Can Someone Become President With 24% Of The Popular Vote?

[eniwetok]

Right wingers constantly use as a defense of the EC that they don't want NYC and LA picking our presidents. It's nonsense, of course... and why should any citizen get a smaller vote just because of their choice of state residence. But no one talks much about the absurdities the EC system.

I just did a spread sheet using last year's election results by state... and found out that it possible, though highly unlikely, that under our system a president can be elected with just 24% of the popular vote. If all the small states that comprise 280 EC votes... vote for candidate X by one vote... the winner take all rules that virtually every state uses... will give candidate X ALL those 280 votes... and if you want to be picky, OK, Nebraska apportions them but they only have 5 votes... not enough to affect this exercise.

If all the remaining states vote UNANIMOUSLY for candidate Y... X can win even with 24% of the popular vote. Now, before anyone whines that this is impossible... it doesn't matter because this just illustrates the absurdity of the system which DID give Trump the presidency with 46% while HRC got 48%.

It's about time that Dems FINALLY discuss the defects in our system which also deprive the Dems control of the Senate. Why? Because Dems represent 33 million more Americans than does the GOP.

[onecaliberal]

1. With help from Russia and the continuing of gerrymandering it could be possible.

[eniwetok]

2. this has nothing to do with Russia...

Our EC system makes our system inherently more vulnerable to manipulation... and voters suppression. Same with the amendment formula. All opponents have to do is focus on the 12 smallest states that can block any amendment.

[onecaliberal]

3. Gerrymandering and vote suppression YES. And yes it does have to do with Russia

Without election integrity how to do you know how many votes were really cast for anyone. Good god.

[eniwetok]

10. "election integrity" sounds like a right wing meme

All I can do is go by the the official results. The real question isn't how many votes were counted... but how many wanted to vote and could not... and this also goes for those 5-6 million ex felons who have been disenfranchised. As a right winger said back in the 80's he doesn't want everyone to vote... the GOP's influence goes up when the voting numbers go down.

[onecaliberal]

13. If you think election integrity is a right wing meme then you're speeding trumps story.

[eniwetok]

39. you didn't explain yourself.

If you're talking about those who DID vote but who got placebo ballots... that again is largely tied to GOP voter suppression.

[onecaliberal]

40. Im Talking about all the machines the suppression the cross check. The INTEGRITY

Of our system as a whole. See Brad Blog if you don't understand how sketchy our elections have been since 2000. Votes are not counted, voted are flipped, voters are tossed off the roll because someone in the US has the same first and last name as they do, even though the middle name and social are different. Districts are contorted to ensure it's mathematically impossible for democrats to win. There are so many ways the GOP cheats it's unbelievable. If there were ever fair elections the GOP would be voted OUT OF EXISTENCE.

[eniwetok]

41. Sure... but remember this...

We could have
100% public financing of elections
100% no voter suppression
100% voter turnout
100% vote count accuracy

and under our system

A candidate REJECTED by the People can still become president
18% of the US population will still get 52% of the seats in the Senate
States with 4% of the US population can block any amendment yet states with 40% can ratify one.

I'm not denying any of the problems you're citing. But in the cosmic scheme of things... they are small in comparison to the antidemocratic nature of the entire system. The question here is whether you want to ignore those big institutional defects and instead concentrate on those very real, but lesser problems.

[onecaliberal]

42. If there were NO voter suppression that would never happen. It's only happened 3 times

In American history. When more people participate and there is no cheating or Shennanigans the chance of that happening is very SLIM. It's happened twice in the last 2 decades thanks to republican cheating. Is it possible yes, but under those circumstances not very probable.

[eniwetok]

57. it doesn't matter...

If all the EC can do is ratify the popular vote then it's not needed. If it can OVERRIDE the Popular Vote then it should not be tolerated by any free people. What you're neglecting is the fact our system now has a clear GOP bias... allowing the GOP to control the presidency and the Senate and the amendment process even when they represent a minority of votes or population.

[onecaliberal]

58. Not saying there is no bias. And the EC should absolutely vote with the winner of popular vote.

Imo the EC should be abolished.

[eniwetok]

60. especially since we know it's origin

Madison is pretty clear in the minutes of the Constitutional Convention that it would help ratification if there was a way to magnify the votes of whites in slave states. So we abolished slavery without dismantling much of the structure in the federal government designed to protect it. Of course no one knew the real reason for the EC. Hamilton lies about it in the Federalist Papers that it was designed to prevent demagogues from becoming president.

