What if your candidate wins the popular vote, but is not made President?

a reply to: tadaman

Thanks so much, tadaman. We are often in agreement!

originally posted by: kendix1960
a reply to: vethumanbeing

This is the 21st century and I still maintain it is high time the people themselves should be able to vote for their president by direct popular vote, the positive aspects of the Electoral college notwithstanding. America, as a democratic republic, deserves no less.

Again; for the most part this process works. Take this on faith; (apologies to any offended) there was a Great Mind working within the human that wrote our Constitution. That document, though of human generation was a directive from the mind of our Creator; make no mistake about this, all you have to do is read it and the Bill of Rights and you will know the mind or true nature of God.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

I'm a great fan of our Constitution and of the Founding Fathers. But this great document needs to be amended from to time in order to meet the needs of an evolving country through the years. We must be able to make changes when the times require them. And the time for a direct popular vote to choose our President is at hand.

a reply to: kendix1960
Its not broken; it has yet to be truly tested. Perhaps this is the election year it will.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

Given the way things have transpired this election year, the Electoral College may indeed be tested on Nov. 8th! Stand By.

a reply to: eriktheawful

What happens if Trump wins the popular vote by 3 million but still loses.What then?


www.quora.com...


Assuming a two-party[1] system and equal turnout[2], we could win with just 21.84% of the popular vote, with our opponent picking up 78.16% -- a 56.31% point spread.

How we compute this
We want the most "bang for our buck." That is, we need to win the states which have a disproportional influence in the electoral college relative to its population. And we want to just barely win those states.

For example, Wyoming is a great state to win. It has just 0.18% of the nation's population (563,626 people out of 308,745,538 total) and yet 0.56% of electoral college (3 out of 538).

We want to grab the most disproportionately influential states. We'll take the following states.

The number after the state is an "Influence Factor": (% of Electoral College seats) / (% of Total Population). This is a reflection of the state's disproportional influence. The higher the number, the more disportionate this state's influence is. Understandably, the smaller states typically have higher Influence Factors, since the Electoral College guarantees them three Electoral College seats.
Wyoming 3.05
Washington, DC 2.86
Vermont 2.75
North Dakota 2.56
Alaska 2.42
Rhode Island 2.18
South Dakota 2.11
Delaware 1.92
New Hampshire 1.74
Montana 1.74
Maine 1.73
Hawaii 1.69
Nebraska 1.57
West Virginia 1.55
Idaho 1.46
New Mexico 1.39
Nevada 1.28
Utah 1.25
Kansas 1.21
Arkansas 1.18
Mississippi 1.16
Iowa 1.13
Connecticut 1.12
South Carolina 1.12
Minnesota 1.08
Alabama 1.08
Oklahoma 1.07
Kentucky 1.06
Oregon 1.05
Colorado 1.03
Washington 1.02
Louisiana 1.01
Wisconsin 1.01
Tennessee 0.99
Maryland 0.99
Arizona 0.99
Indiana 0.97
Massachusetts 0.96
Missouri 0.96
Georgia 0.95
Our opponent has won 11 states: California, New York, Texas, Florida, Illinois, Ohio, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Michigan, Virginia.

This gives us 271 electoral votes (one more than we need!). If we take just over 50% of the votes in each of those states, but 0 in any others, we get a total of 67,442,555 nationwide. The losing candidate has won a whopping 241,302,983.

Wow...just something to mull over.