Donald Trump has not been elected President of the United States

[Platapus]

Donald Trump has not been elected President of the United States of America, well at least not yet anyway.

Or, why do we have an election 2 ½ months before changing office?

The Citizens did their part by casting their votes, either early, via absentee voting, or by showing up at the polls on 8 November.

Sure all the news stations have proclaimed that Trump won the election, but not to fast there. The 8 November polling is but one of the elections that selects the President.

The election for President is not until 6 January 2013. It is just that we won't be involved. Here is what will happen.

Between 9 November and shortly before 19 December, the various state election boards will be busy counting (and recounting) the votes cast on 8 November, the mailed-in absentee ballots, the early voting ballots, and the provisional ballots (after being verified). The popular vote determines which party's electors will be selected to represent the state.

Then the electors (13 from Virginia), will travel down to the State Capitol to take part in another election on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December (19 December). They will cast their vote for President and Vice President in two separate votes.

The Electors record their votes on seven "Certificates of Vote," which are paired with the seven remaining original "Certificates of Ascertainment." The Electors sign, seal and certify the packages of electoral votes and immediately send six of them to the President of the Senate, the Archivist of the United States and other designated Federal and State officials. These sealed votes include the names of the Electors and who they voted for (no secret ballot for Electors!)

The sealed votes must be delivered to the Senate no later than 26 December, 2016.

After everyone sobers up after New Years, both houses of the Congress will meet in the House of Representatives (and it does get crowded) and watch the Vice President physically count 53 vote packages on 6 January, 2017. While this will be with the New Congress (115th) in attendance, the counting is done by the "old" Vice President as that Vice President's term ends on 20 January.

Hey! 53 packages but only 50 states + DC? What gives?

48 states and DC have adopted a winner take all Electoral system. In those states (DC is considered a state for these purposes) what ever party gets the highest number of votes gets ALL of the electoral votes of that state). There are only two exceptions to this. Nebraska and Maine have adopted a proportional Electoral system. Nebraska and Maine, in 2013, will end up with 2 different Electoral votes which total the total number of Electoral votes for that state.

Both Nebraska and Maine use the same method for proportional elector voting. Two electors are selected on the basis of the statewide vote and two (for Maine, three for Nebraska) are selected according to outcome of the vote in each of Maine's two (Nebraska's three) Congressional districts.

So the Vice President will have to lick his vote counting finger 53 times this January before any one can be elected President of the United States.

OK, so if the President is really really elected on 6 January, when why do we have to wait 14 days until inauguration?

Well it used to be a lot longer wait. Inauguration Day was originally set for March 4, giving electors from each state nearly four months after Election Day to cast their ballots for president. In 1933, the day of inauguration was changed by constitutional amendment (20th) from March 4 to Jan. 20 to speed the changeover of administrations.

Pretty complicated process just to elect someone to blame. :yep:

[Catfish]

"Donald Trump has not been elected President of the United States"
Right, by sheer numbers of votes Clinton won. But since you have this special electorate system..

Does not matter. The difference is so small, that is is about 50-50 of the US society. I hope Trump will be able to be a president for all. His first speech after he won the election was of course more conciliatory.

[Jimbuna]

Anyone taking bets on a different outcome? :O:

[Skybird]

It puts things into perspective when one does some calulations and include those people in the final results that were eligable to vote, but refused to do so. Because they are the strongest single camp.

Almost 219 million US citizens were eligable to vote. Slightly less than last time went voting.

Taking these 219 million, this is the way they distrubute:

43% decided not to vote.
27% voted for Trump.
27% voted for Clinton.
2.7% voted for others.

To what degree do the factions above represent all of the American population, including those who are not eligable to vote - all citizens, in general?

The total population currently is counted at roughly 325 million.

Of these 325 million,

33% were not allowed to vote (many possible legal reasons)
29% were allowed but rejected to vote.
18% supported Clinton.
18% supported Trump.
1.8% supported others

This means: not even one in five Americans (total population) supports Trump, and not even one in five Americans (total population) supports Clinton.

More than three in five Americans of total population did not vote or could not vote.

Almost every third American (total population) decided to not vote even though he would have been allowed to do so.

So:

To claim the American president "represents the American people", or that "all Americans have gone insane to allow this happening", is not justified, and a great exaggeration. In fact the reality sees the president representing a minority only, and the majority of people do not actively support Trump and Clinton.

Did all the math myself, correct me if I am significantly wrong with numbers somewhere, but not down to the digits behind the decimale, please: this is no statistic done for an academic paper.