[onecaliberal]

61. They wrote all men are created equal but what they really meant are only white men

Women and every other race are NOT included in their definition even though they profess it is. The modern day Republican Party still carries their torch more than 2 centuries later. Black folks literally risk their lives just walking out their front door each day. America is not now, nor has it ever been a shining example of humanity.

[pnwmom]

4. Just curious -- how many millions of votes would this amount to? In other words,

Hillary won by 2.9 million votes, but still lost. Could she have won by 10 million votes and still lost? Can you translate your 24% into millions?

[eniwetok]

5. here are the numbers... assuming I didn't screw up...

32,617,380 out of 136,639,786 total votes

I've yet to recheck the numbers state by state...

[pnwmom]

6. Wow! I knew it was bad but I didn't know it was this bad.

I've been telling people (just based on common sense, not using precise numbers) that Hillary could have won by 10 million votes and still lost. That's the kind of absurdity the EC could result in.

But it's so much worse!

[eniwetok]

8. Only the popular vote eliminates these absurdities...

I suspect GOPers and even too many Dems buy into the idea that we dare not mess with the vision of the Framers. But too many BAD ideas were included in the Constitution... and one is the EC... originally designed, it seems, to magnify the power of whites in slaves states where voters were few compared to the northern states. But I also suspect that the GOP KNOWS the EC has a built-in GOP bias so they'd never be honest about why they support it... that it until the Dems win the presidency while losing the popular vote.

[Chipper Chat]

7. yes.

Indiana, wisconsin, michigsn, and Ohio will all go for Trump in 2020. Rick Scott will deliver FLA . it will all come down to Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Pennsylvania. Alas.

[stevenleser]

15. Trump job rating in Michigan as of May was 61% unfavorable only 12% positive

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/335766-poll-trumps-job-approval-numbers-falling-in-michigan

I dont think he is winning Michigan in 2020

[stevenleser]

16. Back in March Trump approval level in Wisconsin was 41% and disapproval was 47%

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/poll-president-donald-trump-s-job-approval-in-wisconsin-at/article_016da7d3-16ba-5c6d-a385-1189b2c4978f.html

Wisconsin approval level seems to be at or close to the national approval level. Meaning Trump is now below 40% in Wisconsin.

I don't think he is getting Wisconsin in 2020 either.

[csziggy]

28. Rick Scott will be out of office in 2020

He cannot run for re-election in 2018. Hopefully we can elect a Democratic governor. Right now the best possibility seems to be Gwen Graham, former US Representative and daughter of Bob Graham who was US Senator and Governor.

[Egnever]

9. In my opinion the defect comes from

The electoral college actually voting according to the popular vote. That is not at all what was intended.

The electoral college is intended to prevent exactly what it has enabled in this last election.it us meant as a bulwark against mob mentality where hopefully cooler heads prevail.

The way it is being done now where it just mirrors the popular vote makes it useless and worse creates outcomes that are detrimental to us.

Not sure if or how to fix what is going on with it now but I do think there is a good reason to have a check on the masses. The general public is very susceptible to mass hysteria.

[eniwetok]

11. who cares what was "intended"???

Madison during the so-called Constitutional Convention says having electors will present fewer political problems for the slave states... and by this I assume he means for ratification. Hamilton in the Federalist Papers says it to prevent demagogues. Since the Federalist Papers were designed to encourage ratification... they may be less honest.

Either way... who cares what the Framers wanted if their system can NOT guarantee a morally legitimate president? We need the popular vote AND Instant Recount Voting so no one becomes president without some approval of the majority.

[eniwetok]

12. as for a check on the masses...

You're making it sound as if the presidency is a dictatorship and there are no other checks on their power. But what's ABSENT from your analysis is the MORAL LEGITIMACY OF THE PRESIDENCY. Either you support the idea of elections as central to self-government... or you don't. Pray tell... how do the People learn from their mistakes when their votes are overturned by a mindless, antidemocratic, winner take all vote weighting scheme that gives SOME voters up to a 4X bigger vote than others.

[stevenleser]

17. There are ways both issues can be resolved.

One of them is instant runoff voting and the other is to have a runoff between the top two vote getters the way France does it.

First past the post voting would be a terrible way to do this.

[eniwetok]

31. Sure, I support IRV... but not WITH the EC

My exercise demonstrates that even with IRV... which would insure there was a majority winner in each state... the very antidemocratic nature of the EC could still hand a victory to someone rejected by the People.

