Presidents who were elected with less than 50% of the popular vote (in the 1800's)

John Quincy Adams

The "election" of President John Q. Adams in 1824 is one of the most interesting elections in presidential history.

Besides not receiving the majority of the popular vote (he only got 30.9%) he also he didn't get the majority of the electoral votes either. In fact Andrew Jackson technically won the election, but because he didn't win the majority of the electoral votes either, the decision on who would become the was thrown to the House of Representatives, who ultimately voted for John Q. Adams.

This election was also the last one in which the Democratic-Republicans participated in due to infighting and the eventual splitting up of the party into the Democratic Party and the National Republican Party over the results.

James K. Polk

Despite beating Henry Clay with a clear majority of the electoral vote in the presidential election of 1844, James K. Polk actually only won 49.5% of the popular vote (Clay won 48.1%). The reason for this is because a third presidential candidate, a James G. Birney of the Liberty Party, won 2.3% of the popular vote, and might have cost Clay the presidency, because the Liberty Party was an abolitionist party, and the political party that Clay was running for president under, the Whig party, opposed the expansion of slavery (although not outlawing it).

Zachary Taylor

In 1848 Zachary Taylor became the second person of the Whig party to be elected President of the United States. He also did it after only wining 47.3% of the popular vote. Probably the only reason why he didn't actually get the majority of the popular vote was because of former president Martin Van Buren, who ran for president again under the Free Soil Party ticket (an anti-slavery expansion party).

James Buchanan

The election of 1856 was the first election in which the Republican party ran a candidate for president (that being John C. Fremont). Of course, Fremont did not win the election, James Buchanan did, but he only won 45.3% of the popular vote. The reason why neither candidate won the majority of the of popular vote is because of former president Millard Fillmore, who ran under the Know-Nothing party in that election and won 21.6% of the popular vote (although who actually would have won if the Know-Nothing party had not ran a candidate for president is unknown).

Abraham Lincoln

Despite being one of the most famous presidents in United States history, in the 1860 presidential election Abraham Lincoln only won 39.8% of the popular vote. In fact the only reason he won was because there were three other major presidential candidates running for president (including two Democrats).

Lincoln was also greatly hated in the south. He wasn't even on the ballot throughout most of the south, and his election was the tipping point for the start of the Civil War.

Rutherford B. Hayes

Not only did Rutherford B. Hayes win the presidential election of 1876 with only 47.9% of the popular vote, he's actually the only person to win a presidential election when someone else (Samuel J. Tilden) actually won the majority of the popular vote (that being 50.9%).

James A. Garfield

James A. Garfield barely beat Winfield S. Hancock in the presidential election of 1880, and he barely got more of the popular vote than Scott did. In fact Garfield only got 48.3% of the popular vote, while Hancock got 48.2% of the popular vote.

In fact it's even possible that Hancock may have lost due to James B. Weaver of the Greenback Party (who won 2.3% of the popular vote) winning votes that probably would have gone to Hancock.

Grover Cleveland

Grover Cleveland has had a very interesting presidential election history. Not only is he the only person to hold two non-consecutive terms as president, he also didn't win the majority of the popular vote in either of the elections he won (48.9% in 1884, and 46% in 1892)

Benjamin Harrison

In the presidential election of 1888 Benjamin Harrison, while he might have defeated President Grover Cleveland in the electoral college (and the election itself) he didn't win the popular vote. In fact he only won 47.8% of the popular vote, while Cleveland won 48.6%.

How the Electoral College should be done

Probably one of the most controversial aspects of a United States presidential election isn't the money spent campaigning, or the negative ads, but how we actually vote for the candidates itself.

The United States uses a system known as the Electoral College where instead of the population voting for who will be the President of the United States as a whole, individuals called Electors actually vote for who will become the President.

Now the only reason why a presidential election is is even held in the first place is because all 50 states have laws that state that the Electors must respect the wishes of the majority of the voters in the state they are in, and all the Electors usually choose who majority of the voters voted for (although this is not always the case).

Now while this may sound okay to some, this does have several flaws in it.

The first flaw in this is that the way the Electoral College is set up is that it can led to the person who did not win the popular vote to still win the election because they had enough electoral votes (this has happened three times before, four if you count the election of 1824).

The second flaw with this is that a couple of highly populated areas can literally give a candidate all the electoral votes in one state by only a few thousand votes, which in turn creates a huge amount of resentment from everyone else in the state.

There is of course a way to solve this problem.

As most of you may well be aware all states plus the District of Columbia are given a minimum of three electoral votes. This is of course to reflect the number of people that state has in congress (members of the House of Representatives and the Senate).

So here is what I feel should be done. Instead of a presidential candidate winning all of a state's electoral votes if they win the popular vote in that state, they should only be given the two electoral votes that is suppose to represent that state's senators if they win the popular vote, and that the candidate who wins the popular vote in a certain representative district should be given the electoral vote that represents that district, regardless of whether or not they actually won the popular vote in that state.

Doing this would not only more accurately represent the voting population of a state, it would also give a boost to "third party" candidates as more people might be more willing to vote for a candidate they actually want to for instead of voting against a candidate by voting for a candidate they don't necessarily like, but they can not stand the other candidate.

This could also eliminate Faithless Electors as well, as an elector might be more willing to vote for the candidate who won the distract that the elector is assigned to rather then actually becoming a faithless electors. Electors could even become no longer necessary at all and that the electoral votes be given out by the state.

Of course we could just do away with the electoral college completely and go to direct vote...

An Historic Election

While most elections are in their own way historic, the election of 2012 may be a truly historic election (and one that will get it's own chapter in our history books, and not just a page or two) and regardless of what you may feel about the outcomes, there are several reasons why this election will most likely be considered historic.

