Majorities, Pluralities and Presidential Elections

When one speaks of elections often times the term majority is used for someone who gets the most votes of all other candidates but this is not the case. When you hear the term “majority” think anything over 50%. Any time a candidate in any race wins and they get over 50% of the vote then they have received the majority of all of the votes cast. A plurality on the other hand is similar because in this case they get the most votes of any other candidate but no candidate gets 50% or more of the vote. For example, in the 1992 presidential election President Clinton won the election, getting the majority (over 50%) of the electoral votes. In terms of the popular vote however (the way people across the country voted) then candidate Clinton received 43%, President George H. W. Bush received 37.5% of the popular vote and Ross Perot received 18.5% of the popular vote. So in this case, Clinton won the plurality of the popular vote but he did not get a majority. Refer to earlier writings to look at the workings of the electoral college and how the president is elected. For historical election results refer to the national archives link at http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/votes/index.html.

So when has a president won a plurality or a majority of the popular vote and lost the election?

There have only been three elections in U.S. history when a candidate for president has won the election without getting the most popular votes since 1824. The first would be in the election of Rutherford Hayes and Samuel Tilden. In that election, after some dispute, Hayes won the election over Tilden with Tilden receiving 51.0% of the popular vote and Hayes received 47.9% but Hayes getting the majority of the electoral votes. The second election would be that of Grover Cleveland and Benjamin Harrison in 1888 where Cleveland won 48.6% of the popular vote to Harrison’s 47.8% but Harrison won this election by getting more electoral votes. The last election where something similar occurred would be the 2000 election of George W. Bush and Al Gore. In that election Al Gore received 48.4% of the popular vote while George Bush received 47.9% but Bush won the election by receiving more of the electoral votes.

In most elections the electoral vote and the popular vote agree with one another. However the above examples have been rare cases when the two do not.

Why not a popular vote for president?

Keep in mind what the role of the president is. The president is representative of both the states as well as the citizens. Because of the fact that there is in a sense a dual citizenship between the state in which a person resides and all fifty states as a whole the election of the president must reflect this. The electoral college is a representation of the power of the citizen as well as each state. The 50 states are each “citizens” of the union as well; the Senate is another representation of this.

There has been some discussion as of late of a plan to form a compact (an agreement) between some states to in a sense swing the election of the president in which ever way the national popular vote goes. This is an interesting concept in that the member states would award the winner of the national popular vote all of their electoral votes. The compact would not go into effect until the combined electoral influence of member states could swing the 270 votes needed for victory in the electoral college. The challenge faced with such a compact would be this, if the people in a particular state voted a certain way, their state’s electoral vote would be cancelled out in favor of popular influence of other regions and thus the people’s voice in a particular state muted. For example let us imagine for a moment that such a compact has been put into effect and Michigan is a member. Let us then say that the majority of people in the state of Michigan vote for candidate A but the majority of the country voted for candidate B. Because in our example Michigan is a member of this compact, the electoral votes of Michigan would go to candidate B even though the citizens of that state did not want candidate B. It would be hard to see how this would stand in court as it could call into question the constitutionality of muting the voice of citizens in particular state as well as that state itself in an election.

There have been other debates and discussions of a direct popular vote by the people for president but none to much avail. All attempts at constitutional amendments to this point for a national popular vote have failed. There are arguments both for and against the national popular vote and it is always fascinating to look at new and interesting concepts in politics.

Reproduction of this material is strictly prohibited without the express written consent of the author. Requests can be made at theeveningeditor@gmail.com.

© 2010