And in this instance, the context is a *NATIONAL* Election.
One composed of numerous regions of differing opinions and populations.
Therefore breaking voting patterns down into regions, is rather a pointless exercise isn’t it?
Incorrect. It shows why Hillary lost, why Trump won and beyond.
Break the voting results down region by region, state by state, county by county, town by town and you start seeing things happen. For example, towns and counties that voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012, voting for Trump in 2016. Enough of those flipped around that whole states flipped results from what happened to Obama vs what happened to Hillary despite national popular vote results.
And mind you, that kind of thing is by design here. Working as intended. More on that later.
Hillary Clinton convinced 3 million more Americans to vote for her than Donald Trump managed.
That’s just a fact.
And was down across the board until the West Coast results came in. So the majority of that 3 million gap, came from liberal strongholds as opposed to anywhere else.
I’m talking about who won more votes overall in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election – a nationwide vote.
A vote tally that mind you is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Usually the Electoral vote reflects the popular to a degree, but not always. Our earliest "disjointed" election like this where the Electoral vote didn't match the popular vote was in 1824.
And yet even that was by design.
Why would I even care about voting distribution, much less make any assumption about it?
Because a nationwide tally is irrelevant, the results on a state by state basis determine the winner. Win enough states, win the election, even if the popular tally is the other way.
Clinton got 3 million more votes in a Nationwide election than Donald Trump.
What relevance would the distribution of votes have to that fact?
The distribution of votes ensured that the Electoral votes of Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and more swung one way (Trump) while a lesser number swung the other (Hillary).
Again, running up the score in raw votes in California doesn't overturn the will of voters in Ohio, Michigan or Pennsylvania.
Funny, isn’t it?
Gibraltar is a relic of Britain’s Imperial Past (guess your equivalent would be Puerto Rico…).
Most Mainland Brits don’t consider Gibraltar any more a part of the United Kingdom than they do the Falkland Islands.
But the crucial fact is that Gibraltarians *DO* see themselves as part of the UK. A comfortable majority of Gibraltarians want to remain being governed by the UK. Gibraltar does not want to secede from the UK and join with Spain.
Gibraltarians are absolutely determined to remain subjects of the British Government in Westminster.
So who gives a fuck which way they voted on Brexit?
Because if they banded together with enough places, they could have been the deciding handful of votes on whether or not the Leave campaign succeeded.
If they want to remain part of the UK, they’ll have to do as they are told, won’t they.
And here we go, tyranny of the majority.
Yes, I see.
So are you suggesting that future elections should be decided by Geography, rather than a per-capita headcount?
That is: that the combined geographic land area occupied by voters for one candidate or the other should determine victory?
Worth a shot, I suppose.
Which is somewhat how we do things for Presidential elections here, and how composition of the Congress works.
Ya see as I mentioned earlier, this is all by design. The Founding Fathers more than 200 years ago weren't idiots. They knew full well "mob rule" (aka Athenian) democracy where 50% +1 vote meant total control was a majorly flawed and impractical concept. All you need then is one more than the other side and they become your slaves, after all if you accomplish that you are the Majority, they the Minority and in that kind of Democracy, what the Majority says goes, what the Minority says is irrelevant and subservient to the wishes and whims of the Majority.
Tyranny of the Majority, that's what it's called.
We went through this question and scenario right off the start in 1787 when drafting the Constitution of the United States.
Large state delegates coming to the Constitutional Convention in 1787 had everything to gain and mold to their designs, the smaller states stood to lose out and be marginalized. The original proposal for voting systems and the Congress was to be population (and land size) proportionate. That each state would be given Representatives in Congress as proportion of the country's total population (and land size). This meant at the time states with large land areas and populations like New York, Virginia and Pennsylanvia which would originally be growing into what is now the Ohio Valley would accrue immense and in many ways uncontestable power relative to smaller land area and population states like Rhode Island and Massachusetts. An alternate proposal for Congress was submitted mainly by the smaller states in that all states would carry equal weight of power, regardless of land size or population.
As you might imagine, neither proposal went through on the first pass. Small states basically asked "What's the point of us being here?" if Representation by Population was the sole winner while large states balked at the thought of equal power with tiny states.
But the Constitution, like the United States itself was an all-or-nothing affair. They could either come together in some way or fall apart into tiny nation-states on their own, ripe for conquest at the hands of a cheesed off Britain or expansive France or whatever. It would be either one nation with 13 states or 13 independent nations, none of which would last very long.
And they all knew that back then. The prospect of complete disintegration led to compromise. A compromise that created the Representation by Population House of Representatives in Congress, Equal Power Among States Senate, and a combination Electoral College* for electing the President/Vice-President.
* Each Electoral vote is weighted the same and states are to apportion them in accordance with the victor of their state's election counts. This gives more equal representation among states so that nobody is left truly powerless in determining the highest office in the land and the Electoral Votes themselves are apportioned by population of each state, meaning the more people you have relative to the rest the more Electoral votes you shall have.
Any change to our system would simply tilt the scale one way or the other. Towards equal representation or representation by population.
Those folks back then, the Founding Fathers, they weren't idiots, they make today's politicians look quite the fool.
They *WANTED* to vote for Clinton to try and ensure that Trump didn’t win the Presidency you mean..?
I wonder if anyone voted for Trump because they wanted to try and ensure that Clinton didn’t win the Presidency?
Ever heard the phrase "I'm not voting for [X]! I'm voting against [Y]!"? That's a huge part of Hillary's support right there. "I'm not voting for Hillary, I'm voting against Trump!" Likewise, a not-insignificant part of Trump's support (and victory) came from that. "I don't like Trump, I'm not voting for Trump. I'm voting against Hillary!"
(Incidentally, my vote for Trump was partially like that. Trump is a means to an end for me, I'm not some Trump-supporter. Hillary was the less acceptable outcome.)