In U.S. elections, it is possible that the candidate who garners the greatest number of popular votes throughout the states does not achieve the presidency. This occurs on account of the electoral college, which is a system that apportions votes by state rather than across the entire population. In American democracy, issues of representation and fairness could be brought into focus when the winner of the popular vote loses the presidency as it happened in 2016. Therefore, let us examine how this system works and why the hungry for power individuals do not abide by the so-called popular vote.
Can a candidate win the popular vote but lose the election?
Indeed, there are instances in most of the U.S. where even if a candidate wins in the popular vote, it is possible to lose the election and this is attributed to the electoral college system. Hillary Clinton, the Democratic candidate, had won about 3 million votes compared to Donald Trump in the year 2016. But on the other hand, Donald Trump was able to win the electoral college by having 304 votes under his name which is higher than Hilary Clinton’s 227 votes thus showing how it is possible for a candidate with the popular votes to lose.
Why does the electoral college matter more than the popular vote?
The U.S. presidential election hinges on the electoral college rather than the popular vote. Here’s how it works:
The number of electoral votes varies with state population: Every state in the United States is assigned a certain number of electoral votes based on the population and congressional representation. Bigger states have additional votes in the electoral college.
In order to win the election, a candidate has to secure at least 270 electoral college votes out of the total 538 electoral college votes, a candidate must attain more than half, which is equal to 270, in order to enable him to be president.
Most states adopt the “winner takes all” rule. Most of the states except Maine and Nebraska allocate all of their electoral votes to the candidate who polls the highest number of votes in the state irrespective of the margin of victory.
Because of this system, a candidate can be popular enough to get more votes across the country but still be unable to win the electoral college because of the significance of some states.
Who benefits from the electoral college?
The electoral college system is more advantageous to those candidates who claim victories in the states with larger electoral votes than resorting to the overall winner in the popular vote. Such strategic positioning and calculation often occur in states such as Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin that are considered swing or battleground states as their outcomes can tilt election results based on the number of voters. For that reason, candidates usually pay attention to these states in order to increase their chances of winning the electoral votes even if that means paying less attention to the popular votes nationwide.
Have other candidates lost the election despite winning the popular vote?
This scenario has occurred five times in U.S. history:
- 1824: Andrew Jackson vs. John Quincy Adams
- 1876: Samuel Tilden vs. Rutherford B. Hayes
- 1888: Grover Cleveland vs. Benjamin Harrison
- 2000: Al Gore vs. George W. Bush
- 2016: Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump
Each case sparked debate over the fairness and relevance of the electoral college, though reform efforts have faced challenges.
Could the U.S. switch to a popular vote system?
Efforts to replace the electoral college with a national popular vote have gained support, but the change would require a constitutional amendment. This process is challenging and needs broad political support. Another approach, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, proposes that states pledge their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner, though it remains a complex legal issue
RELATED ARTICLES:
Jennifer Lopez delivers a clear message on Puerto Rico after Trump’s candidacy attack on the island
