Republicans have lost the popular vote in 7 out of the last 8 presidential elections

This was just pointed out in a 538 podcast and I did a double take and a quick count to confirm it.

Clinton won the popular vote in both of his elections, Bush only won the popular vote in in his second election, Obama won both of his, and Trump lost both of his. That means it's been 16 years since Republicans won the popular vote.

That's actually kind of mind boggling to me. No wonder people don't have faith in elections, but it's definitely weird that it's Republicans who are expressing their lack of faith this time around.

Thoughts?

They are only expressing lack of faith in the process only because their guy lost. If Trump won, even if just by the electoral college votes, they wouldn't have an issue. I think they'd say that the system works because that's how the system was set up.

I have faith in the US electoral system works, as designed because it's more of a matter of "Where you vote" than anything else. I have...trouble accepting the system in the current time where less populous states like Wyoming has more voting power than high population states like California/New York/Texas.

I think Republicans would have a much higher chance of winning if they quit the whole authoritarian streak.

Trump lost the popular vote both time, and he is by far the most authoritarian president I have seen in a long while.

Edit: Its a shame, because there were some excellent republican candidates in the 2016 election and they picked Trump.

Now, to be fully accurate, Bill Clinton did not win a majority of the popular vote in 1992 or 1996. He won a plurality of the popular vote, i.e. not over 50%, but more than anyone else in the race.

Just wanted to get that little factual tidbit in before the floor gets too sticky in here.

So he won the popular vote.

In 2016 Republicans picked the worst candidate they had.

Also I think it's time we remove the EC. Not only does it make votes unequal but trump has shown that without other individuals in government staying diligent it can be manipulated.

I dont think anyone said anything about winning the majority.

Hell, where I live, the winning party only tends to win about 30% of the popular vote. I would argue that is a healthy sign more than anything, as it means politics isnt a monopoly.

Yup, some of those republican candidates actually looked quite decent, but they were all drowned out by noise made by Trump, Ted Cruz and Ben Carson.

I am in favor of ANYTHING that would make America less radicalized and partisan, and removing the EC would most likely result in just that. When people outright villify a state, simply because it is blue (or red depending on who you ask) it is clear to me that the EC just helps divide the country.

The most baffling thing to me was a when a Wyomingite I knew, was deeply hostile to people living in Blue States. She asked me where in America I would choose to live in if I had to pick some state, and I picked Massachussets, or Washington DC. As those places look to have a very educated populace, high demand for technical skills and lot of job opportunities for me. She was deeply offended by the fact that I chose a liberal state. Like, what the hell was her problem? Are the political leanings of my neighbours more important than being able to find a stable job in the field of my expertise?

I wonder if there's a way to modernize the EC or if it should just be scrapped altogether. I remember hearing about the National Popular Vote Compact, which would just give the electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote (If I understand the basics of it based on an introductory paragraph). It seems like an interesting idea....but if thats the idea, why keep the EC around, just to make it easier to pass?

With the hyper-partisan GOP, I doubt they would want to do anything that gets rid of their only way to win. Suppressing votes in key states can only go so far when it's popular vote rather than the system we have now.

@Ring_of_fire: "..but if thats the idea, why keep the EC around, just to make it easier to pass?"

Political lift. Since getting rid of the EC would require a constitutional amendment and one party relies on it to stay in power, the chances of it going are virtually zero. The state pact requires a much lesser bar to be met.

Well that's how it goes when you work for the few and **** up a national crisis to get people together.

The electoral college benefits the two-party duopoly. While I imagine many Democrats support getting rid of the electoral college, I'm sure that the party elites would be hesitant to do so.

Personally, rank-based voting sounds like an efficient system and it seems as if it could reduce extremism on either side while having a majoritarian candidate win an election rather than a "winner-take all system."

Aside from that - and I know this isn't going to be a popular opinion - but I believe campaigning should start a 6 months to a year prior to the actual election to avoid a drawn out election cycle and that an elected person's term should be expanded.

