Top Answer
User Avatar
Wiki User
2017-10-11 01:10:17
2017-10-11 01:10:17

The candidate can lose the popular vote but still win the election because the Electoral College really elects the President. The popular vote is really only to elect the electors.

A candidate could win the popular vote by winning with huge margins in a few state and losing by narrow margins in eleven large states and end up with a losing electoral total.

This actually happened in 1876,1884 and 2000. In 1824, Andrew Jackson led in both popular vote and electoral vote but lost because he did not win a majority of the electoral vote.


Related Questions

they can lose the electoral college vote if the representatives and senators in the electoral college feel that the candidate should not win their state over in the election.

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.

No No. A candidate must win the electoral vote to become president of the United States of America.

False!!!!Per the US Constitution, the Electoral College actually is the body that elects the President. There have been some elections in the past where the popular vote was won by a candidate, but the Electoral College elected another candidate.

Electoral votes are the deciding factor. A candidate could technically win the popular vote (most overall votes) and still lose the presidency due to not having enough electoral votes.

Electors are elected by popular vote but the president is elected by the electoral college. A president candidate can win the popular vote and still not win if he doesn't win the electoral college.

This can happen because of the winner-take-all allotment of electoral votes. A candidate can win a state by a slim, say one-vote majority and get all of its electoral votes. Meanwhile his opponent might win 100% of the vote in some states and pile up a huge number of popular votes and still not get so many electoral votes ,

The United States requires 270 electoral votes for a candidate to win the presidency. Since there are a total of 538 votes available, a candidate can lose with 268 votes.

the electoral college is most likely the most unique. As it is possible to lose the popular vote for President but still win the election by the electoral college.

This possibility is part of the election process set by the main part of the US Constitution and is not due to any amendment.

In the United States, a citizen has the right to vote, as long as they register. Popular vote and the electoral college are the method of electing a president; registration is the ability to cast a ballot. Popular vote is the sum of all ballots cast for one candidate. This number comes from voting precincts. All states have precincts in some form or another. A candidate "wins" a precinct (gets the majority of the popular vote). Winning the majority of the precincts in a county wins that county. Winning the majority of counties in a state wins that state. The electoral college is actually the method of electing the president (yes, presidents have lost the popular vote and still been elected president). Each state is provided a certain number of electoral delegates (the number of U.S. Representatives they have, plus two per state for their U.S. Senators). Whichever candidate wins a state, their electoral college representatives cast their "vote" (support) for the candidate that won their state. For example: Candidate A receives 100,000 popular votes. Candidate B receives 75,000 popular votes. Candidate A wins the state. The state has three representatives in Congress, plus two Senators. Their five electoral votes are cast for Candidate A.

Because of the electoral college.The way US Presidential elections work is that the candidate who wins the popular vote in a state receives all the electoral votes of that state (there are a couple of states that do it differently, but most of them are "winner take all").It doesn't matter if you win in that state by one vote or unanimously, you get all the electoral votes. So if you win the states you win by large margins and lose the states you lose by small margins, it's entirely possible for the overall number of votes to show you as the winner, but for you to lose due to receiving fewer electoral votes than your opponent.

yes. It is not only possible but has happened four times- in 1824, 1872, 1888 and 2000.The President is not elected by popular voted, but by the Electoral College.

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. The popular vote for each state determines the ELECTORAL COLLEGE votes, which add up to declare the winner. In this way, if a candidate wins the top states, but not the popular vote, he/she will still become president.

The total popular vote can be won by a presidential candidate who loses the election because of the electoral college. Each state is allowed a certain number of votes in the electoral college based upon its population. Therefore, states with larger populations carry more weight than less populous states.

One glaring problem as seen in 2016 is that it's possible for a candidate to win the electoral vote while losing the popular vote. In other words, the person with the most votes still lost.A different opinionExcept that the above that isn't really a flaw. The Electoral College worked exactly as designed. Since the United States is a Republic, the President is chosen by the States, not by the country's total popular vote. How a State votes in the Electoral College is determined by that State's popular vote. This helps to even out the power of the less populated states.

The electoral college system of America has been subject to a number of criticisms, especially in recent years. Just one of those criticisms is that this system undermines the value and integrity of the popular vote by preventing a genuine majority of votes in favor of a presidential candidate to have a decisive effect in carrying that candidate to the White House. That is, a presidential candidate could in fact win a popular majority and yet still not win the presidency.

A Presidential candidate can lose the overall popular vote and still become President because the US President is NOT elected by the popular vote. The votes cast by the Electoral College elect the President. This type of thing has happened several times before; this is one reason why Grover Cleveland served two non-consecutive terms.

The president is actually electors by electors chosen from each state and not by popular vote. Most states award their electors in a winner-take-all basis; the leading vote-getter in the state gets all the electoral votes . Therefore a candidate can win by huge majorities in the states he wins and lose by narrow margins in the states he loses and so pile up a majority of popular votes.

Yes, your vote absolutely still counts; it is part of the electoral college for your state. For example, my state, Michigan, has 17 electoral votes. My vote, along with the other voters in Michigan, comprise those 17 electoral votes. Now, what can happen is that one candidate wins some states in a landslide, but the other candidate squeaks by in other states. The "squeaker" ends up with less popular votes (all votes tallied together), but more electoral votes (votes individualized by state). In that case, congratulations President Squeaker!

The electoral college only awards votes if the candidate has in fact won the popular votes in that state. So you really can't have one without the other. The problem is that some states are treated as more important-- they have more electoral votes. So it is still possible to win a number of states and lose the presidency, if all the states you won were smaller states with few electoral votes. That is why so much of the focus of the 2008 and 2012 elections were on the states which have a large number of electoral votes, such as Florida and Ohio.

This phenomenon is not due to any amendment. Amendment 12 changed the procedure for electing the President, but did not actually change the indirect way the President is elected. Popular vote is not mentioned in the Constitution and does not elect directly elect the President and such is the plan in the body of the Constitution.

The U. S. Constitution doesn't say anything about popular votes in presidential elections. Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 leaves the method for choosing electors totally up to each state. Rules pertaining to the electoral college are in Article II Section 1 Clause 2 and in the 12th and 14th Amendments.

Copyright ยฉ 2020 Multiply Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved. The material on this site can not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with prior written permission of Multiply.