Electoral College. Just why?

[Sonny Clark]

We have the electoral college because we have a federal government, not a national one.

Without the electoral college, heavily urbanized areas would control the election, and small and rural states would always be steamrolled.

The reason the electoral college has grown less popular is precisely because we have moved ever so incrementally toward a national government. This is not a good thing.

Think of the electoral college system as similar to the World Series. A team can theoretically score the most points but still lose the series. This has happened, but rarely. It also happens once in a great while that a candidate wins the popular vote but loses the electoral vote.

In the 1960 World Series, the Yankees scored 55 runs, and the Pirates scored 27. Guess which team won the Series?

Yeah. The Pirates.

The Electoral College is the same. It isn't about winning the most votes, it is about winning the most states.

Blue areas suck money from the red areas to survive. This is why Democrats support the elimination of the Electoral College.

Are you trying to be ironic?

Democrats live and die by keeping the Electoral College in place.

Why? It's statistically extremely improbable for the Democrats to win the Electoral College while losing the popular vote. There's too many wasted votes in California and New York (and I guess Illinois).

Not sure what you're saying.... The map I saw after 2014 had about a zillion red counties and 60 blue ones; proportionally the GOP would kick the Democrat's ass. The only thing that keeps the Dems going is the Electoral college.

In my opinion, the only thing keeping Republicans and Democrats going is stupid voters that fall for their BS each and every election cycle. ... Oh, I almost forgot to mention .... the wealthy, the powerful, and the influential that buy and control professional politicians.

It's basically every post you make:

"I'm smart and every one else is stupid."

mixed with....

"We're doomed."

It's a way the lesser lights among us claim to be intelligent but then offer excuses for being ineffective.

WOW .. another cute one .. you're good ..... a very quick mind ... I like that ..... yes, you're talented for sure.... Hey, just curious, can you dispute what I have said? Or, is throwing your cute little slams and slurs all you have?

 

[Wyatt earp]

You really never studied Civics?

Sure we did.

There's still no excuse for the Electoral College other than "But the Founding Slave Rapists said so".

Yea we know Joe, when the topic is about who founded this country, you liberals will always say "liberals"

 

[chikenwing]

We have the electoral college because we have a federal government, not a national one.

Without the electoral college, heavily urbanized areas would control the election, and small and rural states would always be steamrolled.

The reason the electoral college has grown less popular is precisely because we have moved ever so incrementally toward a national government. This is not a good thing.

Think of the electoral college system as similar to the World Series. A team can theoretically score the most points but still lose the series. This has happened, but rarely. It also happens once in a great while that a candidate wins the popular vote but loses the electoral vote.

In the 1960 World Series, the Yankees scored 55 runs, and the Pirates scored 27. Guess which team won the Series?

Yeah. The Pirates.

The Electoral College is the same. It isn't about winning the most votes, it is about winning the most states.

Blue areas suck money from the red areas to survive. This is why Democrats support the elimination of the Electoral College.

Umm...no. Blue areas are the country's money makers...specifically big cities are where you make real cash. I'd love to see any emperical evidence whatsoever showing your statement to be remotely true.

There's a reason all the high per capita areas of the country are democratic ones...it's because that's where all the money is and that's where people want to live to make that money. If you think Alabama and Mississippi are keeping New York and California afloat you have another thing coming...

FOOD New York can't feed itself,nor supply itself with many raw materials.

 

[candycorn]

Are you trying to be ironic?

Democrats live and die by keeping the Electoral College in place.

Why? It's statistically extremely improbable for the Democrats to win the Electoral College while losing the popular vote. There's too many wasted votes in California and New York (and I guess Illinois).

Not sure what you're saying.... The map I saw after 2014 had about a zillion red counties and 60 blue ones; proportionally the GOP would kick the Democrat's ass. The only thing that keeps the Dems going is the Electoral college.

In my opinion, the only thing keeping Republicans and Democrats going is stupid voters that fall for their BS each and every election cycle. ... Oh, I almost forgot to mention .... the wealthy, the powerful, and the influential that buy and control professional politicians.

It's basically every post you make:

"I'm smart and every one else is stupid."

mixed with....

"We're doomed."

It's a way the lesser lights among us claim to be intelligent but then offer excuses for being ineffective.

WOW .. another cute one .. you're good ..... a very quick mind ... I like that ..... yes, you're talented for sure.... Hey, just curious, can you dispute what I have said? Or, is throwing your cute little slams and slurs all you have?

Sure.

It's as simple as the elections we have every 2 years. The people elect the President and their representative. Candidates decide whether they get on the ballot; not the rich.

