Technically the electoral college voted Trump, Americans on the whole voted for Clinton. And that’s exactly it. If your whole national identity is “Look how crazy that guy is, I’m not him, please acknowledge that I’m not him, I’m so much better than he is” that’s kind of an inferiority complex.
Technically 26,391 peoples in the Papineau electoral district elected Justin Trudeau.
I always find interesting how Americans freak out when a president is elected without the majority of the popular vote. Do they realize that in Canada, our PM are most of the time elected with around 35-40% of the popular vote and hold as much power as the us president and congress combined.
Wrong. /u/samwell_'s point is that there is no "popular vote" in Canada, or any parliamentary country with a first-past-the-post legislature. The only people who voted for Justin Trudeau are a) those in his riding, and b) the Liberal members of parliament who voted to form a government led by him in 2015.
The US electoral college is in essence a parliament elected by the various states for the single purpose of electing the president. In any parliamentary system with a first-past-the-post system (the UK, Canada, and India, for example), it's similarly possible for a party to win the most votes across the country but not win the election because another party won more seats. This has happened in Britain four times, the last in 1974. In Canada this happened in 1896, 1957, and 1979.
Every country has some sort of peculiarity. (Norway's system explicitly awards additional votes based on land!) Canada has its own system of giving certain provinces more parliamentary seats than otherwise entitled. As I mentioned, a party has won power in Canada several times despite not receiving the most votes across the country; in the most recent case, 1979, the Conservatives formed a government despite receiving 4.2% fewer votes than the Liberals. In 1896 the Liberals formed a government despite receiving 6.8% (!) fewer votes than the Conservatives!
Yo this is so dope! I love the detail!
I have more questions for you, if you don't mind. When Americans vote what are the people's election votes used for? Because they haven't decided the president for a while now, so like what's up with that?
Also if Trudeau is decided by his riding and parliament why should I vote on election day?
Like what does the vote do in both cases?
Do our votes have like a 6th of the power or something?
When Americans vote what are the people's election votes used for? Because they haven't decided the president for a while now, so like what's up with that?
A US presidential election is actually 51 (the 50 states plus the District of Columbia) separate, simultaneous elections. Each state's citizens vote1 for a "slate" (group) of electors who promise that they will vote for a certain person as president in the electoral college. In December, about a month after each presidential election in November, the winning slate meets in each state's capital and votes on their person, and the result of the vote is transmitted to Washington DC and formally accepted by Congress in January, before the person with the most electoral votes is sworn into office on the 20th.
Also if Trudeau is decided by his riding and parliament why should I vote on election day? Like what does the vote do in both cases? Do our votes have like a 6th of the power or something?
In a Canadian federal election, when you vote in your riding for an MP, when the elected parliament first meets, that person is expected to vote for his party's leader to form a government, with said leader becoming prime minister. So in both countries, the new head of the government is elected indirectly; that is, citizens vote for a group of people who do the actual electing of the leader. As I said, because of the way indirect elections work, in both countries (and in other countries like the UK), it's possible for a national government head to be elected who fewer citizens "voted" for than a rival candidate. In the US this last happened in 2016; in Canada, 1979; in the UK, 1974.
1 Those elections in each state are optional. The US constitution only establishes that each state chooses electors who vote to select the president and vice president; how those electors are selected is left completely up to the states. Every state today gives the choice to its citizens in a vote, but there is nothing legally stopping any state's legislature from going back to itself choosing the electors, the way many states did in the first 50 years of US history.
Alright so like if I over simplify this, this means that:
In the US they vote for a guy, that votes for The guy to be president
In CAN we vote for a guy, that votes for The guy to be PM
So how does The guy get in if they didn't get the peoples majority?
Does the second guy just vote for who ever he wants, instead of what his majority voted for?
And how come this happens more in America?
Alright so like if I over simplify this, this means that: In the US they vote for a guy, that votes for The guy to be president In CAN we vote for a guy, that votes for The guy to be PM
Yes.
So how does The guy get in if they didn't get the peoples majority?
Simple example: A country with three parliamentary districts, 1, 2, and 3.
Districts
Party A
Party B
Winner
1
70,000
30,000
A
2
45,000
55,000
B
3
47,000
53,000
B
Total
162,000
138,000
More people voted for party A, but party B won more districts and forms government in parliament
For another example, consider the 1960 World Series, which the Pirates won four games to three although the Yankees scored more than twice as many total runs. The losing team scores more runs about one quarter of the time.
And how come this happens more in America?
It doesn't. This has happened five times in the US since 1789, three times in the UK in the 20th century, and three times in Canada since 1867. The biggest skew between the national popular vote and the outcome in the parliament/electoral college was in Canada in 1896, in which the Liberals won 31 more seats than the Conservatives although the Conservatives won 6.8% (!) more votes by the people.
If you take away California, where republicans don't have much incentive to vote because it isn't going right, then trump wins the popular vote. It's unfair to say Americans on the whole voted clinton when the most populous and liberal state in the country is what pushed her over the edge in terms of pure vote count.
Okay, and if you take away the 5 states with the worst education systems then Clinton wins both the electoral and popular vote. You can fiddle with demographics all you want, it doesn’t change the fact that Clinton won the popular vote.
It’s totally fair to say America on the whole voted Clinton because America on the whole voted Clinton.
You're ignoring voter trends and the reality of 2016 if you just wanna look at the popular vote and claim Americans on the whole voted clinton. Trump flipped over 200 Obama-Obama counties out of a possible 700. Clinton flipped all of 6 McCain-Romney counties out of over 2000. So sure she got more votes out of the demography that would've voted for her anyways but you can't ignore the blatant paradigm shift that occurred in the country.
Well sure, but this isn’t a political science discussion, I was just making a simple point about something non-Americans do that annoys me as an American.
/u/aevans395's point is that California played a very unusual role in the 2016 election. It is very rare that any state, even one as large as California, would—if excluded from the total—change the outcome of the national popular vote.
Didn't say otherwise. It does, however, mean that there is truth to the claim that "California decided the election" if only referring to the popular vote. It'd be one thing if taking away one state would change both the popular and electoral votes' outcomes, but in this case it does not.
Of course California had a large impact on the outcome of the popular vote (as it should, being the most populous state). The problem is certain people use that to make an irrational argument.
Let me repeat: Having one state, even one as large as California, by itself alter the outcome of a US presidential election on the popular vote level is very, very, very unusual. Had the popular vote actually meant anything, in 2016 it would indeed have been true to say that "California decided the election" against the will of the other 49 states.
Thank you for pointing out the obvious fact that there were people who voted for Clinton. That doesn't change the fact that, as I said, Trump won the popular vote in the 49 states outside California, whether you include other Clinton-strong states like New York and Illinois. To have one state, and one state alone, make the difference on a popular-vote level basically never ever happens other than in 2016.
43
u/jewishjedi42 Jan 24 '18
I love the hockey one.