Presidential trivia:
How many of our American Presidential elections were won by candidates who did not receive a majority of the popular votes cast?
How many were lost by candidates who did receive an actual popular majority?
And how many were won by candidates who didn’t receive a majority of the Electoral College votes?
I think the answers are lots, 1, and 3, but I’m not sure.
Your Quadell
I’m at the right place, wrong time! I have a book at home which might give quick access to the answers…I’ll see what I can find out!
I always get confused about the difference between a majority and a plurality, but there are lots of cases where the winner did not have 50% of the vote (no majority). The times when the winner didn’t even have the most votes (plurality) are fewer. These are the cases I can find.
In 1824, John Quincy Adams received 108,740 popular votes to Andrew Jackson’s 153,544; EVs 84 and 99 respectively; percentage of popular vote, 30.5% and 43.1%.
In 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes received 4,036,572 popular votes to Samuel J. Tilden’s 4,284,020; EVs 185 and 184 respectively; 48% and 51%.
In 1888, Benjamin Harrison received 5,477,129 popular votes to Grover Cleveland’s 5,537,857; EVs 233 and 168 respectively; 47.9% and 48.6%. Of course, Cleveland came back to trounce Harrison four years later.
These stats courtesy of the Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1957. The table I’m looking at is complete up through '96 with Dept. of Justice statistics.
Please, someone correct me if I’m wrong. (Not like there’s any chance you wouldn’t! :))
Quite a few: JQ Adams, Polk, Taylor, Buchanan, Lincoln (1st term), Hayes, Garfield, Harrison, Cleveland (both terms), Wilson (both terms), Truman, Kennedy, Nixon (first term).
My reference source ends there, but I believe that Carter, Reagan, and Clinton (both times) all had less than 50% of the total popular vote.
I think the answers to Quadell’s question are lots, 1, and 2. The only times the Electoral College didn’t deliver a majority were 1800 and 1824, and the first time around, it was a tie (it happened before the 12th Amendment, so each Elector had two votes).
According to the same resource I quoted above, Carter had 50.0% exactly, Reagan/1980 had 50.8%, Reagan/1984 had 59.2%, Bush had 54%, Clinton/1992 had 43.0%, and Clinton/1996 had 49.2%.
1824 is the only time that the winner didn’t have the greater number of electoral vote. The statistics for EV go back to 1789, while popular vote numbers only go back to 1824.
Boris B answered while I was typing, and of course, he’s correct about the situation in 1800, which I didn’t make clear.
I recall reading where Grover Cleveland won the popular vote, but lost the electoral vote in that interim term between his two victories. Maybe someone can confirm?
“They’re coming to take me away ha-ha, ho-ho, hee-hee, to the funny farm where life is beautiful all the time… :)” - Napoleon IV
Here’s a handy-dandy little guide to the popular and electoral college votes in every presidential election, courtesy of your pals at the National Archives.
www.nara.gov/fedreg/ec-boxsc.html
In answer to Jinx, yep, in 1888, Grover Cleveland snared 5.54 million popular votes, while Benjamin Harrison got only 5.43 million. Nevertheless, Harrison won in the electoral college 233-168.
Jinx, you are correct. That was 1888, with the numbers in my post above. Harrison got 47.9% of the popular vote while Cleveland got 48.6%.
I have read several times that Mrs. Cleveland, when leaving the White House after the first Cleveland term, told the staff to leave everything where it was, because they (the Clevelands) would be back in four years. Interesting footnote.
Actually, I meant for my third question to include Washington’s first term (he wasn’t elected), but the wat I phrased it excludes that one. 
How about Lincoln’s second term? He couldn’t have received a majority of the electoral votes, could he? (I doubt the South submitted any electoral votes.)
Your Quadell
Lincoln won the great majority of Electoral votes in 1864. The seceding states’ votes weren’t counted for either candidate, or in the total.
Washington was definitely elected for his first term. He was just unopposed.
BorisB: Why weren’t southern states’ votes counted? They were still part of the Union, at least according to the North. Or was the South “officially” its own country during that time? You can’t have it both ways. Technically, either the Confederate States was a soveirn nation (which the Union adamantly denied at the time), or they were a part of the U.S., and their votes should have counted. Right?
BobT, I don’t think Washington was elected by the electoral college, was he?
Your Quadell
George Washington received the votes of all 69 electors in 1789 and all 132 electors in 1792. At that time, electors wrote down two names on their ballot. The person with the most votes was president, the runnerup was veep. John Adams received 34 and then 77 votes in those same elections.
As for the Civil War, the votes of the Southern States weren’t counted because the states were considered to be in a state of rebellion. Congress decided that the local governments there had no authority and they weren’t eligible to choose electors.
Ultimately, Congress counts the votes and decides which ones are valid.
The 12th Amendment:
The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make
distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the
number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government
of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;–The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of
the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;–The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of
the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members
from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or
other constitutional disability of the President. --The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors
appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
Yes, that’s a fairly large quote, but I didn’t want to miss anything. I think the operative quote from above is, “if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed”. The Southern states didn’t bother to appoint any electors, at least not that I know of. If any had been appointed, Congress probably would not have counted the votes. In any case, the total number of electors eligible to be appointed is not a relevant number.
Washington was not ‘unopposed’ in 1788: he didn’t even win the majority of the available electoral college votes, because 12 such votes went unvoted (I forget why). He DID win a unanimous vote for the office of those actually voting, as was also the case in 1792.