You abandoned the other thread when I kicked your ass on the subject--you remember.

Now your cartoonish fantasy about some rich guy picking your representative and them voting his whim is hilarious but it's still wrong.

 

[dilloduck]

Why? It's statistically extremely improbable for the Democrats to win the Electoral College while losing the popular vote. There's too many wasted votes in California and New York (and I guess Illinois).

Not sure what you're saying.... The map I saw after 2014 had about a zillion red counties and 60 blue ones; proportionally the GOP would kick the Democrat's ass. The only thing that keeps the Dems going is the Electoral college.

In my opinion, the only thing keeping Republicans and Democrats going is stupid voters that fall for their BS each and every election cycle. ... Oh, I almost forgot to mention .... the wealthy, the powerful, and the influential that buy and control professional politicians.

It's basically every post you make:

"I'm smart and every one else is stupid."

mixed with....

"We're doomed."

It's a way the lesser lights among us claim to be intelligent but then offer excuses for being ineffective.

WOW .. another cute one .. you're good ..... a very quick mind ... I like that ..... yes, you're talented for sure.... Hey, just curious, can you dispute what I have said? Or, is throwing your cute little slams and slurs all you have?

Sure.

It's as simple as the elections we have every 2 years. The people elect the President and their representative. Candidates decide whether they get on the ballot; not the rich.

You abandoned the other thread when I kicked your ass on the subject--you remember.

Now your cartoonish fantasy about some rich guy picking your representative and them voting his whim is hilarious but it's still wrong.

Getting on the ballot and getting elected are two different animals. Nice try tho.

 

[2aguy]

The United States is the only country that elects a politically powerful president via an electoral college and the only one in which a candidate can become president without having obtained the highest number of votes in the sole or final round of popular voting.
—George C. Edwards, 2011

Why do we need to stick to outdated legislation when it comes to one of the most important political decisions in the life of the whole country? Why not popular vote? We believe in equality and democracy but for some reason let somebody decide the fate of of this country for us.

If we went with just the popular vote...then politicians would just go to the big states and their major cities....that would be it.........it is bad enough the democrats do that now and win a lot of elections doing it........

 

[candycorn]

Not sure what you're saying.... The map I saw after 2014 had about a zillion red counties and 60 blue ones; proportionally the GOP would kick the Democrat's ass. The only thing that keeps the Dems going is the Electoral college.

In my opinion, the only thing keeping Republicans and Democrats going is stupid voters that fall for their BS each and every election cycle. ... Oh, I almost forgot to mention .... the wealthy, the powerful, and the influential that buy and control professional politicians.

It's basically every post you make:

"I'm smart and every one else is stupid."

mixed with....

"We're doomed."

It's a way the lesser lights among us claim to be intelligent but then offer excuses for being ineffective.

WOW .. another cute one .. you're good ..... a very quick mind ... I like that ..... yes, you're talented for sure.... Hey, just curious, can you dispute what I have said? Or, is throwing your cute little slams and slurs all you have?

Sure.

It's as simple as the elections we have every 2 years. The people elect the President and their representative. Candidates decide whether they get on the ballot; not the rich.

You abandoned the other thread when I kicked your ass on the subject--you remember.

Now your cartoonish fantasy about some rich guy picking your representative and them voting his whim is hilarious but it's still wrong.

Getting on the ballot and getting elected are two different animals. Nice try tho.

His point was that the rich decide who get on the ballot....I showed him otherwise and he abandoned the thread.

 

[Brian_1349]

The United States is the only country that elects a politically powerful president via an electoral college and the only one in which a candidate can become president without having obtained the highest number of votes in the sole or final round of popular voting.
—George C. Edwards, 2011

Why do we need to stick to outdated legislation when it comes to one of the most important political decisions in the life of the whole country? Why not popular vote? We believe in equality and democracy but for some reason let somebody decide the fate of of this country for us.

If we went with just the popular vote...then politicians would just go to the big states and their major cities....that would be it.........it is bad enough the democrats do that now and win a lot of elections doing it........

This is called majority. And it is called democracy. In a democratic country majority determines the future of the whole nation and there is nothing wrong with it. Protecting majority from minorities - which is not the case in the present day United States - is more important than vice versa. How come a bunch of villages is more important than major cities?
If you are worried about rural areas check out European countryside. People seem to be satisfied with their lives without electoral college. Candidates have to address all groups of voters in order to win, even under popular vote system.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Why? It's statistically extremely improbable for the Democrats to win the Electoral College while losing the popular vote. There's too many wasted votes in California and New York (and I guess Illinois).

