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%.

10 People who never stood a chance at becoming President, Part 1: 1800 to 1900

10. Charles C. Pinckney

Charles C. Pinckney received the Federalist Party's nomination for president twice (first in 1804, and then again in 1808), and in both presidential elections he did terribly. In fact in the 1804 election he only got 27.2% of the popular vote and 14 electoral votes, and in the 1808 election, he only did a little bit better, getting 32.4% of the popular vote, and 47 electoral votes.






9. Rufus King

Rufus King is noted as being the last Federalist Party candidate to run for president. He also did horribly in the election of 1816, with only getting 30.9% of the popular vote, and 34 electoral votes. This election is also noted as basically being the death blow to the Federalist Party.







8. William H. Crawford

The election of 1824 was probably the strangest presidential election in United States history, mainly because the winner had to be decided by congress (because no one won the majority of the electoral votes, which a candidate is required to win in order to become president) and all four candidates were members of the Democratic-Republican Party.

Out of all four candidates, William H. Crawford did second to worst (Henry Clay did even worse then him). Crawford only got 11.2% of the popular vote (which is worst then what Clay did), and 41 electoral votes (which is better then what Clay did).


7. William Wirt

Back in the early to mid 1800's Freemasonry was strongly opposed (especially in New England states) and actually led to the creation of a single-issue party known as the Anti-Masonic Party in 1828.

In the election of 1832 the Anti-Masonic Party fielded it's first (and only) major candidate for the presidency, William Wirt. While he did manage to win the state of Vermont and it's seven electoral votes, in the election in general he did awful, only getting 7.1% of the popular vote.



6. Hugh L. White

The election on 1836 was another weird election. While the Democratic Party fielded one candidate, Martin Van Buren, the newly formed Whig Party had four candidates: William H. Harrison, Daniel Webster, Willie P. Mangum, and Hugh L. White.

Hugh L. White came in third in the election, winning only 9.7% of the popular vote, and 26 electoral votes. Of course that is better than what Webster and Mangum did, but worse then what Harrison and Van Buren did (who won that election).


5. John P. Hale

The Free Soil Party was formed in 1848 to oppose the expansion of slavery within the United States, and had even fielded two major candidates in two presidential elections. The first was former president Martin Van Buren in 1848, the second was John P. Hale in 1852.

Both candidates did terribly in both elections, and in Hale's case, he only got about 4.9% of the popular vote, and no electoral votes.




4. Stephen A. Douglas

The election of 1860 of another strange and complex one, fielding four major candidates, including two Democratic Party candidates.

While the main Democratic Party candidate, Stephen Douglas, with only 12 electoral votes, came in forth in terms of electoral votes (John C. Breckinridge, the other Democratic Party candidate came in second with 72 electoral votes, and John Bell, the Constitutional Union Party candidate, came in third with 39 electoral votes) he did come in second in the popular vote at 29.5%.



3. James B. Weaver

In the election of 1892, a new third party, most commonly known as the Populist Party, fielded a major presidential candidate, James B. Weaver.

While Weaver did manage to get 22 electoral votes, he only got 8.5% of the popular vote.

This is also the only presidential election that the Populist Party managed to get any electoral votes.


 
2. George B. McClellan

In the election of 1864, General George B. McClellan actually ran against his president and commander-and-chief, Abraham Lincoln, as the Democratic Party's candidate (it should be noted that he didn't resign from the army until the election day, November 8).

While General McClellan did win 45% of the popular vote, he only won 21 electoral votes.



 
1. Horace Greeley

The election of 1872 is the only election in history in which two Republicans ran for president: President Ulysses S. Grant, and Horace Greeley.

While Greenly got only 66 electoral votes and 43.8% of the popular vote, it wouldn't have mattered if he had won the election or not anyways, because he never would have become president. It wasn't that he never stood a chance of becoming president, it's that he died on November 29, 1872, before the Electoral College could even cast their votes.

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...

Can a tie happen?

Many of you may know that it takes the overwhelming majority of all of the electoral votes in order to become President of the United States. While the amount these votes have varied at times in our history, ever since 1961 we have had 538 electoral votes, so currently it takes at least 270 electoral votes in order to win the presidency. Also, the electoral votes are actually cast by individuals called Electors who are suppose vote for the candidate who wins the majority of the popular votes in the state in which the electors are in (although this isn't always the case).

Now there is a problem with this.

What happens when no one wins the overwhelming majority?

Well, we already know the answer, because this has already happened before.

In the election of 1824 there were four major presidential candidates, all of whom won electoral votes.

Now, Andrew Jackson actually won the most electoral votes, but he didn't have the overwhelming majority of the electoral votes. Due to our laws the election was resolved this the United States Congress. The House of Representatives voted on who would become President (mind you they only got one vote per state, rather then one vote per Representative), and the Senate voted on who would become Vice President (in this case each Senator gets one vote).

In the end John Quincy Adams was elected by the House of Representative to become the President, while John C. Calhoun was vote in by the Senate to become the Vice President.

So back to the question at hand, is it still possible that only two candidates who win all of the electoral votes between that neither one of them still not win the election?

Yes, it is possible.

As you can clearly see the electoral votes are even, and if a candidate was to win the ten states with the highest number electoral votes plus either Virginia, or any combination of states that make up 13 electoral votes, then that candidate will have only 269 electoral vote (as will the other candidate).

Of course this combination isn't actually need, this is just the fastest one I came up with. There are probably dozens of different combinations that can cause this. Plus there is what is called a Faithless Elector who chooses to vote for the candidate other then the one that the other Electors in that state have pledged to vote for (or not vote for anyone if they choose to) and thus you end up getting a tie that way, or neither candidates having enough votes that way.

Then there is of course the possibility of a third candidate (or more) capturing enough electoral votes that it causes the two top candidates to not get enough electoral votes to win.

So in theory it is possible for two major candidates to get a tie in an election (or neither get enough electoral votes) and so what would happen is that for the second time in our history is that our Congress would choose who would become President and Vice President of the United States.

Scary thought, isn't it?

The current Electoral Map of the United States