answersLogoWhite

Top Answer
User Avatar
Wiki User
Answered
2010-12-01 03:03:15
2010-12-01 03:03:15

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.

001
๐Ÿฆƒ
1
๐Ÿคจ
1
๐Ÿ˜ฎ
1
๐Ÿ˜‚
2

Related Questions


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


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.




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.


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.


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.


In the US presidential election of 2008, the Republican candidate was Senator John McCain. He was and still is one of the two senators from Arizona.


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.


The spoiler is a political candidate (sometimes of a third party) who has little to no chance of winning an election but can still decide the fate of an election by taking votes away from other candidates.


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.


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.


Three presidents have lost the popular vote and still won the election: Rutherford B. Hayes (1876); Benjamin Harrison (1888); George W. Bush (2000).


Six. That sounds like Republican Herbert Hoover lost big time, but he still got 39.6% of the popular vote against Franklin D. Roosevelt's 57.4%.


The Democratic Candidate was William Jennings Bryan, running against Republican William McKinley. The Populist Party also nominated Bryan but McKinley still won.


But still lost the election. Your welcome.


Yes- it is still legally possible for someone new to jump into the race. It is too late to get on the ballot in some of the primaries, but if no candidate nails down the nomination in the primaries, the nominee could be decided at the convention and delegates are free to vote for anybody after the first ballot.


The politician who becomes president is not the one with the most votes nationwide, but the one with the most "electoral votes." The country is divided up into about 538 sections. Each section has a winning presidential candidate, and the person who wins the most regions becomes president. If there is a close election and a candidate wins by a lot of votes in the riding's they win, but loses by a very small number of votes in the riding's they lose, then they can finish with over 50% of the vote but not win. It's happened a couple times in American history, and is an "indirect election" compared to a "direct election," which would occur if the popular vote elected the president.


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


Five people have led in popular vote but lost the presidency. They were : Andrew Jackson in 1824, Samuel Tilden in 1876, Grover Cleveland in 1888, Al Gore in 2000 and Hillary Clinton in 2016. Samuel Tilden was the only one who received a majority of the popular vote, but lost.


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.


A candidate could in theory lose 39 states as well as DC and still win the election. Winning just the eleven most populous states is sufficient for a majority of the electoral votes. See the related question for more information.


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.


In the US, the loser could win 39 states plus DC and still lose if he lost all of the 11 largest states.


no- not necessarily. The final election is made by the electors of the electoral college who are apportioned by state---winner take all in most states. Thus a candidate can pile up popular votes by winning with a huge majority in the states that he wins and losing the states that he loses by a slim majority and still lose the election by losing too many states. Hayes, Benjamin Harrison and George W. Bush in 2000 all were elected without winning the popular vote.



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.