Is it possible to win the popular vote in a landslide and

[intheflow]

still lose the electoral vote?

[greatauntoftriplets]

1. Think 2000.....

...and Al Gore. It happened then.

[GreenPartyVoter]

3. Was that really a landslide? I think we need to define what #s

constitute one.

[greatauntoftriplets]

8. Pardon????

By "2000", I meant the year.

[Gasolinedream]

4. I think he/she...

means a bigger margin than that.

Yes, it is possible. When Clinton beat Bob Dole, he won easily, but just 1.2 million votes divided up among like 4 or 5 big states could have won it for old Bob. Just read that the other day.

[absolutezero]

5. that wasn't a landslide

i think we're talking about a situation in which the big blue states go to kerry by 80%, and the red states go to * by 1%, which would give kerry an enormous popular vote lead but still keep moron in the whitehouse

[TimeToGo]

6. Well, not really

Gore did win the popular vote, but not by a landslide. But to answer the question, yes I think so (but I haven't done the math) -- though it would be difficult and unlikely. Remember you can win a state by one vote, or theoretically you could take a state with 100% of the votes and still only get the EC that state has.

[BattyDem]

2. After 2000 ...

I believe anything's possible. :-(

[Inland]

7. Possible, sure.

Take all the states Gore won in 2000. Assume now he won 100% of the vote in those states. Assume he won 49% in all the rest. Add it up. Huge landslide for Gore, about 75% of vote, and he loses.

[fob]

9. The answer is YES, there is NO lead at which bush*co will NOT try

and steal another election.

I think I've got that double negative in there correctly.

[unblock]

10. in theory you can win 75% of the vote and still lose

basically, if you win 268 electoral votes by winning your "win" states with 100% of the vote, and still getting 49.99% in the "lose" states it works out to about 75% of the total vote.

you can tweak a few more percent by making your "win" states the largest states that total to exactly 268, since the larger states have slightly more people per electoral votes.

of course you could also get 269 and lose the tie-breaker in the house. then if you want to really go nuts with this, you could theoretically win the popular vote with 100% of the vote but have the electors decide to make someone else president anyway. most electors are not legally bound, they're merely chosen based solely on their loyalty. of course, this could actually happen if you managed to have a stroke between the popular election and the electoral college vote.

finally, you could win 100% of the vote but fail to win over a majority of the supreme court....

[Amich]

11. so what is the point of voting?

The electoral vote i thought is based on what the people voted. I am confused. I think the Ev is out dated.

[unblock]

12. well most of the time the electoral college is really just a formality

usually the popular vote winner is also the electoral vote winner. when they're not, it's usually extremely close.

and as for electors not voting as directed by their state, this rarely happens. one gore elector abstained in 2000, and every so often some elector votes for his mother. but it's never made any difference, just a matter of electoral trivia.

you vote does matter, it's just a little more indirect than in elections for senators and representatives. if nothing else, it builds up political pressure on the electors. imagine the fallout if 99% of the public voted one way but the electors voted another....