The poles we, as citizens, participate in are what's called the popular vote. Unfortunately, this does not have much effect on the end result. In order for a president to be elected, he/she needs the higher number of electoral votes, which are submitted by each state's senate members. (Or house of representatives, I don't remember the specifics... sorry) Generally, the popular vote mirrors the electoral vote because of that state's republican/democratic conditions, but exceptions are known to occur.
Winning sufficient Electoral College votes.
A wise placement in our Constitution as demagogues could fool common people, but Electors are Constitutionally able to vote freely though they usually rubber stamp the popular vote. Though sometimes a large state with many electoral votes can overturn the popular vote with it's Electoral weight.
It is possible that a candidate could win the "national" popular vote total but lose the electoral vote total. However, the electoral vote of every state accurately reflects the popular vote within that state. A candidate could win the electoral votes in a large state such as California winning the state by a huge margin. However, the opposing candidate could win the electoral votes in other states because a majority of the voters in those states vote for the opposing candidate.
President Obama won the election because the democrats had the most votes.
Obama won the election for President, in November 2008.
yes
A disadvantage of the presidential election could be that the person with the most popular votes could lose the election because he or she had less electoral votes.
Popularity goes down because of poor decisions. Or scandals... Next election = less votes.
He/she can be impeached
Voters directly elect their congressman and senators, who form the legislative branch. The person who wins the most votes in a state wins the election. Voters do not technically elect the president. The president is chosen by the electoral college. People vote in the presidential election and their votes are tallied by the states. Each state has a certain number of electoral votes. If 51% of the people of Florida, then all of Florida's electoral college votes go for that person. At the end of election day, all the votes are tallied in each state, and the electoral college votes numbers are added up. Whoever wins the majority of the electoral college wins. This means that even if a candidate wins the majority of votes, as Al Gore did in 2000, he can still lose in the electoral college and lose the presidency.
Yes but it is unusual and has happened only four times in the history of the US, in 1824, 1876,1888 and 2000.
he lost it to President Jackson :[
There is this thing called the Electoral College that says that every state has a certain number of electoral votes. The person that gets the most regular votes in that state, gets ALL the electoral votes that the state has. The amount of electoral votes each state has is based on population; that's why California has 55 votes and Alaska has only 3, even though its much bigger when you compare land mass.
When referring to the Electoral College and Presidential elections, a candidate can win by taking: California (55 electoral votes) Texas (28 electoral votes) Florida (29 electoral votes) New York (29 electoral votes) Illinois (20 electoral votes) Pennsylvania (20 electoral votes) Ohio (18 electoral votes) Georgia (16 electoral votes) Michigan (16 electoral votes) New Jersey (15 electoral votes) Virginia (14 electoral votes) - a total of 11 states for 270 electoral votes which means a candidate can lose the other 39 states and District of Columbia and still win the election.
No- I think. Unless I made a mistake, he would lose 265 to 273 even if he wins DC.