For example, a presidential term should be 6-8 years, House rep should be 6 years, and senate should stay at 6 years or maybe expanded to 8 years. I don't think the current terms are enough for an elected official to enact effective change at the federal level.

Does anyone think that regularl denial of the people the majority vote for causes internal issues for the country? I think it causes, and has caused, greater polarization in politics for one.

No terms should not be expanded. A lot of bad policies can be passed in that time. Look at 45. Do you really think more years of him would be a benefit? We need term limits in Congress and on the Supreme Court.

Definitely not beneficial and the same goes for 43; however, my opinion of expanding terms should also coincide with reforming how we do elections. We've had decent to good presidents such as Eisenhower, LBJ (aside from Vietnam), Clinton, and Obama.

Additionally, we should make it easier to hold our elected officials accountable through special elections and make it easier to impeach if an elected official has proven to be incompetent.

The people of the US do not elect the president, the states do, but the people get to choose how those states vote for president. The US isn't ran like a single country, but 50 individual, autonomous states (which is why they are called states and not provinces). The states formed first and entered a union, the federal government was created by that union to represent the states, which is why the US government has little authority in how or what states do to a large scale, which is why the president of the US doesn't actually have any authority to shut down any states.

The US isn't France, it's not Germany, nor Canada where a single federal entity rules over all, it is in fact the states who have the authority and delegate some of that authority to the federal government, but unlike most countries, it is those states that ultimately have the power, not the federal government they created that operates on their behalf with the powers granted to it by the constitution.

So this is why there isn't, nor will ever be federal elections based on popular vote, but will always be a number of votes casted by the states to elect the president. So as much as you want to piss and moan about the electoral college, it isn't going anywhere, and it never will.

Our system isn't going to be sustainable. Having a minority part that is a short grasp away from power sets us up for disaster. It was designed hundreds of years ago and has no place in our modern society. The argument to maintain the status quo is an appeal to tradition, a mere fallacy to me. It's easy to fall back on the notion that it is because it is, without trying to elaborate on the pros/cons of our archaic system.

And how sustainable do you think it would be if a couple urban centers were able to control the outcome of every election? We already have counties in NY state discussing breaking off and forming their own because due to the power of NYC, the rest of the state gets very, very little say in state affairs, making the rest of the counties feel like they have no representation or recourse. Now imagine that on a national level and tell me, will that make things better?

We should not have tyranny of the minority...........

If those urban centers contain more people, so be it. The fact that people think their vote shouldn't be weighted more heavily based on where they live is privilege and entitlement at it's finest. If urban centers contain more voters, it follows that they have a stronger political pull.

You did not answer my question. What happens to those states, you know, the ones who provide the mass majority of food, energy, and manufacturing, when they no longer have any recourse or representation? I keep telling you people, and you refuse to listen to facts. The US isn't a democracy, and the federal government exists purely out of the will of the states. Those states choose presidents, not the people, at least not directly. It was created that way by people much, much smarter than you for good reason.

So again, what happens when those states no longer have representation or recourse in a federal government that those states created?

@eoten: They have as much representation as the other people in the other states.

I'm gonna stop you there as the above is bullsh*t. Urban centers contribute far more to GDP than rural places, but that is beside the point,

The second half is also bullsh*t seeing as everyone is afforded representation at differing levels which end at the city level. You have Senators, Reps, Governors, State Senators, State reps, commissioners, etc.. This ensures that local issues can be addressed at a small county/city level if it suits their needs. If some farmer is mad that his candidate isn't winning president so be it. He needs to face reality that his viewpoint is a minority and that he isn't entitled to dictate the course of the country at the highest level. You know what a more dangerous example is? Letting that minority farmer dictate the president while the majority urban dwellers have to wonder why his location gives him disproportionate representation. Our system was designed by people who didn't want anyone but land owning white males to vote. It's time to move on.

Like I said. Your argument is a form of entitlement which boils down to an appeal to tradition.

That might have been a compelling argument had everyone in NYC voted the same, but here is the thing: They don't.