Here are several reasons why I believe that this election will be considered in the future to be a truly historic one:

Three Presidents, six terms

For only the second time in this nation's history has there been three presidents in a row that have held two consecutive terms. The only other time this has happened was from 1801 to 1825 during the presidencies of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and James Monroe.

Minority Run

For the first time in our nation's history two candidates from two different minority groups (Barack Obama being African American, and Mitt Romney being a Mormon, a minority religion) have run for president under the two major political parties.

Light them up

Washington and Colorado became the first two states in the nation to legalize small amounts of marijuana for recreational use by adults. Of course this doesn't mean that it is completely legal (it is still illegal under federal law, and federal law enforcement agents can still arrest you if you have any pot on you) but it does mean that the local and state law enforcement in those two states can not arrest you if they find a bag of weed on you, or catch you smoking a joint.

The 51st State

For the first time in the island territory's history the people of Puerto Rico voted to become a state. Of course it doesn't mean that it will automatically become a state, as congress must vote on whether or not to approve statehood for the island. This could merely be a formality and could come as early as December, or this could be years from now.

If it does happen this year it will be the first time in 53 years that a new state has joined the United States.

Women in the Senate

There are now more women in the Senate then there have been at any other time in our history. There are now 20 women who are in the United States Senate, or 1/5 of the Senate.

LGBT Rights

For the first time in our history voters in several states approved legalizing same-sex marriage. In the states of Washington, Maryland, and Maine voters approved of a state laws that would legalize same-sex marriage (note: this is also significant because in 2009 it had been rejected in Maine), and in Minnesota voters rejected a state constitutional amendment that would outlaw same-sex marriage (mind you their state laws still outlaws it). Also, Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin became the first homosexual to be elected to the Senate.

Get out and vote!

Today is the day that the majority of Americans choose whether we keep Barack Obama as President, or if Mitt Romney is to becomes our next President (along of course with other elections to choose to keep or replace governors, senators (state and national), representatives (state and national), delegates, judges, sheriffs, mayors, local councils, and new laws).

At least, this is what we tend to believe...

The reality is that it is not the majority of the American people who choose who will be President of the United States. In fact it is the majority of people who actually can legally vote who's choice really counts (which are United States citizens who are over the age of 18, and are not currently incarcerated, and have not been convicted of any felonies, or have been convicted of felonies but have yet to get their voting rights restored... and of course citizens who are residents of United States territories that are not actually states (with of course the exception of Washington D.C.) ) and not the people who are just to lazy to get up and go vote.

It is important that everyone who can legally go out and vote to actually go out and vote. It is the only way to know at least what the true opinion of what most Americans believe who should be in charge of this country, and thus how the country should be run.

Now there are some people that say, and believe, that their vote doesn't really count, but the reality is that your vote doesn't count if you don't actually go out and vote. No one is going to consider your vote to count if you don't actually vote in the first place.

Others might say that your vote really isn't going to make a difference. Again, this is only true if you actually don't go out and vote. Whether you believe it or not, your vote does make a difference.

Now of course there are others will try to make the "excuse" that there is no one is running that they actually like. Well there are more then two political parties, and in the presidential race there are more then two candidates. You can always check out what one of the other candidates want do and vote for one of them.

While we may have a choice whether we want to go out and vote or not, others will be basically be making your choices for you, unless you go out and make that choice yourself.

The reality is that your opinion about how the country is being run, and should be run, only means something if you want it to mean something, and the only way you can make that opinion mean something is if you actually go out and vote!

Why I'm remaining silent on who I'm voting for

The next presidential election is less than a month, and I'm pretty sure many of you have already decided on who you are going to vote for, myself included.

Now some of my friends are voting Barack Obama, and some of my friends are voting for Mitt Romney. I even have one friend who is voting for Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson.

As for the person that I am voting, I have decided to keep that to myself.

I have learned over the years that telling people who you are going to vote for can usually cause only one of two things: it will either make that person happy, or it will make that person very angry at you (especially if the person you vote for wins, and the person they vote for loses).

While some people might be okay with whomever I choose to vote for, even if the candidate isn't the person that they are voting for, there are some people out there who are just way to sensitive about politics, and have a great amount of difficulty handling the fact that someone isn't voting for the person that they are voting for, even at times taking it personally. Sometimes they make comments in an attempt to get that person to go over to their side, but usually ends up becoming nothing more then long and obnoxious rants that are full of propaganda and even conspiracy theories. Most of the time no one really reads these rants. Sometimes these rants end up become nothing more then flame wars filled with fear mongering, personal attacks, insults, and sometimes even threats.

I do not wish to get into any of that with anybody, be it a friend, or just a random person on the internet.

In all honesty I don't really care who you are voting for in this election, just as long as you are voting for the person that you feel is best.

I do care about the reason why you are voting for the person you are voting for, especially if those reasons are based upon conspiracy theories about the person you are not voting for, which I consider to be a very poor reason to vote for someone. In my opinion that is a very ignorant way to vote, but even then I will be silent, because I know it will probably not do any good, even if I feel you should have better reasons for voting for someone.

I also do not wish to influence someone's vote as well.

I feel that a person should vote for a candidate that they feel is the best person for the job after reviewing the issues, where the candidates stand on those issues, and whether or not you agree or disagree with them on their stances.

I do not however believe that a person should vote for someone simply based on who else is voting for them.

My blog might not be the most popular blog in the world, but people do read what I post here, and I don't want people to vote for someone simply because I plan on voting for that person. I want people to vote after making an informed choice.

People need to vote for who they want in office, and not because someone else told them who to vote for in this, or any other election.