[stevenleser]

34. That is what I meant.

The biggest risk of a true democratic system is that a demagogue convinces the populace, or a significant percentage of it, that they are he next best thing since sliced bread. In a first past the post popular vote system, such a person could gain power with far less than 50% of the vote.

That's why you need either a runoff system or IRV to minimize this as much as possible.

[surrealAmerican]

14. They could win with less than that ...

... if there are more than two candidates.

On edit:
The following is incorrect. Thanks stevenleser.
The candidate with the most electoral votes wins, even if it's less than a majority of electoral votes.

[stevenleser]

18. That is not correct. You need one more than half the electoral votes to win. Otherwise...

the US House of Representatives chooses the President.

[surrealAmerican]

19. Wouldn't the House choosing in that event ...

... mean that someone was elected with less than half?
... or is that not "elected"?

You still end up with a President who didn't get a electoral majority.

[stevenleser]

21. Correct, but that is not what your original post stated.

In fact the House of Representatives can pick from any of the top three electoral vote recipients. So if Candidate A receives 265 electoral votes, candidate B receives 267 electoral votes and candidate C receives 6 electoral votes, the House can vote for candidate C to become the next President.

[eniwetok]

23. Nope... less than 270 goes to House

From https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html#no270

What happens if no presidential candidate gets 270 Electoral votes?

If no candidate receives a majority of Electoral votes, the House of Representatives elects the President from the 3 Presidential candidates who received the most Electoral votes. Each state delegation has one vote. The Senate would elect the Vice President from the 2 Vice Presidential candidates with the most Electoral votes. Each Senator would cast one vote for Vice President. If the House of Representatives fails to elect a President by Inauguration Day, the Vice-President Elect serves as acting President until the deadlock is resolved in the House.

[surrealAmerican]

24. Thanks for that.

I had forgotten the actual mechanics of this.

[eniwetok]

27. you may still be correct..

States might be able to award all their EC votes to a plurality winner... as did Georgia in 1968
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Georgia,_1968

I could only work off a 2 candidate election using the most extreme example.

[fallout87]

20. Unfortunately The EC

System is never going away. The path the remove it is through many solid red states that would never vote to remove it.

[stevenleser]

22. Not in the lifetimes of anyone alive today I dont think.

There would need to be a major upheaval in the belief system of a large number of Americans, most particularly Republicans.

[eniwetok]

30. GOPers aren't the problem...

In all the forums I've debated this topic over the past 15-20 years... I've found most Dems don't want true democratic reforms. I'd put the number at about 5%.

[stevenleser]

33. I don't think your forums are representative

I'd like to see real and properly gathered empirical data on that question.

[eniwetok]

37. look up my old threads here...

I don't think you understand what I'm saying... that even among liberal Dems here... very few actually favor trying to make our system truly democratic... in this case completely abolish state suffrage. If Dems cared about democracy... they'd at least bother to define what democratic principle are... and central to that is a belief that the moral legitimacy is derived from the CONSENT of the governed... and there should NEVER be minority government, all votes should weigh the same in terms of representation, proportional representation so voters can vote their conscience and get representation for what they believe etc. Those are democratic values but they're not Democratic values. Our dysfunctional electoral and political systems have so beaten people down that their expectations are so low that apathy is a pretty reasonable response... and that's what we'd expect when 49% of votes count for nothing in winner take all elections, election LOSERS can be imposed on the nation, reforms are virtually impossible since tiny minorities can thwart them such as states with a mere 4% of the population can block any amendment. An unelected president and a Senate that represents a minority of the nation can pack the Supreme Court. And demographic trends are making the system increasingly antidemocratic.

[ProfessorGAC]

50. That's Quite An Exaggeration

I'm sure that the last time you played this tune you counted me as a liberal who didn't support dumping the EC, because we disagreed on a couple of minor points
You got pedantic about your antidemocratic screed, even though I never actually disagreed with you
Now you've decided that 95% are not interested in major reform?
Appears as a ridiculous assertion, on its face

[eniwetok]

54. The EC is just a small part of the problem

And I remember back in 04 when many Dems were ecstatic when they thought Kerry could win Ohio... thus having an EC victory and yet still lose the popular vote.

Sure, I've seen Dems complain about the EC but I've seen virtually no liberal Dem EVER go after the very concept of state suffrage as inherently antidemocratic... if you know of any in Congress or in liberal organizations... please cite them. And yet that is just the beginning of trying to flesh out democratic principles. And that's my point. If someone VALUES democracy as the basis of morally legitimate government, then they'd bother to define what it means in practice. So where are all these Dems having these discussions on these basic principles a nation is founded upon? Virtually all Dems... even the liberal ones, take our federal system as a given and don't question it.

