# What is the minimum amount of votes needed? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [July 1, 2010, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-minimum-amount-of-votes-needed/545248 "2010-07-01T23:13:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2010, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-minimum-amount-of-votes-needed/545248/41 "2010-07-04T20:54:53Z")
> [@Mogle](#): > > Wait wait, in US when you measure voter turnout you only look at the people who actually register to vote, not at the the total number of citizen who are legally allowed to vote in the first place? 😕 No, for voter turnout, we look at the number of people who bothered to get up off their lazy asses and go to the polls. ---
**Author:** ![Arnold\_Winkelried](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Arnold\_Winkelried](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arnold_Winkelried)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2010, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-minimum-amount-of-votes-needed/545248/42 "2010-07-04T22:53:42Z")
> [@Stoneburg](#): > > I’ll follow up with a more specific question: > > What is the lowest percent of the popular vote needed to get 270 electoral votes? (basically win it “fair and square”) Taking into consideration Munch’s post (11th in this thread) and Captain Midnight’s post (37th in this thread), you need to also specify the highest percentage of votes you are going to allow for people that are not one of the two main candidates. Otherwise, the theoretical minimum can be very small (Munch came up with a scenario in which 22 votes was enough to elect the president.) There are so many variables here, that the best answer you can come up would be the answer to “what is the lowest percentage of the popular vote has any winning presidential candidate had in the past?” ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2010, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-minimum-amount-of-votes-needed/545248/43 "2010-07-05T00:25:36Z")
> [@Munch](#): > > So really, the answer is 22 - two votes going to you in the following states (and everyone else in the state voting for themselves): > > CA, TX, NY, IL, FL, OH, PA, MI, GA, NC, and NJ for 271 Electoral College votes. Why not 11? One person voting for you in each state while the rest of the state sleeps off their hangovers and doesn’t vote. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2010, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-minimum-amount-of-votes-needed/545248/44 "2010-07-05T01:42:53Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > The person whom the House chooses must be in the top three, requiring at least 1 electoral vote. You missed my point: I’m _ **not** _ the person whom the House chooses. I’m postulating a scenario where the House is considering guys who _ **did** _ receive at least 1 electoral vote; the Senate merely chooses me to be VP while the House – well, as it happens, the House winds up busily deadlocked over who should be President, which means I become President on Inauguration Day. (And if the Senate had _ **likewise** _ deadlocked, then come Inauguration Day it’s the Speaker of the House who’d get sworn in as President despite having received zero votes.) ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2010, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-minimum-amount-of-votes-needed/545248/45 "2010-07-05T03:18:29Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > You missed my point: I’m _ **not** _ the person whom the House chooses. > > I’m postulating a scenario where the House is considering guys who _ **did** _ receive at least 1 electoral vote; the Senate merely chooses me to be VP while the House – well, as it happens, the House winds up busily deadlocked over who should be President, which means I become President on Inauguration Day. > > (And if the Senate had _ **likewise** _ deadlocked, then come Inauguration Day it’s the Speaker of the House who’d get sworn in as President despite having received zero votes.) But the Senate would have to cast votes to install you as VP, either 51 or 34 depending on the discussion above, and you also would have to be one of the top two candidates in Electoral Votes. Likewise the Speaker of the House got that position by gaining a large number of votes in his/her district to become a member of Congress, and got a majority of votes from Congressmen to be elected speaker. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2010, 7:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-minimum-amount-of-votes-needed/545248/46 "2010-07-05T07:47:21Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > But the Senate would have to cast votes to install you as VP, either 51 or 34 depending on the discussion above, and you also would have to be one of the top two candidates in Electoral Votes. But nobody cast a vote for me to be President: not a single popular vote or a single electoral vote, not for that job. Sure, you can note that I got 34 or 51 votes to be VP after maybe 1 faithless elector voted to make me VP – but (a) nobody else gave me even one vote for _ **that,** _ and (b) those 35 or 52 votes were solely for whether I should be named VP – which, as it happens, _ **never happens,** _ since I just go straight to being the new President. (That said, what happens if the Senate deadlocks on who should be the next VP, and the House deadlocks on who should be our next President, and both the House Speaker and the Senate’s Pro Tem Prez are disqualified from succession?) ---
**Author:** ![dtilque](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/d6d6ee/32.png) [@dtilque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dtilque)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2010, 7:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-minimum-amount-of-votes-needed/545248/47 "2010-07-05T07:56:42Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > No, for voter turnout, we look at the number of people who bothered to get up off their lazy asses and go to the polls. You missed the point. Voter turnout is the number of people who actually voted divided by the total number of voters. The question is: How do you determine the total number of voters? Apparently in some countries, it’s the number of people legally eligible to vote, whereas in the US, it’s usually taken as the number of registered voters. I suspect that the reason for this in the US is that the election office knows how many are registered but not the other number. ---
**Author:** ![dtilque](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/d6d6ee/32.png) [@dtilque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dtilque)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2010, 8:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-minimum-amount-of-votes-needed/545248/48 "2010-07-05T08:05:22Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > (That said, what happens if the Senate deadlocks on who should be the next VP, and the House deadlocks on who should be our next President, and both the House Speaker and the Senate’s Pro Tem Prez are disqualified from succession?) If any of the cabinet members of the outgoing administration have not resigned, the highest on the succession order becomes president. If they’ve all resigned or are not qualified, then we have no president until the deadlock is broken in one of the houses of Congress. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2010, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-minimum-amount-of-votes-needed/545248/49 "2010-07-05T14:19:53Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > But nobody cast a vote for me to be President: not a single popular vote or a single electoral vote, not for that job. Sure, you can note that I got 34 or 51 votes to be VP after maybe 1 faithless elector voted to make me VP – but (a) nobody else gave me even one vote for _ **that,** _ and (b) those 35 or 52 votes were solely for whether I should be named VP – which, as it happens, _ **never happens,** _ since I just go straight to being the new President. > > (That said, what happens if the Senate deadlocks on who should be the next VP, and the House deadlocks on who should be our next President, and both the House Speaker and the Senate’s Pro Tem Prez are disqualified from succession?) Under this standard, you could take any VP that ascended to the Presidency, since that person only received votes to be VP, not the President. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2010, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-minimum-amount-of-votes-needed/545248/50 "2010-07-05T15:37:34Z")
> [@Captain\_Midnight](#): > > For someone to be elected President of the United States, they must have the votes of at least 270 electors. > > These electors are voted by the people of the respective state, with each state having the same number of electors as members of Congress. For example, my state of Tennessee has 11 electors, which means that Tn. has 9 House Representitives and 2 senators. > > The electors who gets the MOST VOTES are elected electors. These elected electors go to their respective capital cities in December to vote their choices. (The President is not elected in the first Tuesday in November every 4 years, they are elected the next month by the electors.) > > As I said before, to “win a state” requires only that the candidate gets more votes than his challenger. It is possible to win states with less than 50% of the vote easily. This is a link from the election of 1968. You can scan your cursor over the state and see the results. For example: > > [Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections](http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/) > > Nixon won Tennessee with 37.85% of the vote. Even though 62.15% of the voters voted AGAINST Nixon, Nixon won all the 11 electoral votes. Wallace won Arkansas by 38% of the vote and won the state’s electoral votes. Nixon won the race with only 43% of the vote, although he won 56% of the electors. > > Bill Clinton did not win the majority of the popular vote either time he ran for President. In 1992, he only won 43% of the vote, in 1996, he almost made a majority, but came up short at 49.2%. > > There is nothing in the Constitution that requires an elector to have to vote for a particular candidate. Occasionally, an elector will be “faithless” and vote for someone else. In 1972, an elector from Virginia voted for the Libertarian Party ticket (and thus the first electoral vote to a female candidate who was running for the office of VP. > > The electoral college is in my opinion, a screwball system that should be done away with or modified. It has worked reasonably well since the inception of the country. However, there has been disputed elections. 2000 for example. None on the 20th century, then the election of 1876 and 1824. > > If the government really wants to keep this system, I would tinker with the formula. On election day, the people vote in their house district and vote for their elector. Instead of one candidate winning all the electors, split the electors up. > > Several states are “top heavy” with large cities that basically decide elections, Illinois/Chicago. New York/NYC, even Nevada with Las Vegas are examples. Illinois and New York are actually conservative states whose votes “do not count” next to the voting clout of the urban areas. A better representation would be to split up the electors into seperate districts. The candidates, instead of barnstorming one state that is important, indeference to others out of reach or in the bag, the candidate will have to go to each individual place. Yes and no. You can postulate serious imbalances, and sometimes the guy with a few percent less wins the electoral college (maybe with the help of the Supremem Court). But generally, the process works and emphasizes winning, especially in a 3-way race. From what I’ve heard - The purpose of the electoral college was to prevent what happens in big states - winning a single area with an overbalance of population takes the election, so the lesser areas are impotent. Oddly enough, because of the “2 electors for 2 senators” rule, these exercises above put more power into the hands of smaller states. The concern was that a candidate after Washington would take a few populous areas and the other colonies would be ruled by someone always from Pennsylvania or New York or Virginia, the bigger states. In fact, one commentary I heard was that unless a person was as popular as Washington, he probably would not get a majority in the electoral college and it would be up to the duly elected house of congress to pick the leader. The framers of the constitution did not forsee the quick rise of country-wide party politics. Originally the rule was each elector got 2 votes, and the one with most votes was president and second-most votes, vice president. Not long after (Jefferson?) the party discipline was so good that the president and VP on the ticket got equal votes, forcing the tie into the congress who picked the third candidate on the list. Ah, party politics! ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2010, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-minimum-amount-of-votes-needed/545248/51 "2010-07-05T19:12:59Z")
> [@](#): > > Several states are “top heavy” with large cities that basically decide elections, Illinois/Chicago. New York/NYC, even Nevada with Las Vegas are examples. Illinois and New York are actually conservative states whose votes “do not count” next to the voting clout of the urban areas. In what sense is New York or Illinois “actually conservative” when the liberal populations in the big cities dominate over the conservative rural population? If we go by area of land that’s painted red on the maps, then the whole damn country is “actually conservative”. But acres don’t vote; people do. The fact that NYC dominates upstate New York isn’t a flaw in the system; it’s a straightforward application of democracy. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-minimum-amount-of-votes-needed/545248.md?page=2)