Your numbers above (~119.6M major party votes) leave about 8% of the reported 130M unaccounted for. If you adjust for the fact that that is 97% of precincts reporting, you’re still missing about 5%. Third-party candidates together got about 1-2% of the vote, so now there’s only a discrepancy of about 3%. Given that the 130M was obviously a forecast, I’d say they got it pretty good. We’ll have the final totals (including absentee) in a few days or weeks anyway, so I really don’t think there’s anything fishy going on here.

I don’t give much credit to such pointless hyperbole anyway. There are more people who CAN vote now than there were in the past. So the only comparison that is apples to apples is overall PERCENT turnout.

Any comparison of the number of people who DID vote to the number who COULD have voted if only they registered, cared, and/or got off their fat asses results in a fairly lackluster figure. If say 7+ out of 10 American adults voted, then maybe I’d be impressed. But basically, unless you grade on a curve, then “a record of 130 million voted” has to be translated into “not as lame as usual.”

On the other hand, given that I have a long commute and a busy job, I agree with anyone who suggests we ought to make it more convenient for people to vote. As long as they aren’t suggesting changes that facilitate fraud. I could see voting on a saturday or having voting for a few days or maybe even up to a week.

Yeah, I mean, the math is pretty obvious. Not sure where they’re getting an additional 17 million people. Hopefully we’ll find out in the next couple days.

But the math is a bit odd to say the least. Wonder why the media hasn’t caught on to this yet.