[stevenleser]

53. I did understand what you were saying and my response remains: it's unsupported.

I want to see real empirical and properly gathered data that supports those contentions.

Every Democrat I have ever met supports abolishing the Electoral College and all the other things you just wrote about.

The opinions of a few anonymous people on an internet forum aren't remotely close to properly gathered empirical data.

[eniwetok]

25. Our system is virtually reformproof... which is why...

One can imagine a 100 year campaign to abolish the EC via amendment. But as demographics makes the system more antidemocratic and the GOP wants to preserve the EC's GOP bias... chances are it will never happen.

I think the only way to make the system democratic is to force a constitutional crisis... by having a state like CA... whose voters are most disenfranchised by the current system, to threaten secession if democratic reforms are not instituted. Such shock treatment may seem extreme, but that's how the so-called Framers dealt with the defects in the Articles Of Confederation. We've tended to whitewash what they did by renaming the Philadelphia Convention that was ONLY mandated to fix the Articles... into the Constitutional Convention. What they proposed was ILLEGAL under the Articles which were then the supreme law of the land and stipulated how amendments could be done.

[NYC Liberal]

46. It'll happen only after a Republican candidate wins the popular vote but loses the EC vote.

It's never happened. Every single time it's happened, it's been a Democrat on the losing end.

Andrew Jackson - 1824
Samuel Tilden - 1876
Al Gore - 2000
Hillary Clinton - 2017

If Hillary had won the EV but lost the popular vote, the Electoral College would be gone by the end of this year.

[Voltaire2]

47. It is actually fairly close to be effectively abolished.

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact needs states with 105 electoral votes to become active.

[fallout87]

48. Wishful thinking

But the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact won't affect the EC.

[Voltaire2]

49. Actually it makes it irrelevant.

Read up. The popular vote winner would be elected.

[treestar]

62. An attempt to reform the winner-take-all

system could help reform it. I don't think the Constitution requires that. It is state laws attempting to preserve the popular vote. The Electors don't function the way the Founders intended.

So getting states to use a proportional strategy could work. Then again, that might be about as easy as amending the Constitution.

I could see there being some will to fix it if Donald really screws up. It will always be in history that he won this way.

[eniwetok]

66. intended?

Even if we had every state go to a proportional EC vote... someone REJECTED by the People in the popular vote can still win because the entire point of the EC is to magnify the votes of some based on state residence... and to diminish the votes of others. At its most extreme anyone living in WY effectively has a 4x bigger presidential vote than someone in CA.

Whose vote was the EC originally going to magnify? Whites in slave states. Here's Madison at the Constitutional Convention

The people at large was in his opinion the fittest in itself. It would be as likely as any that could be devised to produce an Executive Magistrate of distinguished Character. The people generally could only know & vote for some Citizen whose merits had rendered him an object of general attention & esteem. There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections.

[aikoaiko]

26. A possible outcome given the rules of the game

While I think the EC should go, I think it's more practical to regain power under the current rules.

[eniwetok]

29. easy to say... impossibe to achieve

I believe there have been 800+ proposed amendments to abolish the EC. As the system gets more antidemocratic and the GOP seeks to preserve the EC bias towards the red states... it's even less likely. Not ONE of the core antidemocratic features of the Constitution has EVER been abolished. Our very system undermines any democratic impulse to make it more fair. Not even a Bernie Sanders proposes real democratic reforms even if arguably most everything he most rails about is because our system is antidemocratic.

[eniwetok]

38. I misread you post...

The current rules are now so clearly biased towards benefiting the GOP that 2 of the last 3 president was REJECTED by the voters... and the Senate is now under GOP control even though Dems represent about 33 million more Americans. (please don't lecture me on the purpose of the Senate. I KNOW the purpose of the Senate and it's perhaps the most antidemocratic body on the planet.)

[Gothmog]

32. If you let enough third parties in this could happen

Rich Perry won the Texas governor's race with 39% of the vote in 2006 https://ballotpedia.org/Texas_gubernatorial_election,_2006

[eniwetok]

36. In theory it could go down to 9%

If in all those states there were 3 candidates and one won a plurality... say a minimum of 35% with the others obviously lower... the state could award all its EC votes to that candidate and someone could win the presidency with 9%.