Not sure what you're saying.... The map I saw after 2014 had about a zillion red counties and 60 blue ones; proportionally the GOP would kick the Democrat's ass. The only thing that keeps the Dems going is the Electoral college.

In my opinion, the only thing keeping Republicans and Democrats going is stupid voters that fall for their BS each and every election cycle. ... Oh, I almost forgot to mention .... the wealthy, the powerful, and the influential that buy and control professional politicians.

It's basically every post you make:

"I'm smart and every one else is stupid."

mixed with....

"We're doomed."

It's a way the lesser lights among us claim to be intelligent but then offer excuses for being ineffective.

WOW .. another cute one .. you're good ..... a very quick mind ... I like that ..... yes, you're talented for sure.... Hey, just curious, can you dispute what I have said? Or, is throwing your cute little slams and slurs all you have?

Sure.

It's as simple as the elections we have every 2 years. The people elect the President and their representative. Candidates decide whether they get on the ballot; not the rich.

You abandoned the other thread when I kicked your ass on the subject--you remember.

Now your cartoonish fantasy about some rich guy picking your representative and them voting his whim is hilarious but it's still wrong.

Ha Ha Ha Ha ........ again, very cute, very .......... I can tell that you have a lot of practice at being on edge and slamming people, it's obvious. Oh, you haven't disputed anything, you just thing that you have with your slurs and slams. What I have said is true, factual, and correct. Now, if you can show where it's not true, factual, and correct, then please do so with other than your slurs and slams, which are cute but don't prove anything except your childish behavior.

By the way, I haven't abandoned anything, and your silly immature remark about "kicking ass" doesn't do anything but speak to your immaturity and inability to have a conversation on an adult and civil level. I stand by every single thing that I have said about political office being bought and paid for. If you can prove otherwise, then please do so.... Oh, and I know it may be hard for you, but would you mind discussing this subject in an adult and civil manner, instead of your childish school yard babble? Thanks in advance.

 

[there4eyeM]

The playing field is much more level in France, but the run-off election part doesn't work well, I M H O.

 

[Sonny Clark]

In my opinion, the only thing keeping Republicans and Democrats going is stupid voters that fall for their BS each and every election cycle. ... Oh, I almost forgot to mention .... the wealthy, the powerful, and the influential that buy and control professional politicians.

It's basically every post you make:

"I'm smart and every one else is stupid."

mixed with....

"We're doomed."

It's a way the lesser lights among us claim to be intelligent but then offer excuses for being ineffective.

WOW .. another cute one .. you're good ..... a very quick mind ... I like that ..... yes, you're talented for sure.... Hey, just curious, can you dispute what I have said? Or, is throwing your cute little slams and slurs all you have?

Sure.

It's as simple as the elections we have every 2 years. The people elect the President and their representative. Candidates decide whether they get on the ballot; not the rich.

You abandoned the other thread when I kicked your ass on the subject--you remember.

Now your cartoonish fantasy about some rich guy picking your representative and them voting his whim is hilarious but it's still wrong.

Getting on the ballot and getting elected are two different animals. Nice try tho.

His point was that the rich decide who get on the ballot....I showed him otherwise and he abandoned the thread.

You showed me absolutely nothing, and I abandoned absolutely nothing. You have never disputed what I have said with any facts to back up your argument, never.

 

[chikenwing]

How come a bunch of villages is more important than major cities?

They are not nor are they less important,equal representation is a good thing.
The electoral collage is a brilliant solution,for an imperfect world,it can me tweaked some,but it is just as relevant today as it was when they started it.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

This is a good question and the answer to it is 'to be anti-democratic'. The people who insist that America is a republic and not a democracy (a ludicrous and empty argument, granted)...

??????????

You seem to have gotten a complete 'anti-education.'

What an uninformative and over-generalized response!

In other words, Unkotare was spot on!

 

[mvymvy]

[QUOTE="2aguy, post: 11259641, member: 50072"
If we went with just the popular vote...then politicians would just go to the big states and their major cities....that would be it.........it is bad enough the democrats do that now and win a lot of elections doing it........[/QUOTE]

With National Popular Vote, every voter would be equal and matter to the candidates. Candidates would reallocate their time, the money they raise, their polling, organizing efforts, and their ad buys to no longer ignore 80% of the states and voters.

With National Popular Vote, big cities would not get all of candidates’ attention, much less control the outcome.

16% of the U.S. population lives outside the nation's Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Rural America voted 60% Republican. None of the 10 most rural states matter now.

