Seemingly Final Election Totals: Harris 75M, Trump 77.3M, Stein 878K, Kennedy 756K, Oliver 650K

This is from David Leip's U.S. Election Atlas; other sources have slightly different numbers, but not by much (especially as to the two major candidates). This is about 1M less than I expected (on Nov. 11) for Harris and Trump, estimating based on the then-far-from-complete totals; and it shows that Harris received 6.3M fewer votes than Biden's 81.3M in 2020, and Trump got 3M more than he did in 2020. (Final turnout was 155.5M this year, down from 158.4M in 2020, and the third party vote was up slightly.)

Also making an appearance: Lucifer Everylove with 2.5K, and Vermin Supreme with 1K, among others.

In any event, though, it's a reminder of just how many votes were excluded from the election night results (when Harris had 67M and Trump 72M), and how it's a mistake to compare the election night far-from-final totals for one election with the final totals from previous elections. It's also a reminder that, so long as heavily Democrat-voting California is one of the few very slow-counting states, the election night results will tend to underestimate the Democratic vote more than they underestimate the Republican.

Comments

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Just think, Biden ran his campaign by rarely campaigning but got 81,283,501 votes.

Kamala was so bad she spent $1.5B in 15 weeks and campaigned all over and got 8 million fewer votes!

No campaign = 81M votes
Lavish campaign = 75M votes

Democrats should learn a valuable lesson and stop campaigning.

[Brett Bellmore]

In 2020 81M people voted against Trump, and basically nobody voted for Biden, who was simply a generic Democrat. It was an exercise in demonstrating that nothing CAN beat something, if you demonize something enough.

By 2024 the demonization campaign had lost steam, and the Biden/Harris administration had a record, and so couldn't run as generic Democrats. So only 75M voted against Trump.

[dirc]

Your (correct) analysis spoils the joke, which, as noted by David Nieporent, was made funnier by the math error.

[David Nieporent]

8 million fewer votes!

Neither math nor reading are your fortes, apparently.

[Carl_N_Brown]

From AP figures 30 Dec 2024, pretty much final:
6,265,409 fewer votes for Harris 2024 than for Biden 2020.
3,079,254 more votes for Trump 2024 than for Trump 2020.
A party gaining 3 million voters in the next election is not remarkable.
A party loosing 6 million voters in the next election is extraordinary.

[David Nieporent]

So, based on that site's data, it's confirmed that Trump got less than 50% of the vote. No question that he won, but claiming it as a mandate is even more ludicrous than the things Trump usually says,

[Brett Bellmore]

Barely less, but, yes, less than 50%

It was close enough to a popular vote majority that the NPV initiative is probably dead. All those reliably Democratic states coming to grips with just how close they came to having to give Trump their votes, if the initiative had already been in place.

[Darth Buckeye]

Considering the probability of ballot stuffing in CA (and probably in NY and IL), I think we can ignore Democrats complaining about Trump not having won 50% of the votes.

[Josh R]

I don't think any of the NPV states would complain about having their EC votes going to Trump because it made no difference in who won.

[Brett Bellmore]

In this election it did, but once you dispense with the idea that Democrats have an automatic edge in the popular vote, you confront the possibility of a Democrat winning the EC and losing the popular vote, in which case the NPV compact would hand the win to the Republican. A scenario that was only 115K votes away from happening this year!

The NPV compact was motivated by the idea that it was only Republicans who might win the EC while losing the popular vote, which is why only states controlled by Democrats joined it. Once you realize it could turn a Democratic win into a Republican one, too, the point of it vanished; Democrats weren't signing on in the expectation that it could really bite both ways.

[David Nieporent]

The NPV compact was motivated by the idea that it was only Republicans who might win the EC while losing the popular vote, which is why only states controlled by Democrats joined it. Once you realize it could turn a Democratic win into a Republican one, too, the point of it vanished; Democrats weren't signing on in the expectation that it could really bite both ways.

As always, conspiracy theorist Brett just knows, in his gut, that Democrats are acting in bad faith. He's got no evidence that they were thinking this, but he just knows.

[pudge]

The NPV compact does not require a majority, just a plurality. Maryland’s reads, “the chief election official of each member state shall designate the presidential slate with the largest national popular vote total as the ‘national popular vote winner.’”

[MaddogEngineer]

So...what?

Just like Bill Clinton. Nobody credible (AKA other than Republicans) treated him as a less than legitimate president.

