistics - it's literally backed up by explicit math. It's sort of become a meme around here that people will always say "but the sample size is so small this is meaningless" without understanding how statistics works. A proper random sample of 1,000 individuals can be extrapolated onto a very, very large population. Asking for a million samples to cover tens of millions of Republicans is unrealistic and totally unnecessary - there's over 95% (sometimes 98%) confidence that these results are correct.[/QUOTE] I honestly appreciate the explanation. I mean I understood you only need a percentage of the population surveyed to accurately represent the entire country, I just didn't realize how small that percentage can be and still be accurate.

[QUOTE=Dave_Parker;51552306]I wonder if these people tuned out after the election was called. Because at that point, Trump did lead in the popular vote. [/QUOTE] 3 million people turned out after the election was called simply to prove a point (but they didn't bother to go out and vote in the first place)? And the Democratic party couldn't get a 100000 people to go vote in Florida? That's some pretty dumb and totally pointless speculation. Many votes were probably provisional ballots or ballots that similarly wouldn't be counted right away. [QUOTE]Beside that, I've never seen anyone claim that Trump won the popular vote.[/QUOTE] Wonder why, you live in the Netherlands, and people who don't know about it probably aren't talking about it. These are probably people who haven't seen the "HILLARY WON THE POPULAR VOTE" headline in their facebook news feed yet, not people who are going out of their way to deny reality. Also, polls are there so we don't have to rely on Facepunch user Dave_Parker to tell us what's up.

[QUOTE=Dave_Parker;51552306]I wonder if these people tuned out after the election was called. Because at that point, Trump did lead in the popular vote. Beside that, I've never seen anyone claim that Trump won the popular vote.[/QUOTE]I've heard a lot of claims that he was, but because of THEM ILLEGALS

[QUOTE=Dave_Parker;51556022]I wish the bad reading rating still existed. I said [B]tuned[/B] out. At the time the election was called, Trump led the popular vote because California was called after 5% of the vote there was counted and the majority of the vote difference comes from California.[/QUOTE] Sorry dude, my bad.

Probably because they believe that there were a lot more illegal votes for Hillary than Trump. at least thats what I've been hearing.

[QUOTE=Oizen;51556306]Probably because they believe that there were a lot more illegal votes for Hillary than Trump. at least thats what I've been hearing.[/QUOTE] even assuming that hillary won 3 million illegal votes and therefore lost popular vote, this assumes no illegals voted for trump the people who claim that millions of illegal immigrants voted for hillary are as delusional as the ones who claim the russians hacked millions of voting machines

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51556321]even assuming that hillary won 3 million illegal votes and therefore lost popular vote, this assumes no illegals voted for trump the people who claim that millions of illegal immigrants voted for hillary are as delusional as the ones who claim the russians hacked millions of voting machines[/QUOTE] I think its pretty silly to assume that illegals would vote for Trump. Especially when his entire campaign has been against them. I also doubt the GOP would try to get Trump illegal votes considering a good chunk of them are also against him. This of course pairs really well with the fact that very large left sided states also seem to have the most lax voting laws. Its all just speculation, however.

[QUOTE=Dave_Parker;51556022]I wish the bad reading rating still existed. I said [B]tuned[/B] out. At the time the election was called, Trump led the popular vote because California was called after 5% of the vote there was counted and the majority of the vote difference comes from California.[/QUOTE] The poll was done between the 6th and 12th of December so nope.

[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] I don't even have the energy to properly respond to this shit anymore. Here. [QUOTE=_Axel;51486714][QUOTE=catbarf;51485386]It's called 'tyranny of the majority'. Culturally, most of the geographic United States is very different from the major cities, but under a straight one-person-one-vote system, less-populated states have little political representation. It might be directly representative, but it's not going to feel fair to the inhabitants of Kansas that their collective voice is completely drowned out by that of New Yorkers who have no idea what their issues are. This is exactly the sort of situation that leads to rebellions, and it's what the unequal electoral votes were meant to address. Not that I mean to imply that the electoral college is a good thing, but in a country as huge and diverse as the US, direct democracy does have some issues.[/QUOTE] I'm a bit tired of people still bringing up "tyranny of the majority" after it's been exposed as a bogus argument in 10+ EC related threads already, so I'll just dig up an old post of mine: [QUOTE=_Axel;51442510]I'll only tackle this part since it's what the bulk of your argument is based on, and it's the main argument of people who defend the electoral college in general. What you're saying in essence is that since the rural population is a minority, they need their voting power to be inflated to compensate for that fact and avoid a 'tyranny of the majority'. Alright, fair enough. At first glance this seems like a good way to ensure nobody gets their rights trampled on because they're a minority. But for that point to be valid [I]you need to apply the same logic to all other minorities.[/I] And that's not what the electoral college does. At all. Do racial minorities get inflated votes? Does the unemployed? Does the handicapped? Do LGTB people get those? All of those are minorities with specific interests that are just as deserving of having their views taken into account as people from the countryside. But that's not what happens at all. In fact, some of those minorities are mainly located within cities, so the electoral college actually does the [I]opposite[/I] of what you think it does well by squashing those minorities' views to make way for the rural population's. So basically, it grants a privilege to country people that devalues the voice of every other minorities for no valid reason. If what you want is to give a voice to the small people and avoid a 'tyranny of the majority', then the electoral college is even worse than the popular vote since it enables a tyranny of a specific minority over all the others...[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]You've got the perfect example in this election. In the debates and policy statements leading up to the election, nobody on the Left gave a shit about degrading economic conditions in the Rust Belt. Those states flexed their electoral muscles and voted Trump, and suddenly Democrats are starting to recognize that there are serious economic problems that shouldn't be taking a backseat to identity politics.[/QUOTE] And for every such "perfect example", you have dozens more minorities whose voices are squashed by the very system you claim give a voice to minorities. The idea of "giving more power to the little man" may seem valorous and romantic, but in the end it's just a mathematical impossibility. Direct democracy doesn't have any issue that the EC system solves, save perhaps for safeguarding against populists (and that still remains to be seen).[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=_Axel;51557164]I don't even have the energy to properly respond to this shit anymore. Here.[/QUOTE] This is basically your "haha oh boy here we go again" post maybe a mod should stick it into your title edit: though you do need one change [quote]save perhaps for safeguarding against populists (and that still remains to be seen).[/quote] It's been seen finally. And surprise surprise, it didn't. Half of the states ban electors from going faithless anyways; so that capacity has effectively been neutralized before it has ever been tried.

And this matters, why?

[QUOTE=UK Bohemian;51557245]And this matters, why?[/QUOTE] Basic theory is, that to make decisions like here in form of voting to pick their representatives in their best interests people should be informed. Otherwise the choices made are basically random and have diminished odds to serve the people's bbest interests. One of the most important arguments for representative democracy is that people elect representatives to spend time to get intimately familiar with policy issues to make the best decisions. But still, to pick representatives that serve them well to begin with, voting public must be informed about the world, the system they vote for and policies they promote. Thus, educated public is a necessity for functional democracy. Public must be informed to keep the system serving their interests and hold it accountable. This survey indicates that Trump supporters are much less informed about the system they just voted through than Hillary's supporters. This means that Trump's supporters are less aware of facts and thus more susceptible to be swayed by rhetoric, weakening their ability to evaluate how to get the system to work in their own best interests and hold it accountable. TL;DR - Trump supporters know less about politics and are more misled than Hillary supporters.