In fact, as urbanization occurs and texas gets increasingly purple, possibly even becoming blue in a few decades. The Electoral College, thanks to its Winner Take All, practically ensure republicans will never win an election again.

And even though that would be convenient for the party I favor, I still think that would be horrible for democracy if the US Democrats would maintain a monopoly.

Also, those upstate NY 'farmer's will find out very quickly how much those urban centers subsidize their way of life as well, entertaining the idea of succession. They don't exist in a vacuum free from the effects of the urban centers they're connected to.

My argument is exactly why the states put in place the system they have when they agreed to form a union and create the federal government which only exists because the states allow it. They have the power over the federal government, not vice versa. So if the EC disappeared by some form of magic, which is what it would take because the states aren't going to ratify a constitutional amendment to actually make it happen, then many of those states would leave the union. Those are the states that provide most the food you eat, most the energy you use and most the counties in those blue states would not be siding with those urban centers either. Those urban centers would be alone. Do you think a city can provide it's own food and energy? It cannot.

You can mentally masturbate about it all day long, but it's not going to happen, not now, not ever, not as long as the US constitution exists, and the states hold power.

We can throw away the constitution and rewrite another one that's a lot better and takes into consideration of major developments since the 21st century. The founding fathers were smart but the deification of them is weird and backwards.

Or amend it.

But yeah, everything you just said is pretty much nonsense.

lol

I'm not attempting to argue how we would change our system. I'm simply critiquing it, making most of your post immediately irrelevant. I understand that chances of changing it are very slim.

If you want to entertain the idea of succession as a reactionary measure please do. How did that work out the last time we tried that? I seem to remember a minority coalition of slave owners getting their sh*t pushed in. You'd also have to remember that in today's world the US is not a largely agrarian society. 2/3s of our GDP is generated in urban counties and cities and rural ones take disproportionate funding from them to provide for public utilities and other amenities. The way you're describing them, it almost seems like they're the spoiled kids that takes their ball and goes home when they don't get everything they want.

Spoiled and entitled.

Yup, the GOP sucks, and people know it.

Well in order to correctly critique it, it'd help to learn and understand why it exists the way it does in the first place. It's a very good system, and the US wouldn't exist today without it, nor would it exist in the future without it either.

The electoral college is archaic garbage and should be thrown out.

Imagine if professional sports had an electoral college system instead of rewarding the team that scored the most points? No one would stand for it.

Plus, the system we have now pretty much declares that some votes are worth more than others. Even though a good portion of the country resides in states like New York and California, their votes ultimately don't decide who wins the presidency, and instead we have to rely on bum-ass states like Wisconsin and Michigan to decide who gets the presidency.

@xdude85: Well boo hoo. The US isn't a democracy.

@eoten: Why excuse a flaw?

Dude....

The U.S. is a representative democracy since Americans still elect officials that represent their interests, whether its their mayor or state representative to their senator or the president of the United States.

The founding fathers were concerned - and rightly so - of direct democracy but this country functions as a representative democracy and it doesn't conflict with the other term "republic" either. However, the U.S. has the problem where elected officials are pursuing policies that do not represent the majority's beliefs, such as hampering COVID-19 relief, marijuana legalization, healthcare, and so on because a minority party clings onto power.

The U.S. is a democracy because it literally function as so.

Oh I can answer this.

Two answers:

-Why fix something when the current system benefits me?

Or

-THE FOUNDING FATHERS ARE GODZ AND THEY'RE RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING HURR DURR

You're the one saying it is a flaw.

How does the current system benefit me, specifically? And the founders are certainly more intelligent than a bunch of left leaning post modernists who derive their opinions from socialist propagandists they follow on social media. It is a fact the US would not exist as a country without it, and it will not exist in the future without it. Which is why the China-aligned left tends to push anti-EC propaganda, along with a multitude of other damaging, and divisive disinformation.

Oh well.

