[apparent]

> You do realize the current government won the elections and the president won the popular vote right

Technically he won a plurality of the popular vote, but he didn't win the popular vote. This is typically not a distinction that matters, but in this case it's what happened. The majority of people voted for someone else, but he got votes from more people than any other candidate did.

Of course, what really matters is the electoral college, but the popular vote is often seen as lending even more legitimacy to a victory.

[xp84]

The reason it doesn’t matter is that everyone who chooses to vote third party does so fully knowing who the two front runners are, as well as the likely margin of their state. Most third-party voters are in extremely uncompetitive states, making it quite safe to make a statement vote, even though it potentially dampens your “lesser of two evils” candidate’s apparent mandate.

For instance, I wrote an invalid write-in candidate since both major parties ran clowns in 2024, but Harris carried my state by a mile.

[tracker1]

This is very true... I used to vote Libertarian for all races where there was a Libertarian candidate... then my state shifted purple, and I'd rather see a Republican more often than not over a given Democrat candidate. While I don't agree with the actual far right fringe, I cannot vote for a party with prominent communists in it.

[apparent]

I agree that most people who vote for other candidates come from uncompetitive states. But this doesn't necessarily prove your point. If there were more other-candidate supporters who would have voted for Kamala (if they had to vote for one of the two main candidates) than Trump, then that would mean he wouldn't have won the popular vote if it was just between the two of them.

Regardless, I think it's important to be precise about claims like this, since there is actually a difference between winning the popular vote and winning a plurality of it. Imagine making the claim if 10% of the popular vote went to third-party candidates, or even 20%!

[JCattheATM]

> For instance, I wrote an invalid write-in candidate since both major parties ran clowns in 2024,

That makes you part of the problem. And no, only one party ran a clown, and that party won because of people like you.

[pepperball]

Don’t worry, the next out-of-touch geezer you run will definitely have the charisma to win. It looks like they may be up against JD Vance for Christ’s sake.

[JCattheATM]

At this point the bar is so low, who knows? A criminal rapist fraudster grifter won and continues to have enthusiastic support. Personally, I blame religion for strengthening those tribalism neural pathways and eroding critical thinking abilities.

[rolymath]

Critical thinking comes later, not before. So religion doesn't erode them, but delays them.

Secondly, tribal behavior is strengthened through sports teams, college allegiances, rep vs dem party lines and many other things, with the latter of those being the main reason.

Thirdly, the dems were very pro zionist while Trump was able to maintain deniability. This swung a lot of dem voters.

Lastly, Kamala got something like 0 votes in the primary. Wishing she would win the general election was delusional. Dems should themselves in the foot twice vs Trump with Kamala and when they betrayed Bernie to help Hillary.

You should engage in some critical thinking yourself instead of blasting your insecurities over the internet. Your media diet (bet $1000 that reddit is a big part) needs a do-over.

[JCattheATM]

> Critical thinking comes later, not before. So religion doesn't erode them, but delays them.

Critical thinking is a base human ability, which religion can indeed erode before it has a chance to grow.

> Secondly, tribal behavior is strengthened through sports teams, college allegiances, rep vs dem party lines and many other things, with the latter of those being the main reason.

This doesn't negate anything I've said, it adds to it. It is notable that the more religious parts of the US act more religious about their political party, however - something not seen in most western countries.

> Thirdly, the dems were very pro zionist while Trump was able to maintain deniability. This swung a lot of dem voters.

They were not as pro zionist as the "Lets demolish Gaza and build new resorts" GOP.

> Wishing she would win the general election was delusional.

Only because the US population is what it is, which is why wishing the only rational choice got elected is too much to hope for.

> blasting your insecurities over the internet.

I'm doing no such thing, however the way you make assumptions so haphazardly shows you yourself could benefit from some critical thinking instruction.

[JCattheATM]

> Technically he won a plurality of the popular vote, but he didn't win the popular vote. This is typically not a distinction that matters, but in this case it's what happened.

Colloquially majority means 'greatest share', and he certainly had the greatest share of votes out of all candidates. I don't like it, but it's correct to say he won the popular vote.

[apparent]

I agree that some people use the phrase loosely. I would ask such people what they would say to distinguish between someone who actually won the majority of the popular vote versus someone who did not. It's not a "super-majority" situation, IMO. But surely it's worthwhile to have a different way of referring to the two cases, especially now that the less-common one has happened in recent history.

[JCattheATM]

> I would ask such people what they would say to distinguish between someone who actually won the majority of the popular vote versus someone who did not.

This is like asking someone to distinguish between a hypothesis of who killed JFK when they say they have a theory of who did. You're mixing the colloquial usage for no reason.

Majority doesn't mean more than 50% of the vote in everyday language, it means 'the most'. Trump got the most votes of any one candidate.

[apparent]

> Majority doesn't mean more than 50% of the vote in everyday language

I guess it depends on whom you hang out with and talk to. I completely agree that some people can't understand the difference and speak accordingly. But I don't think we should redefine words based on the lowest common denominator of understanding/usage.

And in this case, it's especially important not to redefine "majority" because if we do then there's no word left to refer to an actual majority. That's not the same thing as JFK conspiracy theories.

[JCattheATM]

> But I don't think we should redefine words based on the lowest common denominator of understanding/usage.

No one is redefining anything. Merriam-Webster and Oxford both have a definition for majority meaning most, and that's the more common definition that is used in everyday speech.

Context matters.

> And in this case, it's especially important not to redefine "majority" because if we do then there's no word left to refer to an actual majority.

In this context, talking about the popular vote, no information is lost, nothing is miscommunicated by using the word majority and understanding how people are using it. Which, by the way, they are using correctly as per dictionary definitions.

> That's not the same thing as JFK conspiracy theories.

No, but it's the same as per my example in that you are being pedantic about a word in a way that serves no purpose, except maybe to try and make people feel stupid.

[apparent]

> Merriam-Webster and Oxford both have a definition for majority meaning most, and that's the more common definition that is used in everyday speech.

I don't have a subscription to Oxford's dictionary, but MW's lead definition mentions being more than half [1]. The fact that there is some other definition that doesn't specifically mention this is not probative of your claim that this is the more important definition. And your unsubstantiated claim that this is the more common usage is belied by the fact that your preferred definition is not the lead definition.

1: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/majority

[jablongo]

Trump received 77.3M votes while Kamala received 75M. Since the total was 156.7M it was barely a plurality instead of a majority (just under 50%).