I just want one set of rules for everyone. I'm perfectly happy to agree that Donald Trump is a terrible person because he's a womanizer, if we can all also agree that so is Bill Clinton. That the Religious Right are awful hypocrites for not condemning Trump for his immorality, if we can all also agree that the National Organization of Women also has no credibility for its steadfast support of Bill Clinton.

This is why we can't have nice things, and everything is stupid.

If you can only do one, but not the other, I have no use for you.

[SRG2]

Trump is certainly a legitimate president. He does not, however, have the strong mandate nor was it a landslide, notwithstanding claims of both by Trump and the cultists..

[pudge]

There is only one actual mandate: winning the election.

Trump has the only mandate that exists, and therefore the only mandate that matters.

[David Nieporent]

That is not what the word means.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think it's also a reminder that we need to do something about how messed up California's election system is. No state should ever be permitted to take that long to count votes.

[Malika the Maiz]

Why the rush? Seems like accuracy is much valuable than speed for such a momentous event.

[Brett Bellmore]

Take a look some time at WHY California takes so absurdly long to count votes. They're totally messed up.

And accuracy is totally compatible with a much larger degree of speed than California demonstrates.

[Darth Buckeye]

The longer it takes to make a final count, the less confident we can be of the results. Longer time means less reliability.

[MaddogEngineer]

This needs to be clarified a bit more...

Longer time to count votes means a greater opportunity to commit fraud. WHY the result might be less reliable.

Putting it in terms so that the recalcitrant might understand, it's like going longer without a mask on during the pandemic increasing the opportunity for COVID to spread.

[JasonT20]

Longer time to count votes means a greater opportunity to commit fraud.

Why? This is asserted without support. The longer money sits in a bank, the greater the opportunity for it to be stolen. Is that the logic you are using? It took Cyber Ninjas how long to count the votes in Maricopa County? Their report was released like 5 months after the counting started, though its not clear to me how long the actual counting took.

[MaddogEngineer]

If you can't acknowledge this truth, you are not a serious person. I kind of already new that, but thanks for confirming.

No, I am not referring to any particular, recent event. Thanks for showing your derangement by bringing up Maricopa. I do not believe the 2020 election was stolen.

(I'd suggest you look up why LBJ got nicknamed Landslide Lyndon.)

[Malika the Maiz]

That’s silly, as a general matter in life greater accuracy is achieved not by rushing but by taking one’s time.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

That makes California elections a million percent smarter and more reliable than elections in other states!

[MaddogEngineer]

No.

This is not rocket science or brain surgery. This is harvesting perishable produce.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

So, if 100% transparency takes longer than 1% transparency, you would choose the latter, because it's faster. Gotcha.

[DaveM]

California's election processes are so intentionally bad that I do not believe that it is possible to have a fair election there. For example, every registered voter in the state is mailed a ballot AND may cast a ballot in person. The USPS is not a guaranteed delivery service, nor have they ever claimed to be. Therefore, California also permits any registered voter to claim their ballot was lost in the mail, fill in an online form, and receive a second ballot. No ID is required to cast any of these ballots.

Resolving all these possible double-, triple-, and even quaduple-cast ballots for the 15 MILLION registered voters takes an enormous amount of time and effort. It's a miracle they get the vote counted within 30 days.

The net result of these procedures is that there is no chain of custody on the transmission of ballots, nor is there is a guarantee that a ballot is received and counted.

IANAL, but if I were a citizen of California I would be looking to join a class action suit against the state for failing to protect my Constitutional right to having an orderly election. The state is certainly not taking proper care to see that the process is fair, open, and secure.

[JasonT20]

California is not the only state that has mail balloting for all residents, so I'd be interested to know how their process are different that Utah and Washington in particular.

https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/table-18-states-with-all-mail-elections

[Josh R]

Oregon was first in all-mail-in voting in 1998. They permit ballots to arrive up to a week after election day so long as they are postmarked on or before election day. They have figured out how to count the votes just after that. It would seem California ought to be able to as well.

[pudge]

Washington’s mail voting blatantly violates its own state constitution

but no one seems to care

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

How many "double-, triple-, and even quaduple-cast ballots" did they find?

[Darth Buckeye]

I have no doubt that ballots are still being filled out in California. Ballot security in the state is a sad joke. People are allowed to print out their ballots at home. People can deposit their ballots in out-of-the-way ballot boxes that have no monitoring and no security. In November of 2021, my wife and I were visiting the state park at Vasquez Rocks. This park is way out in the country. There was a ballot collection box at the side of the road by the driveway.

