Hello everyone, the challenge here today is to have more elections where Presidents win the Electoral vote, but lose the popular vote to his opponent. There has been three times this has happened in American history: 1876, 1888, and, of course, 2000. I know this is the pre-1900 forum, but you are free to explore posiblities after 1900.
Note: Lincoln and Quincy Adams do NOT meet the challenge because Quincy Adams lost the popular vote and the electoral vote, while Lincoln won the electoral vote and a plurality of the popular vote.
There are a couple ways you bring this out, some being:
1. Have more elitist parties based in smaller states. ex Federalists
Elitist parties provide a small voter base, but can still provide enough to win in states that matter.
2. Have parties that have a very low voter base in a region. ex Federalists and 19th century Republicans.
Having a low voter base in a region, obviously, lowers your overall votes. But that doesn't mean you can't win the states that matter. A party can give a small majority in New York and at the same time lose by a huge margin in Georgia.
3. Have more corruption/voter fraud. ex. 1876, 1888
Pretty simple, more back-room meetings and fixed elections to give a man the electoral votes he needs at whatever cost. Use of political machines helps as well.
4. Just win by a close margin. ex. 1876, 1888, 2000
Self-explanatory, just get past the first post in the states that count. That's it.
So once again, the challenge is to create more election scenarios where the President-elect win the electoral vote, but loses the popular vote.
Note: Lincoln and Quincy Adams do NOT meet the challenge because Quincy Adams lost the popular vote and the electoral vote, while Lincoln won the electoral vote and a plurality of the popular vote.
There are a couple ways you bring this out, some being:
1. Have more elitist parties based in smaller states. ex Federalists
Elitist parties provide a small voter base, but can still provide enough to win in states that matter.
2. Have parties that have a very low voter base in a region. ex Federalists and 19th century Republicans.
Having a low voter base in a region, obviously, lowers your overall votes. But that doesn't mean you can't win the states that matter. A party can give a small majority in New York and at the same time lose by a huge margin in Georgia.
3. Have more corruption/voter fraud. ex. 1876, 1888
Pretty simple, more back-room meetings and fixed elections to give a man the electoral votes he needs at whatever cost. Use of political machines helps as well.
4. Just win by a close margin. ex. 1876, 1888, 2000
Self-explanatory, just get past the first post in the states that count. That's it.
So once again, the challenge is to create more election scenarios where the President-elect win the electoral vote, but loses the popular vote.