Thing is Democrats could easily appeal to some of the more rural areas. Iowa, Ohio, and Missouri are now solid red states and all Dems do about it is bitch about how "privileged" they are electorally, stigmatize the welfare they get, and talk about how crazy Republicans are. You can thank Obama for this mindset

Democrats flat out gave up in South Dakota after Noem was elected in 2010 by less than 2%. They barely even try in those places anymore.

Time to change that..............

It benefits the GOP but it makes you happy if that counts.

The U.S. can exist with any other form of governance, provided that the government is efficient enough and as long as the people allow for its existence. Lets not deify our governance or the founding fathers. It's quite silly.

The founders were quite intelligent for their time but there are smarter people, from academia to government, who have better ideas and can or have proven to be better.

Lets dissect that last part real quick since it's full of nonsense. The U.S. democratic values counter that of China's political realm. Unlike China's current political system, the U.S. Democrats do not support jailing dissidents, hammering political speech, restricting minority rights and religious practice and so on. Additionally, the incoming Biden Administration seeks to be tough on China. How that will pan out, I'm not so sure. However, in the last four years, despite Trump's anti-China rhetoric, China has gained in strength where Trump fumbled through policy after policy, from backing out of alliances to tariffs that funnily enough didn't do anything.

As for the accusation that liberals are pushing divisive information, as I recall, I see Republicans wanting to overthrow a free election, opposing the majority of Americans need for COVID relief, opposing equal rights for all Americans, and so on.

BTW, this isn't unique to America. It's kind of ironic that in Canada, it's conservatives in the middle of the country that want senate reform and direct democracy, because they would win more often.

The only reason why Trudeau is still PM is because French speaking provinces are given an inordinate amount of seats in the house and senate in Canada.

Nobody is trying to "overthrow a free election." Whoever told you that was spreading misinformation. And tell me, who in academia or in government do you think is smarter exactly? What are their ideas that have proven to be better?

And to respond to the later half of your comment about Democrats not supporting jailing dissidents, I should remind you of the idea of "deprogramming" 72 million people against their will, the suppression of free information online by big tech (aligned with the DNC), and even members of their party calling for their "soldiers" to "take out" Trump supporters. Pretending the DNC is clean, altruistic, honest, or have any kind of integrity is a fucking joke. They epitomize fascism, bigotry, and intolerance.

Biden has absolutely no intention of being tough on China. He's been talking the same shit for the last 47 years in politics and the recent report on the investigation into Hunter that just released shows clear ties between Joe and the CCP. Not to mention one of the biggest accusers claiming Trump was colluding with Russia, which was HIGHLY divisive and dangerous rhetoric just got caught with his pants down with a Chinese spy that Adam Schiff was also aware of at the time. But sure.. those guys claiming the elected president was working with a foreign government based on ZERO information wasn't divisive at all, right?

What a joke.

Yeah, their story about how the EC favors Republicans while they still think Joe won the EC legitimately is laughable. If Joe won the EC but lost the popular vote you could be damn sure the same people would be in here right now telling us how important the EC is and how it must be preserved. They don't even think for themselves, just regurgitate what they heard in leftwing or social media without giving it a second thought. Which is why nobody here discussing the concept even had any idea why it existed in the first place. They just believe it's some outdated concept created for no apparent reason than to help Republicans in 2020.

My thought?

Cities have highly dense populations. Their politics are also very unique compared to the rural side of states. It sucks because the rural side of the states get fucked over sometimes.

This is why our system is out of date. Get rid congress. Get rid of the electoral college. Get rid of the supreme court.

So you want a dictator then.......

Trump's lawsuits and that a majority of Republicans believe that the elections were "unfair" say otherwise. Have you been under a rock in the last month?

Everything you just said is nothing more than conspiracy and not worth debating.

I think he is talking about a direct democracy, where the tyranny of the 51% can do whatever they want to the 49.

Yes. Something similar to Mussolini.

Truth. I'm far from Republican, but John Kasich was a guy I would definitely vote for.

Yup, John Kasich showed so much talent from his time as a governor. And he was very moderate too. He was on the top of my head when I made that edit.

And one of the few Republicans that I've seen calling this nonsense out.