[Skybird]

Note to myself - decimales are important, don't overlook them.

[Mike Abberton]

The total population currently is counted at roughly 325 million.

Of these 325 million,

33% were not allowed to vote (many possible legal reasons)
29% were allowed but rejected to vote.
18% supported Clinton.
18% supported Trump.
1.8% supported others

This means: not even one in five Americans (total population) supports Trump, and not even one in five Americans (total population) supports Clinton.

Your first section was more accurate when it said only 27% voted for Trump. In the second section, it is certainly possible (or even likely) that some of the 62% that couldn't/didn't vote would support Trump, but overall I understand you point that the Presidential vote does not really represent what everyone wants.

That being said, it's also very likely true that a good portion of the supposedly "pro-Trump" vote was actually an "anti-Clinton" vote. For me, I voted "anti-Trump" definitely not "pro-Clinton" despite that I technically cast a vote for her. Regardless of who won, I was not going to be happy about the result.

Mike

[Skybird]

Statistics are statements on the general outcome or trend of something, not on the individual's motive. They do not interpret or explain, but just describe the obvious events. Where they get used to try predicting probabilities, these again are just this: probabilities.

Statistics also do not allow to judge the single individual's behaviour that stands in front of you. Statistics are about groups and populations, not individuals. At best you can make assumptions about the probability the individual does this or that, as said before.

Im sure you know that. Just want to reiterate that.

BTW, the motive why somebody votes candidate A, is not relevant for the fact that his vote, may it be for conviction, may it be for protest, helps candidate A to claim victory. The voter thus still is responsible for his vote, in full. The motive does not matter for the result.

Statistics are descriptive and describe the factual event. Not more, not less. Using themin the right way while knowing about the can's and cannot's, turns them into extremely powerful tools of showing the truth. Its very hard and extremely unthankful to argue with a well-done, well-founded statistic. One just needs to always keep on mind what it is - and what it is not. Admitted, the persuasion to abuse them and to use them to twist and turn things, is immense. But it can be prevented - by rigorously sticking to the standards and not compromising them.

[Takeda Shingen]

Donald Trump has not been elected President of the United States of America, well at least not yet anyway.

Or, why do we have an election 2 ½ months before changing office?

The Citizens did their part by casting their votes, either early, via absentee voting, or by showing up at the polls on 8 November.

Sure all the news stations have proclaimed that Trump won the election, but not to fast there. The 8 November polling is but one of the elections that selects the President.

The election for President is not until 6 January 2013. It is just that we won't be involved. Here is what will happen.

Between 9 November and shortly before 19 December, the various state election boards will be busy counting (and recounting) the votes cast on 8 November, the mailed-in absentee ballots, the early voting ballots, and the provisional ballots (after being verified). The popular vote determines which party's electors will be selected to represent the state.

Then the electors (13 from Virginia), will travel down to the State Capitol to take part in another election on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December (19 December). They will cast their vote for President and Vice President in two separate votes.

The Electors record their votes on seven "Certificates of Vote," which are paired with the seven remaining original "Certificates of Ascertainment." The Electors sign, seal and certify the packages of electoral votes and immediately send six of them to the President of the Senate, the Archivist of the United States and other designated Federal and State officials. These sealed votes include the names of the Electors and who they voted for (no secret ballot for Electors!)

The sealed votes must be delivered to the Senate no later than 26 December, 2016.

After everyone sobers up after New Years, both houses of the Congress will meet in the House of Representatives (and it does get crowded) and watch the Vice President physically count 53 vote packages on 6 January, 2017. While this will be with the New Congress (115th) in attendance, the counting is done by the "old" Vice President as that Vice President's term ends on 20 January.

Hey! 53 packages but only 50 states + DC? What gives?

48 states and DC have adopted a winner take all Electoral system. In those states (DC is considered a state for these purposes) what ever party gets the highest number of votes gets ALL of the electoral votes of that state). There are only two exceptions to this. Nebraska and Maine have adopted a proportional Electoral system. Nebraska and Maine, in 2013, will end up with 2 different Electoral votes which total the total number of Electoral votes for that state.

Both Nebraska and Maine use the same method for proportional elector voting. Two electors are selected on the basis of the statewide vote and two (for Maine, three for Nebraska) are selected according to outcome of the vote in each of Maine's two (Nebraska's three) Congressional districts.

So the Vice President will have to lick his vote counting finger 53 times this January before any one can be elected President of the United States.