Vote totals in California are illegitimate. There is no way to tell whether the ballot was prepared or submitted by the person claiming to be the voter.

[Malika the Maiz]

“People can deposit their ballots in out-of-the-way ballot boxes that have no monitoring and no security.”

Uh, you mean like…mail boxes?

[Sarcastr0]

You are a 2020 truther. Not surprising you have committed to the bit such that you are also a 2024 truther.

It’s sad you are so deluded. But that is all from inside you. It has nothing to do with California.

[dirc]

You don't have to be a truther to know that there is very little integrity in voting in California. You can show up at any polling place, and claim to be any registered voter (either from that precinct or another one) and request a ballot. The poll workers are forbidden (by law now) to ask for ID, and are ordered not to look at ID if it is offered. Once you request your ballot:
1) The poll worker will determine if the named voter is registered and has voted. If they haven't, you get a ballot and cast a vote in someone else's name. Congratulations, you just committed voter fraud, but there is no way to prove it since there is no way to determine who really cast the ballot.
Or,
2) The poll worker will determine that the named voter is registered and has voted. You will then be given a provisional ballot, which you can vote. Provisional ballots will be counted if it is determined that the initial voting record was inaccurate (recorded as cast, but was not). In this case, you will have wasted your effort but are still beyond the reach of the law.

In case (1), you have voted for someone else. In case (2), you tried but failed to vote for someone else. The first person to the poll with a registered voter's name wins.

If the name does not match a registered voter, then you can register same day and vote. Then, and only then, must you provide ID (California ID or SSN).

Votes are not counted where they are cast. The number of ballots is counted at the voting center, they are put in a box and secured with a seal that has a computer generated barcode on it. After the polls close, the boxes are driven by two people to a collection point (such as a parking lot) where they are loaded with the boxes from other precincts into trucks for transportation to the county registrar/recorders office. That's where the votes are counted. You can probably imagine several ways in which the integrity of the ballots could be compromised en route.

I don't have proof that election results in California were subverted in any meaningful way, but I can understand why people might be skeptical of voting integrity in that state.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Speaking of wasted effort, wouldn't that also apply to any kind of "rigging" of an election in a solid "blue" or "red" state? Why would anyone bother?

[Brett Bellmore]

Because it's not just Democrats vs Republicans, it's also challengers vs incumbents, grass roots vs establishment.

Just because one part controls an area doesn't mean there aren't contending factions.

[Aluminizer76]

Pardon the pet peeve but..... Democrats voted for Democrats in a Democrat party. Republicans and Democrats voted in a democratic process. Where I come from (Chicago) calling Democrats democratic is a stretch.

[JasonT20]

Pardon the pet peeve, but its official name is the...Democratic Party. So calling it something else is inherently pejorative.

The name of one major party is the "Republican Party", while the same word, "Republican" also describes a member of that party. Whereas the name of the other major party is the "Democratic Party" while a member is a "Democrat." If you don't like that choice of words, then that's a you problem. I don't view the modern Republican Party as upholding "republican" principles well at all, so if you don't think that the modern Democratic Party is upholding "democratic" principles, then we are in the same boat.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

It's like calling the UK's Conservatives "Tories".

I'd actually once thought that "Democrat Party" was the Democratic Party's original name, but I may have heard that on the Rush Limbaugh Show...

But, seriously, anyone who names their party with a self-serving and excluding name should expect and probably deserves the inevitable backlash.

[SRG2]

Note this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(epithet)

I have known right-wingers get bent out of shape when this is pointed out and corrected because they liked using the slur as long as they could pretend they didn't realise it was one.

[Brett Bellmore]

As slurs go, it's pretty mild. Hardly on the same scale as "Rethuglican" or "Demoncrat". Gotta be pretty eager to be offended to even begin to care about it.

[Abdul Abulbul Amir]

Taking a month+ to total the votes is an embarrassment.

[DixieTune]

California is an embarrassment, but that's what happens when you have a huge percentage of your population being foreign born.

[pudge]

FYI, here is a running total for each day’s reported election results, up to the 21 days after the election.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1b8h-03I--GMrZ-eJnuow07z9Pu0O08YJdDAebTxPocw/edit?gid=0#gid=0