Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by alphapapa 3506 days ago
This is actually a very interesting point. While the current raw data seems to show that this is the case, there are several mitigating factors, some of which could even completely reverse it:

1. In at least some states, absentee ballots are not counted unless their number is greater than the difference between the counted results. Some have claimed that absentee ballots historically favor the Republican party. If this is so, it could be that, were all the absentee ballots counted, Clinton would not win the popular vote.

2. It's been claimed that about 3 million non-citizens voted in the election (lawsuits pending--we shall see). Obviously, the vast majority of non-citizens would vote for Clinton. Therefore, if this is true, Clinton did not win the popular vote at all.

3. It's interesting to note that if Los Angeles County alone were not counted in the results, Trump would win the popular vote. And Los Angeles is a sanctuary city.

Of course, it's a matter of opinion whether a few, densely packed urban environments, many of which are sanctuary cities for non-citizens, should be able to effectively overturn the vote of the rest of the country.

So the "Clinton won the popular vote" point is not as straightforward as it may seem.

1 comments

It has also been claimed that every single person who voted for Trump was actually an extraterrestrial wearing a convincing human suit. "It's been claimed" isn't exactly convincing.

(For anyone who wants a source on that claim, it's me, I'm claiming it here.)

And I read about it on Hacker News. That's two sources.
Quick, someone call CNN.
When you're done value-signaling to each other, google it and see for yourself.
IMO, yes and no. While they make efforts to sound fair and reasonable, the "fact-checkers" and "truth-o-meters" are quite biased. Before the election, they were basically stumping for Clinton, making it sound like Trump was the fount of untruth while she was a mere trickle of truthiness. How wonderful to be the self-declared arbiters of truth!

As I said, it has been claimed that 3 million non-citizens voted, and a lawsuit is pending, so we shall see.

If it is true, then obviously that is a significant problem, and obviously Clinton would not have won the popular vote. And obviously that would vindicate the Republicans' efforts to institute voter-ID laws, and it would condemn the Democrats' repeated attempts to prevent such laws, and basically implicate them in election fraud. (Not to mention the Scott Foval videos.)

And that is one of the issues surrounding the repeated claim that Clinton won the popular vote, and the implied problem.

Personally, I was having a bit of fun. I thought about deleting it because it was too light-hearted and non-substantive, not because I thought I was being snarky. I understood his response in the same vein. (And where did all this "signaling" language come from? I must not be reading the right forums.)
I assume they meant to say virtue signaling: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_signalling

In short, it implies that we're not sincere when we make fun of far-out conspiracy theories, but rather that we're only doing it to enhance our social standing.

Does repeating the stale "value-signaling" HN/sociology meme make you feel better about yourself?