How is 950k votes "too close to count?"

Forgive my ignorance but I don't understand how almost one million votes can be considered too close to call?

Views: 271

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Too close to call*

95K = 95,000

950K= 950,000

Less than 100,000 votes in a large state is a drop in the bucket. That's like a small county and a state has hundreds of counties in them.

Yeah I guess. I just don't get it. If one person has more votes, they win. Right?


The US uses an Electoral Collage System...So, the votes in a STATE count to include THAT STATE'S in the state itself gets a given number of votes (Single or double digits, each), based upon if the majority of actual voters chose a particular candidate.

So, PA gets 20 votes...if the candidate wins PA by one vote, PA's 20 votes go to the guy who got one more than the other guy, and so forth.

The term "Popular Vote", typically adds up the actual individual votes....but, those go into the electoral collage choice.

In some elections, more US citizens can vote for a candidate (Gore, et al) than the other guy (Bush et al), and lose, because their STATE votes didn't add up.


And, yeah, 95k is NOT "close to a million", its not even 100,000.


Clinton got more votes in the irrelevant popularity contest. Trump got more Electoral College votes. It's a repeat of the situation where Al Gore got more popular votes but lost in the Electoral College. 

The Electoral College is like the US Senate where less populous states have the same voice as heavily-populated states. The Founding Fathers intended it to be this way.

We always bitch about the electoral college but realistically it will be changed the 12th day of never because Americans are lazy ass pathetic losers who fail to participate adequately in our own democracy and we let faux news dictate our reality. We are pathetic.

Aw, Belle, this kind of stuff gets our attention.

What will keep our attention long enough to do away with the EC?

There is more where that came from. I could go on for days........

I think it's just because Americans are realistic.

A constitutional amendment requires 75% of the states to ratify.  Why would a majority of the states ratify an amendment that reduced their influence?  Do you see Idaho and Wyoming voting to make their votes count less?

Why would a supermajority of their elected representatives, particularly in the Senate, vote to propose such an amendment in the first place?  Do you see the Senators from Idaho and Wyoming voting for an amendment to make their states' votes count less?

It's not laziness, it's pragmatism.  Our system of constitutional amendments doesn't practically allow this option.

@Belle Rose:

"We are pathetic."

I'm not part of that "we".


Yes you are Gregg.....Haha!!!

Oops, I just saw my typo. I meant to say 950k.


© 2022   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service