WI: A President of the United States won with 22% of the PV

Asami

Banned
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k

In this video by CGPGrey, he explains that it's possible for someone to become President of the United States by winning 22% of the popular vote, and just over 50% of the electoral college by targeting only the small states. Ignoring his crusade against the Electoral College... What if this sort of scenario happened? What sort of ramifications would follow, if a President was elected with such an abysmal percentage of the popular vote, with 78% of the United States voting against him? Would him (our "loser POTUS") being a Democrat make a difference from him being a Republican?
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k

In this video by CGPGrey, he explains that it's possible for someone to become President of the United States by winning 22% of the popular vote, and just over 50% of the electoral college by targeting only the small states. Ignoring his crusade against the Electoral College... What if this sort of scenario happened? What sort of ramifications would follow, if a President was elected with such an abysmal percentage of the popular vote, with 78% of the United States voting against him? Would him (our "loser POTUS") being a Democrat make a difference from him being a Republican?

I think part of the question is how many viable candidates are in the race? Lincoln only won with 38% of the popular vote but he was one of four candidates.
 
Actually, that happens in my TL, though I haven't quite gotten their with the remake that's in my sig, that's what happened. In an election with only two candidates one person did that and the person who got 78% of the votes contested the election, and, without spoiling anything more, it leads to the end of the Electoral College.
 
There would be the usual complaints and whining, proposals to change the system, for about 3 months after he took office then everyone would focus on the greater issue of the latest Kim Kardassian wardrobe malfunction.

Bottom line, not enough small states would ever ratify a constitutional amendment to change the electoral college
 
There would be the usual complaints and whining, proposals to change the system, for about 3 months after he took office then everyone would focus on the greater issue of the latest Kim Kardassian wardrobe malfunction.

Bottom line, not enough small states would ever ratify a constitutional amendment to change the electoral college

If one candidate wins 78% of the vote and the other 22%, there's no way people are going to get over this that quickly.

I mean, a fair amount of people still aren't even over Bush v. Gore...
 
I think part of the question is how many viable candidates are in the race? Lincoln only won with 38% of the popular vote but he was one of four candidates.
22% is the minimum with two candidates in the race, assuming close-to-OTL turnout rates in each state. (You could theoretically beat an opponent on the 2016 map by earning 11 votes, provided those are the only people who bother to vote in the 11 most populous states.)
 
22% is the minimum with two candidates in the race, assuming close-to-OTL turnout rates in each state. (You could theoretically beat an opponent on the 2016 map by earning 11 votes, provided those are the only people who bother to vote in the 11 most populous states.)

Interesting, I did not know that.
 
The problem with this is that there is no strategy that could succeed only in the big states while getting no votes in the small ones. States do not differ politically primarily because of *size*. If you appeal to social liberals you will likely win New York and California--but also Vermont and Hawaii. If you appeal to social conservatives, you will win a lot of small states, but you will also probably win Texas and Georgia (even if in the future demographic changes may make those states more competitive) and some fairly large states like Tennessee and Indiana. If you carry such large swing states as Ohio and Virginia you are probably sufficiently acceptable to middle-of-the-road voters to win many smaller states as well.

The only *practical* way to win an Electoral College while getting less than, say, 38 percent of the total national vote is for there to be a real three-party election.
 
The problem with this is that there is no strategy that could succeed only in the big states while getting no votes in the small ones. States do not differ politically primarily because of *size*. If you appeal to social liberals you will likely win New York and California--but also Vermont and Hawaii. If you appeal to social conservatives, you will win a lot of small states, but you will also probably win Texas and Georgia (even if in the future demographic changes may make those states more competitive) and some fairly large states like Tennessee and Indiana. If you carry such large swing states as Ohio and Virginia you are probably sufficiently acceptable to middle-of-the-road voters to win many smaller states as well.

The only *practical* way to win an Electoral College while getting less than, say, 38 percent of the total national vote is for there to be a real three-party election.

Tell the people of the small states that you will give them more voting power than the big ones. Before radios, it would work really well.
 
Top