The first time was in 1824. Andrew Jackson received more votes (151,271) than John Quincy Adams (113,122) – at the polls. But as no candidate had reached the majority of electoral votes, the decision was finally returned to the House of Representatives, which preferred Adams to Jackson, although more popular with voters, by 13 votes to 7.
Why Trump won against Clinton in 2016
The second time was half a century later. In 1876 precisely. Rutherford B. Hayes (4.03 million votes) won the Oval Office over Samuel J. Tilden (4.29 million) although the latter received more popular votes. After disputes over the results in some states, a commission awarded the remaining electoral votes to Hayes, giving him victory by just one large elector.
Third case in 1888. At the time, Benjamin Harrison defeated outgoing president Grover Cleveland, despite Cleveland’s victory at the polls (5.54 million votes for Cleveland, 5.45 million for Harrison). Harrison won in the Electoral College with a victory in key states, although he had fewer popular votes. Cleveland would take his revenge four years later, becoming at the same time the first – and so far only – president of the USA elected for two non-consecutive terms. Trump could do the same this year.
American election: here’s what would happen in the event of an absolute tie between Harris and Trump
In modern times, a scenario in which the president-elect is not the one who obtained the most votes has occurred twice. First in 2000. At the time, George W. Bush (50.46 million votes) won against Al Gore even though Gore had received more votes (51 million). History will record that Bush won Florida by only 537 votes against Al Gore. This allowed Bush to win the 29 electoral votes and lead Al Gore by 5 electoral votes in the final count.
Finally, the last case dates from 2016. At the time, Hillary Clinton had obtained 2.87 million more votes than a certain Donald Trump (65.87 million for Clinton, 62.98 for Trump!) but it was ultimately the latter who conquered the White House.
A paradoxical situation due to the electoral college system
If it can happen that the president-elect is not the candidate who obtained the most votes at the end of the ballot, it is because of the Electoral College system. In reality, the American election is an indirect popular vote: the voter does not vote directly for the candidate of his choice but rather for electors who will then vote for the most popular candidate within the state concerned. In short, citizens tell voters who they should vote for. With the winner-takes-all rule. The most popular candidate within the state wins the votes of all voters in that state. Let’s take the example of Florida in 2000. George Bush only beat Al Gore by 587 votes in this state. However, all the votes of the 29 electors of Florida were attributed to him, compared to 0 for Al Gore.
Bush beats Gore despite a popular deficit at the polls
Such a scenario can explain why a candidate can win an election by quite a margin despite losing at the polls. In 2016, Hillary Clinton, although 2.87 million votes ahead of Trump, only obtained 227 electors compared to 304 for the Republican.
Let’s take the example of two candidates. Trump and Harris, randomly. And let’s reduce the election to 5 states, each with 10 million inhabitants, each with 5 electoral votes.
In States A, B and C, Trump obtained 6 million votes each time to Harris’s 4. Trump wins the 5 electors of each state. That’s 15 in total.
In states D and E, Harris won with 9 million votes, compared to just one for Trump. She pockets 10 voters in total.
In such a scenario, Trump would be elected president with 15 voters in his favor, compared to only 10 for Harris. However, Harris would have obtained many more votes: 30 million against only 20 for Trump.
Related News :