undefined | Better HN

0 pointsapparent5mo ago0 comments

> You do realize the current government won the elections and the president won the popular vote right

Technically he won a plurality of the popular vote, but he didn't win the popular vote. This is typically not a distinction that matters, but in this case it's what happened. The majority of people voted for someone else, but he got votes from more people than any other candidate did.

Of course, what really matters is the electoral college, but the popular vote is often seen as lending even more legitimacy to a victory.

0 comments

9 comments · 3 top-level

xp845mo ago· 4 in thread

The reason it doesn’t matter is that everyone who chooses to vote third party does so fully knowing who the two front runners are, as well as the likely margin of their state. Most third-party voters are in extremely uncompetitive states, making it quite safe to make a statement vote, even though it potentially dampens your “lesser of two evils” candidate’s apparent mandate.

For instance, I wrote an invalid write-in candidate since both major parties ran clowns in 2024, but Harris carried my state by a mile.

tracker15mo ago

This is very true... I used to vote Libertarian for all races where there was a Libertarian candidate... then my state shifted purple, and I'd rather see a Republican more often than not over a given Democrat candidate. While I don't agree with the actual far right fringe, I cannot vote for a party with prominent communists in it.

apparentOP5mo ago

I agree that most people who vote for other candidates come from uncompetitive states. But this doesn't necessarily prove your point. If there were more other-candidate supporters who would have voted for Kamala (if they had to vote for one of the two main candidates) than Trump, then that would mean he wouldn't have won the popular vote if it was just between the two of them.

Regardless, I think it's important to be precise about claims like this, since there is actually a difference between winning the popular vote and winning a plurality of it. Imagine making the claim if 10% of the popular vote went to third-party candidates, or even 20%!

JCattheATM5mo ago

> For instance, I wrote an invalid write-in candidate since both major parties ran clowns in 2024,

That makes you part of the problem. And no, only one party ran a clown, and that party won because of people like you.

pepperball5mo ago

Don’t worry, the next out-of-touch geezer you run will definitely have the charisma to win. It looks like they may be up against JD Vance for Christ’s sake.

1 more reply

JCattheATM5mo ago· 2 in thread

> Technically he won a plurality of the popular vote, but he didn't win the popular vote. This is typically not a distinction that matters, but in this case it's what happened.

Colloquially majority means 'greatest share', and he certainly had the greatest share of votes out of all candidates. I don't like it, but it's correct to say he won the popular vote.

apparentOP5mo ago

I agree that some people use the phrase loosely. I would ask such people what they would say to distinguish between someone who actually won the majority of the popular vote versus someone who did not. It's not a "super-majority" situation, IMO. But surely it's worthwhile to have a different way of referring to the two cases, especially now that the less-common one has happened in recent history.

JCattheATM5mo ago

> I would ask such people what they would say to distinguish between someone who actually won the majority of the popular vote versus someone who did not.

This is like asking someone to distinguish between a hypothesis of who killed JFK when they say they have a theory of who did. You're mixing the colloquial usage for no reason.

Majority doesn't mean more than 50% of the vote in everyday language, it means 'the most'. Trump got the most votes of any one candidate.

1 more reply

jablongo5mo ago

Trump received 77.3M votes while Kamala received 75M. Since the total was 156.7M it was barely a plurality instead of a majority (just under 50%).

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

9 comments · 3 top-level

xp845mo ago· 4 in thread

For instance, I wrote an invalid write-in candidate since both major parties ran clowns in 2024, but Harris carried my state by a mile.

tracker15mo ago

apparentOP5mo ago

JCattheATM5mo ago

> For instance, I wrote an invalid write-in candidate since both major parties ran clowns in 2024,

That makes you part of the problem. And no, only one party ran a clown, and that party won because of people like you.

pepperball5mo ago

Don’t worry, the next out-of-touch geezer you run will definitely have the charisma to win. It looks like they may be up against JD Vance for Christ’s sake.

1 more reply

JCattheATM5mo ago· 2 in thread

> Technically he won a plurality of the popular vote, but he didn't win the popular vote. This is typically not a distinction that matters, but in this case it's what happened.

Colloquially majority means 'greatest share', and he certainly had the greatest share of votes out of all candidates. I don't like it, but it's correct to say he won the popular vote.

apparentOP5mo ago

JCattheATM5mo ago

> I would ask such people what they would say to distinguish between someone who actually won the majority of the popular vote versus someone who did not.

This is like asking someone to distinguish between a hypothesis of who killed JFK when they say they have a theory of who did. You're mixing the colloquial usage for no reason.

Majority doesn't mean more than 50% of the vote in everyday language, it means 'the most'. Trump got the most votes of any one candidate.

1 more reply

jablongo5mo ago

Trump received 77.3M votes while Kamala received 75M. Since the total was 156.7M it was barely a plurality instead of a majority (just under 50%).

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse