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

The Ten closest U.S. Presidential elections

10. 1844

While Whig Party candidate Henry Clay may have lost to Democratic Party candidate James K. Polk by 65 electoral votes, in popular votes he only lost by 1.4%.

This wouldn't be the first time Henry Clay has lost a presidential election too. In fact he has made five serious runs for the presidency, and three times as a major party's candidate, and he lost every time. He has even run for president under three different political parties: The Democratic-Republican Party, the National Republican Party, and the Whig Party.

It should also be noted that Polk also lost his home state (North Carolina) and his state of residence (Tennessee) in this election, and still won, making him the only person to do this.

Polk also only ran for one term.

9. 1968

While Democratic Party candidate Hubert Humphrey may have lost to Republican Party candidate Richard Nixon by 110 electoral votes, he only lost the popular vote by 0.7%.

Some people might believe that George Wallace, the American Independent Party candidate who had won 46 electoral votes, and 13.5% of the popular vote, may have acted as a spoiler for Humphrey, but at that time in our history the south (where Wallace had won all of his votes) was going over from the Democrats to the Republicans. In fact Nixon had won 6 states in what was once the Confederate States, while Humphrey only won Texas.

8. 1884

While Republican Party candidate James G. Blaine may have lost to Democratic Party candidate Grover Cleveland by 37 electoral votes, he only lost the popular vote by 0.3%

This election ultimately came down to New York, Cleveland's home state, which he won by only 1,047 votes out of 1,171,312 votes casts, narrowly securing him the election.

This is also the first time since the Civil War that a Democrat had won a presidential election.

7. 1960

While Republican Party candidate Richard Nixon may have lost to Democratic Party candidate John F. Kennedy by 84 electoral votes, he only lost the popular vote by 0.2%.

This election also had several controversies with it.

The margin of Kennedy's victories in several states was very narrow, even to the point where many on Nixon's campaign staff urged him to demand a recount in those states. Also there were allegations of voter fraud in several places, most notably the city of Chicago and the state of Texas.

Also in this election Virginia Senator Harry Byrd, a Democrat who opposed racial desegregation, won 15 electoral votes, even though he wasn't an announced candidate, and didn't even seek out any votes.

6. 1880

While Democratic Party candidate Winfield Scott Hancock may have lost to Republican Party candidate James A. Garfield by 59 electoral votes, he only lost the popular vote by 0.1%.

This is the smallest popular vote victory in United States history. In fact Garfield only won the popular votes by less than 1,900 votes.

5. 1796

In this election Federalist Party candidate John Adams may have defeated Democratic-Republican Party candidate Thomas Jefferson by 6.8% of the popular vote, he only won the election by three electoral votes.

This election was also a tad bit strange. Because of the way our election laws were at the time the person who came in second place in the election could become Vice President. So instead of John Adams's running mate, Thomas Pinckney, becoming Vice President, Thomas Jefferson became Vice President.

4. 1888

While President Grover Cleveland lost the 1888 presidential election by 65 electoral to Benjamin Harrison, he actually won the popular vote by 0.8%, making this the third time in United States history where a person who didn't win the popular vote won a presidential election.

Despite his loss, President Cleveland did make a come back, and defeated President Harris in the 1892 election by 132 electoral votes, making him the only president to win two non-consecutive terms.

It should be noted that James B. Weaver, the presidential candidate for the Populist Party may have cost President Harris the election as it could be argued that many of the people who voted for Weaver would have voted for President Harris, who only lost the popular vote by 3%, while Weaver managed to win 8.5% of the popular vote (and 22 electoral votes).

3. 2000

This is one of the closest elections in United States history, and one of the most controversial too.

While Democratic Party candidate Al Gore only lost the election by five electoral votes, he actually won the popular vote against Republican Party candidate George W. Bush by 0.5%.

Ultimately the election came down to Florida, where after several recounts in several counties, the Florida Supreme Count awarded Bush the state, and the presidency. This ruling is still controversial even to this day, with many critics stating that if a full state wide recount had been done, Gore might have won the state, and the election.

It should also be noted that many people consider Ralph Nader, who ran as the presidential candidate for the Green Party, may have also cost Gore the election, as he had gotten about 2.7% of the popular vote, which most likely would have gone to Gore if he had not run.

2. 1876

Democratic Party candidate Samuel J. Tilden may have won the popular vote by 3.1%, but he still lost the election to Republican Party candidate Rutherford B. Hayes by one electoral vote.

This is the closest election in United States history, and is the only one where a candidate received the absolute majority in the popular vote (51% in fact) and still didn't win.

The election was also very controversial too, with 20 electoral votes that were disputed, all of which were ultimately awarded Hayes.

This election also led to the creation of the temporary Electoral Commission and the Compromise of 1877.

1. 1824

While the election of 1876 is the closest in United States history, the election of of 1824 is probably one of the strangest in United States history.

Besides the fact that it had four candidates that all won electoral votes, all four candidates were from the same political party, the Democratic-Republican Party.

This election gets even stranger, as the person that won both the electoral and popular votes, Andrew Jackson, still didn't win the election. The reason for this is because he did not win enough electoral votes to be legally declared the winner, so it was up to Congress to decide who would be winner.

Ultimately Congress gave the victory to John Q. Adams, who was second in both electoral votes and the popular votes.

This is the only time in United States history where a person who won neither the popular vote, nor the electoral vote, still won the presidential election.

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.

10 People who could have become President of the United States

So far there have been a total 43 people who have become President of the United States, but there are also several other people who could have become president, but didn't, either because of a matter of a few votes, or a matter of fate.

So here now is a list of 10 people who could have become President of the United States:

10. Robert F. Kennedy

Senator of New York, US Attorney General, and brother of President John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy announced on March 16, 1968 that he was running for President the United States. Unfortunately, on June 5, 1968, he was assassinated. Many people to this day speculate about whether or not he would have been elected president if he had not been assassinated.

9. John McCain

Senator John McCain of Arizona has run for president twice. In 2008 he was defeated soundly Barack Obama, and back when he ran in 2000, he didn't even receive the Republican nomination, but many people have speculated that if he had won the Republican nomination in 2000, he would have defeated Al Gore, and by a much wider margin then what George W. Bush did.

8. Thomas E. Dewey

While it's true that New York Governor Thomas E. Dewey didn't actually come close to becoming president, many in the media at the time had speculated during the voting returns that he was going to defeat President Truman. One newspaper, the Chicago Daily Tribune, was so convinced that Governor Dewey was going to win, that they published in their headlines that Dewey had defeated Truman, which lead to this iconic photo:

7. Hillary Clinton

In 2008 the former first lady and New York senator ran for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States. She barely lost the nomination to Barack Obama, and due to the fact that the Republicans were so unpopular at the time, if she had won the nomination, she could very well have become the first female President of the United States.

6. Henry A. Wallace

Basically this is a matter of fate. If Franklin D. Roosevelt had chosen to keep his Vice President of his third term, Henry Wallace, and had not chosen Harry Truman to be his Vice President, Henry Wallace would have become the 33rd President of the United States after President Roosevelt died.

5. Hannibal Hamlin

Once again, this is a matter of fate. Hannibal Hamlin was Abraham Lincoln's first Vice President, and if President Lincoln had decided to run with Hamlin again instead of Andrew Johnson, he would have become the 17th President of the United States after President Lincoln had been assassinated.

4. Winfield Scott Hancock

While General Winfield Scott Hancock may have been solidly defeated by James A. Garfield in the 1880 presidential election, in terms of electoral votes, he only lost the popular vote by less than 2,000 votes. It is entirely plausible that if General Hancock had received a few more thousand votes, he might have become the 20th president of the United States.

3. Al Gore

Vice President Al Gore barely lost to George W. Bush in the 2000 presidential election. In fact he had only lost by five electoral votes, and had actually won the popular vote. He had also only lost the state of Florida, the state that ultimately resulted in him losing the election, by 537 votes. Even to this day some people still won't acknowledge George W. Bush's victory in that election, and continue to blame the Supreme Court and Ralph Nader (who many consider to be a spoiler in that election) for Al Gore's lose.

2. Samuel J. Tilden

New York Governor Samuel Tilden almost defeated Rutherford B. Hayes in the 1876 presidential election. He actually did win the popular vote, but lost the electoral vote by one vote. In fact, 20 of the electoral votes in three states were disputed, but were eventually awarded to Rutherford B. Hayes. This is perhaps the closest that any one has come to being elected president, and still never becoming President of the United States.

1. Benjamin Wade

Senator Benjamin Wade was President Pro Tempore of the US Senate at the time of President Andrew Johnson's impeachment trial, and at that time in our country, our laws stated that the President Pro Tempore of the US Senate was second in line of presidential succession. If only one vote had gone against President Johnson, then Benjamin Wade would have become the 18th President of the United States.