The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 15% of the population of the United States. 16% of the U.S. population lives in the top 100 cities. They voted 63% Democratic in 2004.

Suburbs divide almost exactly equally between Republicans and Democrats.


If big cities always controlled the outcome of elections, the governors and U.S. Senators would be Democratic in virtually every state with a significant city.

A nationwide presidential campaign of polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, with every voter equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. The big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami do not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida. In the 4 states that accounted for over two-thirds of all general-election activity in the 2012 presidential election, rural areas, suburbs, exurbs, and cities all received attention—roughly in proportion to their population.

The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states, including polling, organizing, and ad spending) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every voter is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.

With National Popular Vote, when every voter is equal, everywhere, it makes sense for presidential candidates to try and elevate their votes where they are and aren't so well liked. But, under the state-by-state winner-take-all laws, it makes no sense for a Democrat to try and do that in Vermont or Wyoming, or for a Republican to try it in Wyoming or Vermont.

 

[mvymvy]

With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in only the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with a mere 23% of the nation's votes!

But the political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely agree on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states have included five "red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six "blue" states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.

In 2004, among the 11 most populous states, in the seven non-battleground states, % of winning party, and margin of “wasted” popular votes, from among the total 122 Million votes cast nationally:
* Texas (62% Republican), 1,691,267
* New York (59% Democratic), 1,192,436
* Georgia (58% Republican), 544,634
* North Carolina (56% Republican), 426,778
* California (55% Democratic), 1,023,560
* Illinois (55% Democratic), 513,342
* New Jersey (53% Democratic), 211,826

To put these numbers in perspective,
Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004 -- larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes).
Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004.
8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

 

[mvymvy]

It's possible on the GOP side because they rely on sweeping all the swing states by slender margins, like they did both in 2000 and 2004. The states they bank up big victory margins only add up to around 140 EC votes. For the Democrats they win the bluer states pretty safely up to ~210-220 EC votes or around there, and then just need ~60 or so votes from states with smaller margins like PA, WI, CO, VA, etc.

By the time the Democrats are trying to win in places like NC or FL...they already have sooooo many wasted votes in the big blue states like CA and NY that the popular vote is most likely theirs already (like in 2000).

Paul Ryan said, "If there's a thing I learned from being involved in the 2012 election, it's that we can't have this Electoral College strategy with the margin of error of one state." (August 21, 2014)

States' partisanship is hardening.

Over the last few decades, presidential election outcomes within the majority of states have become more and more predictable, to the point that only ten states were considered competitive in the 2012 election.

From 1992- 2012
13 states (with 102 electoral votes) voted Republican every time
19 states (with 242 electoral votes) voted Democratic every time

If this pattern continues,
Democrats only would need a mere 28 electoral votes from other states.
If Republicans lose Florida (29 electoral votes), they would lose.

Some states have not been been competitive for more than a half-century and most states now have a degree of partisan imbalance that makes them highly unlikely to be in a swing state position.
· 41 States Won by Same Party, 2000-2012
· 32 States Won by Same Party, 1992-2012
· 13 States Won Only by Republican Party, 1980-2012
· 19 States Won Only by Democratic Party, 1992-2012
· 7 Democratic States Not Swing State since 1988
· 16 GOP States Not Swing State since 1988

 

[mvymvy]

The United States is the only country that elects a politically powerful president via an electoral college and the only one in which a candidate can become president without having obtained the highest number of votes in the sole or final round of popular voting.
—George C. Edwards, 2011

Why do we need to stick to outdated legislation when it comes to one of the most important political decisions in the life of the whole country? Why not popular vote? We believe in equality and democracy but for some reason let somebody decide the fate of of this country for us.

Well, it's a pipe dream that the small states would ever agree to give up their power in the Electoral college. Outside of denying their citizens of water or oxygen, there is no stick big enough to cajole them into giving it up.

So the next best thing would be to get a constitutional amendment forcing the President Elect to BOTH win the majority of the Electoral College (currently at 270 votes) and the plurality of the popular vote.

What do you think about that?

Then you just might as well go to popular vote.

Well, no.

The small states like colloquially Iowa, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, all the way up to Virginia, Indiana, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and North Carolina like having the candidates campaign there. It means revenue for their media outlets, hotels, restaurants, etc... and attention for their issues. There is no way they are going to give that up so it's not even worth having the conversation.
.

To abolish the Electoral College would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population.

Instead, by state laws, without changing anything in the Constitution, The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes, and thus the presidency, to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by replacing state winner-take-all laws for awarding electoral votes in the enacting states.