OK, so if the President is really really elected on 6 January, when why do we have to wait 14 days until inauguration?

Well it used to be a lot longer wait. Inauguration Day was originally set for March 4, giving electors from each state nearly four months after Election Day to cast their ballots for president. In 1933, the day of inauguration was changed by constitutional amendment (20th) from March 4 to Jan. 20 to speed the changeover of administrations.

Pretty complicated process just to elect someone to blame. :yep:

Thanks for taking the time to explain how the electoral process works. Many are not aware of this.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

@Platapus, Are all those dates same regardless of year? I ask because your original post has 2013, 2016 and 2017 merrily mixed together.

[Oberon]

http://i.imgur.com/kZyrbzv.jpg

[Wolferz]

The only school to give out the highest diploma n the land.

But, wouldn't it be better to decide who gets to be president by having a good old fashioned duel?
Survivor wins!!!:salute:

[Rockin Robbins]

Yes! An American football stadium. In one end zone it's Donald Trump. In the other is Hillary Clinton. Randomly distributed between the 30 yard lines is an assortment of weapons, from rifles, shotguns, pistols, hand grenades, semi and fully automatic weapons. Each weapon contains a small amount of ammunition. In addition there are spears, swords and shields just to add variety.

5......4.......3......2.......1 Survivor wins!

At least it could help network television regain a little luster.....

[Platapus]

@Platapus, Are all those dates same regardless of year? I ask because your original post has 2013, 2016 and 2017 merrily mixed together.
Just me, still not mastering the complexities of a computer keyboard. :D

The date of the electoral college changes as it is based on the day of the week.

The counting of the ballots is set at 6 January, but has been modified by law to move it a few days. I have not read whether it has been moved for 2017

[em2nought]

The only school to give out the highest diploma n the land.

But, wouldn't it be better to decide who gets to be president by having a good old fashioned duel?
Survivor wins!!!:salute:

I'm not sure that would be fair. How many notches has Hillary added to her handle since Vince Foster? :D

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Yes! An American football stadium. In one end zone it's Donald Trump. In the other is Hillary Clinton. Randomly distributed between the 30 yard lines is an assortment of weapons, from rifles, shotguns, pistols, hand grenades, semi and fully automatic weapons. Each weapon contains a small amount of ammunition. In addition there are spears, swords and shields just to add variety.

5......4.......3......2.......1 Survivor wins!

At least it could help network television regain a little luster.....Would that include "party play-offs" (lets say Democratic, Republican and Others Conferences) before going to "candidate semi-finals" and the "grande finale"?

Where can I buy tickets? :D

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Just me, still not mastering the complexities of a computer keyboard. :D

The date of the electoral college changes as it is based on the day of the week.

The counting of the ballots is set at 6 January, but has been modified by law to move it a few days. I have not read whether it has been moved for 2017Thank you! Why this complex system? Is it merely relic of 18th century or is there still some functional reasoning behind it?

[mapuc]

Have it ever happened that a states electoral have "changed" and voted for the other candidate.

Markus

[Bilge_Rat]

Thank you! Why this complex system? Is it merely relic of 18th century or is there still some functional reasoning behind it?

its a relic of the 18th century. In an age when the horse was the fastest means of transport and letters the only means of communication, you needed a system that would have the time required to work, considering also how big the U.S.A. was, even in 1787.

The dates were also, as I recall, chosen so has not to interfere with farm work. Since almost all voters lived on farms, they had to be able to assemble at a convenient time. Early November was a time after most crops had been harvested and before winter set in.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

its a relic of the 18th century. In an age when the horse was the fastest means of transport and letters the only means of communication, you needed a system that would have the time required to work, considering also how big the U.S.A. was, even in 1787.

The dates were also, as I recall, chosen so has not to interfere with farm work. Since almost all voters lived on farms, they had to be able to assemble at a convenient time. Early November was a time after most crops had been harvested and before winter set in.Interesting. Has there ever been real debate about changing this a bit old fashioned method into direct popular vote or somekind of hybrid?

Edited, read reason.

[b34856]

Have it ever happened that a states electoral have "changed" and voted for the other candidate.

Markus

179 times. They're called "faithless electors". Many states have laws against doing it, however. In 1836 they forced the election of the Vice President into the Senate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector

[Platapus]

Thank you! Why this complex system? Is it merely relic of 18th century or is there still some functional reasoning behind it?