In 1796, Adams managed three votes more than Jefferson in the College. Analysis of this election shows the difficulty inherent in the original system proposed by the Constitution. There were 138 electors. Adding Adams’ vote to Jefferson’s vote makes it clear that at least one elector voted for BOTH men; together they total 139 votes. Thus, despite their diametrically opposed views on federal government, someone thought either of them would be a good president. Thus, the result (Jefferson is the only vice-president from a party different than the sitting president (Tyler was officially a whig when elected)) was not as abnormal as it seemed. Of course, the 1800 election, in which the electors voted strictly by party line showed the flaw in methodology for choosing a vice-president in a party system; Jefferson and Burr tied for President (all electors pledged to the Democrat-Republicans voting strictly for the preferred candidates. As a result, it was up to the House to decide which actually sat as President (again, I can’t remember if there was serious consideration of Burr over Jefferson among the Dem-Repubs.).
Then, there is the Stolen Election. If anyone ever wonders why we have so many attempts to check power abuse in our Constitution, I simply point to 1876. Rutherford B. Hayes received fewer popular votes than Samuel J. Tilden. Read the sordid details of what followed here: Encylcopedia Britannica. The election of the Reupublican, Hayes, was almost assured as a result of political dominance by that party at the time nationally, despite the fact that, at the very least, Florida’s popular vote probably correctly would have resulted in the electors from that state voting for Tilden, making him president.
As for the Civil War election (1864), and the following elections of 1868 and 1872 during Reconstruction, the votes of the states in rebellion were left ‘unvoted’. There were 81 such votes in 1864, only 23 in 1868 and 17 in 1872.
Re: Grover Cleveland (from The US Electoral College Webzine)
1888: Cleveland Blunders His Way Out of a Job
The election of 1888 plays a starring role in any discussion of the Electoral College. In that election, so the story goes, Democrat Grover Cleveland won the popular vote, but Benajmin Harrision stole the election in the the Electoral College. Is the story accurate?
The real reason was Cleveland’s lopsided vote tallies in the South. The 1888 vote in six southern states went to Cleveland with margins of 2/3 or more. So in 1888, the Electoral College did what it was designed to do. It prevented a candidate from winning the White House on the basis on one region’s support, somewhat suspect support, at that.
(For a table that shows Cleveland’s margins in the South, click here The table should open in a new window.)
Cleveland won the popular vote by a mere 90,596 out of a national total of 11,383,320 votes cast. His 425,000 vote margin in six Southern states was the reason Cleveland won the popular vote. In the other 32 states taken together, Cleveland lost by over 300,000 votes.
(Harrison had a lopsided margin in just one small state, Vermont, with 71% of the vote and a margin of 28,000 votes. No other states had margins above 60%.)
What had happened to cause the lopsided totals in the South? Cleveland made tariffs an issue in 1888. Lowering the tariff was an issue that the South favored, while high tariffs were a basic Republican tenet. Tariff reform boosted Cleveland support in the south, while it drove away reform-minded Republicans in the North who had supported him in 1884. Since he could not win with Southern support alone, Cleveland’s decision to push the tariff issue was a major political blunder, like running the football toward your own goal posts.
Cleveland’s debacle in 1888 demonstrates how the Electoral College system forces candidates to make their appeals as broad as possible. Whipping up intense support in one region will not win the White House. It also shows the potential danger in any direct election system, for it shows how easy it is to achieve really huge vote margins with appeals directed at specific regions, ignoring the rest of the country.
The anti-Electoral College forces imply that the EC could produce results contrary to the popular vote just by accident. The 1888 election suggests just the opposite. It took huge landslides in one region to produce a narrow popular vote victory. Whatever the cause, the 1888 results were no accident.
In 10 close elections since 1888, small shifts in the popular vote could have given the U.S. a runner-up President. Yet there has not been another case where the popular loser was the Electoral College winner. The “accidental” president remains a myth. It takes real effort to lose the way Cleveland did.
Wrong thinking is punished, right thinking is just as swiftly rewarded. You’ll find it an effective combination.
The 1888 election amounts to an excellent indictment of the Electoral College. Grover Cleveland had far more national appeal than Benjamin Harrison. I am tickled pink that the US Electoral College Webzine thinks Clevelands’ “lopsided” popular vote totals in the South somehow constitute a strike against him. Harrison and Cleveland were both competitive in the West and Northeast; Harrison had no chance in the South just like all other Republicans in the Gilded Age.
Whether or not Cleveland’s support of free trade is a political blunder, I suppose, is a matter of opinion. Tariffs were the only issue that consistently distinguished the political parties in this era (civil service reform, imperialism, and others surfaced from time to time). Cleveland beat Blaine in 1884 and I suppose he was trying to rest on his laurels. He lost one or two of the Northern states he had one in 1884.
I’m absolutely astounded at the huge variety of bizarre arguments people will come up with to defend the status quo. Harrison was the runner-up in the popular vote but, hey, he had no appeal at all in one huge region of the country, so he deserved the Presidency. Hayes was runner-up to Tilden (who had an overall popular majority), but Hayes was a protectionist too, so I suppose he deserved the Presidency. I can’t tell if the US Electoral College Webzine is written by protectionists, Republicans, or just crazy people.
The Electoral College is not divine wisdom delivered from on high by infallible saints. It is a convoluted wad designed to pacify various sections of the country by randomizing electoral results. It should have gone the way of the three-fifths compromise long ago. Unfortunately it is kept in place, mainly by apathy, but with the help of reactionary politicos irrationally attached to the status quo.
By the way, I didn’t bring up the Hayes-Tilden thing to imply that DSYoung was defending the Electoral College. I just thought it should be brought up since no discussion of 1888 is complete without consideration of 1876.