[unblock]

35. it's theoretically possible to become president with zero votes!

not all states require their electors to be "faithful", so once in they can cast their electoral college vote for anyone they want.

this has happened, although rarely and it's never come close to making a difference, but in theory, the electors could have voted for for someone who wasn't even on the ballot.


alternatively, even with 100% "faithful" electors, there could be a tie between the top 2 candidates and then the house has to pick the president from among the top *3* vote-getters. that third vote-getter in theory could have had just one lonely vote. not likely, but point is, it could have been a very distant third. in the case of the last election, it would have been gary johnson.

[brooklynite]

45. More importantly, the Constitution doesn't require that anybody vote...

...all it says is that States select their Electors. They could just as easily have the State legislature or the Governor pick them.

[eniwetok]

56. many states did just that.

I found a breakdown of how states once choose their electors somewhere. If I find it, I'll post it.

[mythology]

43. In theory somebody could win the presidency with even less

If 3 plus candidates split the states in a way that nobody gets 270 EC votes. That goes to the House where the top 3 candidates in terms of EC votes are voted on. In 1825 it was John Quincy Adams who came in second in the EC number who won the presidency over Andrew Jackson.

[Foamfollower]

44. The EC is a throwback to slavery.

No matter how they cut it when the original states set up the constitution, the Northern states would collectively have more voting power to choose the president, thus the 3/5 compromise reducing African Americans to 60% of a person. This alone was not enough, thus the electoral college where even teeny tiny states had at least three electoral college votes and a bicameral legislative body where each individual state had as much influence in half of Congress as every other state.

These two institutions, the Senate and the Electoral College, are both the final vestiges of that abominable instution within our federal government, and really little has changed because with voter suppression in so many states, one must agree that the collective voting power of African Americans per capita are approximately 60% of the collective voting power of European Americans per capita as single blocs.

[Ezior]

51. You could probably become president with 0.01% of the popular vote

Imagine this:
- Everyone (100% turnout) votes Hillary in a group of states, but all those states combined don't have a majority in the EC.
- The other states send a majority of electors to the EC, but in each state, only 1 guy decides to cast his vote. He votes for Trump. (Turnout is almost 0% in those states.)


=> A few dozen people voted for Trump and millions voted for Hillary, she wins 99.9..% of the popular vote, but Trump becomes president.

Did I get this right?

[PoliticAverse]

52. "which also deprive the Dems control of the Senate." - are you proposing eliminating states? n/t

[eniwetok]

55. really... that's your response?

Gee, how about turning the Senate into a national body based on party elections so we can finally measure all those minority political opinions that now can't win any election in any state? If you believe that Dems represent the interests of the majority... and I do, then we should WELCOME reforming what's perhaps the most antidemocratic body on the planet.

[Tiggeroshii]

63. Isn't it absurd enough that the losing candidate got 3 million more votes than the winner?

The fact that doesn't create an overwhelming uproar of opposition to the electoral college is beyond me.

[eniwetok]

64. we have a Civic Religion in the US

We're all brought up to believe we have the best system in the world... and when it seems to be dysfunctional, people want to deny it and instead get apathetic. Then there's the fact that the amendment formula is absurd. States with 4% of the US population can block any reform. On some level we've all adjusted to the system being dysfunctional and reformproof... because we lack the courage to criticize it.

[Tiggeroshii]

65. And for some reason, despite all that...

I resist the urge every evening to cry in my closet the whole night, in absolute despair for the willful ignorance that has pervaded the psyche of the American citizen.

[eniwetok]

68. where are the Dems?

If there are EVER to be democratic reforms to our system they're never going to originate with the GOP... but even the Dems refuse to criticize the system... in part because once someone makes it in the Party, they buy into the system. We've made the Constitution into a cult and we all must adhere to the will of the dead.

The ONLY way I can realistically reform our system is a constitutional crisis... for CA to demand reforms or it's going to secede. CA has the moral right since its citizens are more disenfranchised by the current system.

[dsc]

67. Actually, in theory, one could win with way less than that

Turnout is irrelevant to the EC vote. To take an extreme example. In theory, the top ten EC states, which contain enough EC votes to win the EC, could have 3 people each turn out with one candidate winning 2 votes in each state with the other winning one. That would make that candidate win the EC with 10 votes. The other 40 states could have 100% turnout with the candidate that lost the first ten states getting all of those votes. Now I realize this is ridiculous but the point is that since turnout is irrelevant a candidate could win with a quite low percentage if they win the correct states with that low turnout.

[eniwetok]

69. I know turnout is irrelevant...

But since all states now have the popular vote... I used last year's state vote totals. But sure... every state could decide to let their governor or legislature decide who would be on the EC. But in theory in a 3 way race someone could win with 9% of the vote.