...... Popular Vote Winner RE: 2020 Presidential Election The Canadian Lotto ( www.bclc.com ) has 4.75 odds on the Republican Party winning the Popular Vote. I placed a $100 bet for a payout of $475.00 The odds for Donald Trump to win the Presidential Election are 2.45, $100 bet for a payout of $245. Joe Biden is at 1.57, $100 bet for a payout of $157.
I just put on a bet that Canada will do nothing to help the world except grow trees for the next 100 years. It's a 1:1 bet. So I made zero money for the next 100 years, which is exactly equal to what Canada will do. NOTHING.
Question: How often does the winning president lose the popular vote? I know the 2016 election is one example - any other years?
Canada is a useless nation of fools living in the cold tundra. Millions of illegal alien votes do not count. Trump won the popular vote in 2016.
I made a bet that the US would continue to be in utter chaos for 20 more years, with excessive gun violence and huge wealth disparity, while remaining deeply in debt. Unfortunately it doesn't pay much because there isn't much hope of anything else right now. Americans love to win pointless battles with negative impacts on the world. Might be why you are so unpopular.
Happened in 2000. All the others were in the 1800's. With NY and CA being so heavily Democratic it would be hard for a Democrat to win the electoral college without winning the popular vote as well. The top 15 states by population in the country were either Democrat or less than +10 Trump in 2016.
You have to realize Democrats vastly outnumber Republicans in terms of registered voters. It's not exactly surprising Republicans have struggled to win the popular vote. It's a simple game of numbers. However, at the state level where electors decide where the state's vote goes Republicans are often the ones who turn out the most with exception of California, New York, and a handful of other Democrat controlled states (though as of right now things are getting dicey in both Republican and Democrat controlled states). This seems contradictory until you realize the populations of democrat strongholds such as California and New York have an order of magnitude more people in them. This skews the national popular vote in favor of Democrats. But with, as far as I know, every state implementing winner-takes-all elector voting the states with an even, or more, amount of Republicans swing the election in favor of the Republican candidate. This has happened repeatedly throughout history and is where the Democrat's froth and gnash teeth about "illegitimate" elections and awarding California in particular several more electoral votes due to the population size. In 2016 Democrats whined about winning the popular vote and losing the election. Several people called for a popular vote style of election but that would never work. Populations are heavily skewed in favor of the coastal Democrat strongholds and so they'd be guaranteed a monarchy with near certainty in that case. It is already difficult to justify voting against the dominant party in your state because in places with heavy one party skew your vote typically won't matter enough to change anything. Having a popular vote style national election would simply scale this to a national level and the southwest, midwest and bible belt may as well not even participate. One idea might be re-evaluate every state and reissue them electoral votes according to senators. Necessarily this means increasing the number of senators in congress but that might not be such a bad thing considering there's currently no practical way the current batch of senators could ever even fathom of representing even an infinitesimally small amount of their constituents. Though caution must be used here as well - Texas, California, Florida, New York, and Pennsylvania could have disproportionate amounts of influence over congress in this case.