The governmental system of the United States is a evolutionary system. Often things are done because they have always been done and no one wants to or can make any drastic changes. This is probably a good thing. So we make small changes and small changes on those changes and often the people making the changes are not aware of all the ramifications of their decisions.... so other changes are made to correct.... well you get the idea.

In a perfect world, the US would scrap the constitution as a whole and write a new one reflecting a much larger country and a much more complex environment than our founding dudes had to deal with.

Could you imagine 50 states trying to rewrite the constitution? Yikes!


Interesting. Has there ever been real debate about changing this a bit old fashioned method into direct popular vote or somekind of hybrid?


There have been over 700 proposed amendments to the constitution that deal with the electoral college. More than any other single issue. Why do we keep the electoral college?

1. It works and works well most of the time.

2. The electoral college, as presently operated, favours a two party system and since our major political offices are held by members of one of two political parties, there is no real incentive for changing it. The last thing the DNC and RNC want is another "X"NC muscling in on their territory.

To me there is a good solution and one that is solely up to the individual states. That would be to have a proportional electoral college. Get rid of the winner take all and apportion the same number of electoral votes across all of the candidates truly representing the people.

But as long as such decisions are made by Democrats and Republicans, don't expect any significant changes.


But to get back to your question -- tradition and a reluctance to change is why we does the things we does.

[Sailor Steve]

The Constitution does not specify that we vote for the President at all. Since the States wanted to retain as much independence as possible political representation ended up being divided between the People and the States. Representatives (Congressmen) were to be elected by the people of the districts they represented. Senators represented the States, and were elected by the State legislatures, not the People. That one changed in 1913 (the same year we got the Income Tax), and I'm not sure whether I think the change was a good one.

The main reason for the Electoral College is that the Founders didn't trust us to elect the President, and stipulated that the Electors be appointed by the States "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct". That States began allowing the people to vote for the Electors was by their own choice and popular demand. There is nothing in the Constitution that allows for us to vote for the President at all. Their idea was that, just as the Congressmen represented the people to the Federal Government and the Senators represented the States, the President represented the Nation to the rest of the world. They didn't see a need for the People to be involved at all, since our elected representatives would "appoint" the President to his office.

In a perfect world, the US would scrap the constitution as a whole and write a new one reflecting a much larger country and a much more complex environment than our founding dudes had to deal with.

Could you imagine 50 states trying to rewrite the constitution? Yikes!
Especially since once the Convention is called anything could happen. The first one was called merely to revise the older Articles of the Confederation. They, in their own words, "Revised it out of existence". With a new convention who knows what they might come up with?

To me there is a good solution and one that is solely up to the individual states. That would be to have a proportional electoral college. Get rid of the winner take all and apportion the same number of electoral votes across all of the candidates truly representing the people.
That would be the solution I would choose as well.

The one problem I see with eliminating the Electoral College altogether is what happened in Florida in 2000. If the General Election was even close we might end up with recounts in many states, and who knows how long that would take?

[Onkel Neal]

https://scontent-dft4-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/15036453_1152370871465624_5120959665052766314_n.jp g?oh=7fb3d9300cde6e097ef118336285e1ca&oe=58D33C0E

[Mr Quatro]

That's some map, Neal :yep:

The electorial college is usually just brought up when the election doesn't go their way ... oh wait a minute the democrats lost, uh?

[Sailor Steve]

That map is a very simplistic concept. The opposite argument is that land doesn't vote - people do.

[August]

That map is a very simplistic concept. The opposite argument is that land doesn't vote - people do.

Actually it'd be more accurate to say that people don't vote for presidents, states do. People only vote to decide how their states portion of ballots will be cast.

[Oberon]

I wonder under a more PR based system how the third party candidates would fair. After our last election someone did a chart to show how it would have turned out if PR had been introduced beforehand, and UKIP would have done very well out of it (despite the fact that they campaigned against it back when the Lib Dems were proposing it) but under the current system they only got one seat.

Here's the Beeb article about it:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32601281

[Mr Quatro]

Actually it'd be more accurate to say that people don't vote for presidents, states do. People only vote to decide how their states portion of ballots will be cast.

Sort of, but people still decide ... the EC people that is:https://www.yahoo.com/news/500-000-people-sign-petition-203109567.html

The Electoral College – which was first introduced in 1804 – is comprised of 538 electors. Each state’s number of electors is decided by its number of members in Congress, which is dependent on the state’s population. So, when American citizens cast their ballots, they aren’t directly voting for president – they’re voting for electors. This year, Trump took 279, to Clinton’s 228.