How Hillary Clinton Could Win the Popular Vote but Lose the Election



Hillary Clinton officially surpassed Donald Trump in the popular vote, but lost the election based on the electoral college numbers. Trump got to the 270 electoral college votes he needed. Neither candidate received more than 50 percent of the popular vote.

Many of the popular vote numbers do not account for California which will add a good number of votes to Clinton once the final count is completed. Despite having the popular vote, Clinton’s path to victory was prohibited by losing a number of key states she was projected to win before the election.

Donald Trump performed well in rural areas, and it looks to have played a role in him winning the election. Trump performed better than expected in Wisconsin and Michigan. Trump won Wisconsin which accounted for 10 electoral votes. Michigan is worth 16 electoral votes for the winner.

Clinton won California which amounted to 55 electoral votes, but lost two key states in Texas and Florida. California gave Clinton a large number of votes, but the 55 electoral college votes are the ones that matter most.

Trump was able to overcome the California loss in the electoral college with states like Florida. While it is no surprise Trump won Texas, Clinton had been leading early as the results trickled in. Texas has 38 electoral votes.

She also lost Florida which gave Trump an additional 29 electoral votes in a key swing state.

The last time a president won the election despite losing the popular vote was in 2000 when George W. Bush defeated Al Gore.




I like to keep things simple: one vote, one citizen, one time. If a candidate wins the popular vote, then they should win the election, period. No more “gerrymandering” of electoral districts and this Electoral College nonsense needs to go. It’s an archaic leftover from the 18th century that is irrelevant in the 21st century. Any candidate that wins the electoral college vote, but not the popular vote can not, imo, feel like he or she has any sort of a “mandate” from the people. We’re all supposed to respect the system for an “orderly” transfer of power. But, what are we supposed to do when the system is as dysfunctional as the one we now have? So far in this century, we have had two Republicans who took advantage of this obsolete Electoral College nonsense to take control of the executive branch of government. In fact, I think our entire electoral system needs an overhaul. The exact same standards for voting should exist in all of the states. No more caucuses either and people should be able to vote up to several months before an election and do it over the phone or via their laptop and even change their vote before Election Day if they so decide. We are supposed to living in the digital age, not the horse and buggy age!


That means that 50 percent of Americans that don’t live in liberal big cities, new York,san Diego, los Angeles, and Chicago equal about 15-20 million people. 1/6 of the votes. Why should the rest of the population have to live by their rules. They have the toughest gun laws and the most crime. The Democrats always get the black vote and do nothing for them, they get the liberal vote by promising Favor’s they can’t deliver without taking it from the people that work. I think the electoral vote is very important to make every state count.


I am with you .trump talked about rigged election .it was rigged alright in his favor


The same crooked people that lived in the “Horse and Buggy Days” still live in the digital age and use emails.You clearly do not understand the Electoral College and why it exists or you would not make the statements you did. Read your history!

Discuss on Facebook