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of pre-determined outcomes. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 80% of the states that now are just 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.

The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of Electoral College votes—that is, enough to elect a President (270 of 538). The candidate receiving the most popular votes from all 50 states (and DC) would get all the 270+ electoral votes of the enacting states.

The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all method or district winner method of awarding electoral votes, that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founders. It is the product of decades of change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founders in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Historically, major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed recently. In the 39 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-83% range -in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.

Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

The bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 250 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

NationalPopularVote.com

 

[auditor0007]

The United States is the only country that elects a politically powerful president via an electoral college and the only one in which a candidate can become president without having obtained the highest number of votes in the sole or final round of popular voting.
—George C. Edwards, 2011

Why do we need to stick to outdated legislation when it comes to one of the most important political decisions in the life of the whole country? Why not popular vote? We believe in equality and democracy but for some reason let somebody decide the fate of of this country for us.

If we remove the electoral college, then I believe it would be necessary to require a 50% plus one vote in order to win an election. Less than 50% would require a runoff between the top two candidates. If you remove the electoral college, we would be much more likely to see multiple parties and independents running and receiving a much bigger percentage of the vote. While some may favor this, in the end it would most likely just create even more chaos within our political system, but that is just my opinion.

 

[mvymvy]

The one tweak,that I think would make sense,going to a proportional count,not this all or nothing,this would discourage campaigns from just focusing on states like Ohio and Florida.New york is a fine example so is Cal,the cities almost always carry the state,disenfranchising the rest of the state.

Although the whole-number proportional approach might initially seem to offer the possibility of making every voter in every state relevant in presidential elections, it would not do this in practice.

It would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote;

It would not improve upon the current situation in which four out of five states and four out of five voters in the United States are ignored by presidential campaigns, but instead, would create a very small set of states in which only one electoral vote is in play (while making most states politically irrelevant), and

It would not make every vote equal.

It would not guarantee the Presidency to the candidate with the most popular votes in the country.

 

[mvymvy]

The United States is the only country that elects a politically powerful president via an electoral college and the only one in which a candidate can become president without having obtained the highest number of votes in the sole or final round of popular voting.
—George C. Edwards, 2011

Why do we need to stick to outdated legislation when it comes to one of the most important political decisions in the life of the whole country? Why not popular vote? We believe in equality and democracy but for some reason let somebody decide the fate of of this country for us.

If we remove the electoral college, then I believe it would be necessary to require a 50% plus one vote in order to win an election. Less than 50% would require a runoff between the top two candidates. If you remove the electoral college, we would be much more likely to see multiple parties and independents running and receiving a much bigger percentage of the vote. While some may favor this, in the end it would most likely just create even more chaos within our political system, but that is just my opinion.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes, and thus the presidency, to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country.

With the current system of electing the President, none of the states requires that a presidential candidate receive anything more than the most popular votes in order to receive all of the state's or district’s electoral votes.

Not a single legislative bill has been introduced in any state legislature in recent decades (among the more than 100,000 bills that are introduced in every two-year period by the nation's 7,300 state legislators) proposing to change the existing universal practice of the states to award electoral votes to the candidate who receives a plurality (as opposed to absolute majority) of the votes (statewide or district-wide). There is no evidence of any public sentiment in favor of imposing such a requirement.

If an Electoral College type of arrangement were essential for avoiding a proliferation of candidates and people being elected with low percentages of the vote, we should see evidence of these conjectured outcomes in elections that do not employ such an arrangement. In elections in which the winner is the candidate receiving the most votes throughout the entire jurisdiction served by that office, historical evidence shows that there is no massive proliferation of third-party candidates and candidates do not win with small percentages. For example, in 905 elections for governor in the last 60 years, the winning candidate received more than 50% of the vote in over 91% of the elections. The winning candidate received more than 45% of the vote in 98% of the elections. The winning candidate received more than 40% of the vote in 99% of the elections. No winning candidate received less than 35% of the popular vote.

Since 1824 there have been 16 presidential elections in which a candidate was elected or reelected without gaining a majority of the popular vote.-- including Lincoln (1860), Wilson (1912 and 1916), Truman (1948), Kennedy (1960), Nixon (1968), and Clinton (1992 and 1996).

Americans do not view the absence of run-offs in the current system as a major problem. If, at some time in the future, the public demands run-offs, that change can be implemented at that time.


And, FYI, with the current system of awarding electoral votes by state winner-take-all (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), it could only take winning a plurality of the popular vote in the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with a mere 23% of the nation's votes.