Donald Trump has not been elected President of the United States

[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]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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.

[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]

[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!!!

[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.....

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Originally Posted by 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.....

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?

[em2nought]

Originally Posted by 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!!!

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

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

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

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Originally Posted by Platapus

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

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

Thank 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

[b34856]

Originally Posted by mapuc

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

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by kraznyi_oktjabr

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.