In 1880 James Garfield defeated Winfield Scott Hancock handily in the electoral college, but only won the popular vote by less than 2,000 votes. Additionally, Garfield only won Indiana by less than 12,000 votes. Even if you flip Indiana to Hancock, Garfield still wins the electoral vote.
If you flip Indiana's 6,000 votes, Garfield wins the electoral vote 199 to 170, and Hancock wins the popular vote 4,450,260 to 4,440,158. Normally this would be a fluke, but combined with 1876 it would be the second time in a row that the Democrats have won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote. How would this change the perception of the government and the electoral process?
Also, barring butterflies, with only a flip of just over 1,000 votes in New York in 1884 you'd have a third consecutive election where the Democrats win the popular vote but the Republicans win the electoral vote.
If you flip Indiana's 6,000 votes, Garfield wins the electoral vote 199 to 170, and Hancock wins the popular vote 4,450,260 to 4,440,158. Normally this would be a fluke, but combined with 1876 it would be the second time in a row that the Democrats have won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote. How would this change the perception of the government and the electoral process?
Also, barring butterflies, with only a flip of just over 1,000 votes in New York in 1884 you'd have a third consecutive election where the Democrats win the popular vote but the Republicans win the electoral vote.
