This past Tuesday the US presidential election was perhaps the most surprising in its results for the history of the country. The vast majority of experts argued that a victory with a high probability will be won by the Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton.
The most friendly and won in the end, Donald Trump was set up by the Agency FiveThirtyEight — on the eve of elections it’s estimated his victory with a probability of 28.6%, other agencies gave him 1%.
How to win the candidate with the fewer votes?
By the evening of Thursday, November 10, across the country have been processed 92% of the votes, reads the counter on the website of CNN. Hillary Clinton scored a 59.94 million votes, while Donald trump is 59.71 million thus the democratic candidate is ahead of the winner in direct elections, but received only 43% of the votes of the electoral College.
For all 58 electoral campaigns in U.S. history this is the fifth case where the winner receives fewer votes than a defeated opponent. Last time this happened was in 2000, and before that, back in 1888. A College of 538 electors distributed among the States according to the number of inhabitants and the number of electors for a state is reviewed after each census, every ten years.
And yet, in many States the number of inhabitants to one elector may differ several times. For example, in both Dakotas, Alaska, Wyoming and some other sparsely populated States get one elector of 300 thousand voters, and in California — about 700 thousand voters. The system is configured to prevent densely populated States too much to dominate the small.
The role played by the principle of “winner takes all” when voting for the state with 50% plus one vote, the candidate wins the entire state. For example, Florida and new York to the College of 29 electors. In the first state by a whisker won the trump and the second Clinton by a large margin. Together, the two States Clinton has received 8.6 million votes, and trump 7.2 million, but in the electoral College, these States give them equal advantage.
Why were the pollsters?
Victory trump surprised the world is in the final stages of the race in the fall of 2016 polls show a slight, but stable advantage of his rival. Clinton ahead of Republican by 3-5 percentage points, across the country made it to the presidency is almost inevitable.
The New York Times daily since the choice of the Democrats and Republicans have their candidates for the White house estimated their chances of winning. At Clinton with the end of the summer they ranged between 70 and 93%. In the UK The Independent the day before the opening of polling stations reported “mathematical reasons” the inevitable victory of Clinton.
The Washington Post drew attention to several contradictions between the stereotypes that emerged on the basis of early polls and the actual vote. For example, exit polls showed that 29% of US citizens of Hispanic origin during the voting supported trump — contrary to popular belief that this population will choose Clinton. A Democrat couldn’t attract the vast majority of young voters — traditionally a socially liberal strata of society. It voted 54% of young Americans, and for trump — 37%. For comparison, in 2012, among voters 18 to 29 years, almost 70% supported Obama.
The NYT acknowledged that its predictive model has not worked. The publication has questioned the ability of big data to correctly predict important events. Sociologists error was caused by incorrect issues and also disadvantages with the analysis of the obtained data and their interpretation.
The ABC showed that Clinton’s team failed to establish a dialogue with voters. While in a society ripe for change, the Democrats appealed to the experience of the candidate.
Sociologists themselves have explained their mistakes to the reluctance of voters to disclose their real preferences. According to the President of the British Council for the study of public opinion John Curtis, this is especially true for supporters of conservative views.
Why trump won in democratic States?
To a Republican, Trump managed to win six States, which in many past elections voted for the democratic candidate. And in some cases a region is not painted in red (the color of the Republican party) for decades.
Among the “acquisitions” candidate-Republican — Florida, Iowa, Ohio (all for the first time since 2004), Michigan, Pennsylvania (both for the first time since 1988) and Wisconsin (first since 1984). Clinton also failed to win in any state, taken as a Republican in 2012.
With the exception of Florida, which is traditionally a “swing state” selected by trump for the Democrats the States included in the so-called rust belt, the old industrial regions. As noted by the Detroit Free Press, Clinton was so sure of its support in those States that have not even visited Wisconsin for the time of the campaign.
Support trump in these States still have a rural County: in all more or less important industrial cities of the “rust belt” (Milwaukee, Detroit, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Pittsburgh) defeated Clinton. But her separation from the opponent was out of there much lower than Obama in the last election.
According to the sociologist, the researcher of the Midwest Edward McClelland, the winning trump in the “rust belt” brings to life the phenomenon of “Reagan Democrats” of 1980-ies. The term referred to white workers to conservative views, which have traditionally voted for Democrats, but after the protracted crisis in the 1970s, the years have voted Republican, Ronald Reagan.
Why trump voted wealthy Americans?
During the election campaign, experts and the media in the US said that trump’s support is primarily white voters-men with a low income — typical “average” voters.
But exit polls and surveys show that this stereotype might not be entirely true. For example, relatively wealthy, with annual revenues of more than $50 million white Americans men are the majority supported trump.
After the economic crisis of 2009-2009 years in the United States there is a blurring of the traditional “middle class” household income (household income) decline or at best not growing. In Florida in 2013, the average income was 13.7% lower than in pre-crisis 2007.
In all four States that November 8 was supported by the trump — Wisconsin, Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania — the average household income increased slightly compared to 2010. However, if to take for comparison the year 2008 — the coming to power of Obama amid the disappointment of George Bush, everywhere it will be in 2016, lower than it was eight years ago. The lack of visible progress in the economy is one explanation for the request of Americans for change, which promises to trump them.
If all elections were like before?
In addition to the above the voting results were impacted by other factors, which will be subject to further analysis scientists. For example, even before the election, Forbes warned that the new restrictions for voters in some States will affect the turnout of the electorate of the Democratic party in a negative way.
The fact that since the previous presidential elections in nine States in voting has become a mandatory requirement of presentation of an identification card with a photograph. It is believed that thereby the Republican-controlled Congress tried to cut off the voices of the poor, the homeless and minorities who traditionally support Democrats. According to NY Daily News, this move allowed Trump to strengthen its positions on the “red” South and to take the initiative in the blue North.
