Please name all of them by there full names, as I am doing a report on abolishing the Electoral College.
2006-12-04 03:18:05 · 8 answers · asked by Brandon ツ 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
IT'S HAPPENED 3 TIMES
In 1876 there were a total of 369 electoral votes available with 185 needed to win. Republican Rutherford B. Hayes, with 4,036,298 popular votes won 185 electoral votes. His main opponent, Democrat Samuel J. Tilden, won the popular vote with 4,300,590 votes, but won only 184 electoral votes. Hayes was elected president.
In 1888 there were a total of 401 electoral votes available with 201 needed to win. Republican Benjamin Harrison, with 5,439,853 popular votes won 233 electoral votes. His main opponent, Democrat Grover Cleveland, won the popular vote with 5,540,309 votes, but won only 168 electoral votes. Harrison was elected president.
In 2000 there were a total of 538 electoral votes available with 270 needed to win. Republican George W. Bush, with 50,456,002 popular votes won 271 electoral votes. His Democratic opponent, Al Gore, won the popular vote with 50,999,897 votes, but won only 266 electoral votes. Bush was elected president.
SEEMS LIKE THE REPUBLICANS HAVE A LOCK ON THIS.
2006-12-04 03:24:42 · answer #1 · answered by strike_eagle29 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
There have been four cases of this happening thus far. In 1824, John Quincy Adams was awarded the presidency by the House of Representatives, despite not having won the popular vote or the electoral college vote (neither he nor opponent Andrew Jackson had an electoral college majority). In 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes became President despite losing the popular vote to Samuel J. Tilden, because Hayes had a one vote advantage in the electoral college. In 1888, in a much more clear-cut example of a candidate losing the popular vote but winning the electoral college vote, Benjamin Harrison was elected President over Grover Cleveland. Finally, in 2000, George W. Bush became president after losing the popular vote to Al Gore, but winning the electoral vote. For more information on how the electoral college works, see this National Archives and records Administration site on the U.S. Electoral College (http://www.nara.gov/fedreg/elctcoll/index.html).
2006-12-04 11:32:21 · answer #2 · answered by Richard 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Add at the very end of your "report" add that the electoral college will NEVER go away since it would require amending the Constitution and since the small states of the union would never give up the huge power they now have under the electoral college, relative to their population, any hope of passing an amendment would be doomed before it even became an official attempt. The electoral college forces presidential candidates to acknowledge all parts of the country and take their concerns into consideration. Without it, candidates could easily blow off Wyoming and North Dakota as well as other small states.
2006-12-04 17:30:19 · answer #3 · answered by The Scorpion 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
George W. Bush (2000) and Rutherford B. Hayes. (1876)
Edit: also Benjamin Harrison 1888
Edit:as far as 1824 is concerned, Jackson won the Popular vote
but neither Jackson or Adams had enough electoral votes to win the electoral college. Jackson had more electoral votes than Adams but not enough. So election was decided in the House.
So 1824 does not meet the "won electoral College but lost poplular vore criteria".
2006-12-04 11:22:12 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Why do you want to abolish the electorial college? It has served our country well for approximately 230 years.
If you are writing a paper about this topic, please keep in mind that it was put in place to keep large population areas like New York, Boston, Los Angeles, and San Francisco from dominating the political scene. This was an issue back when the United States was founded and we are a representative democratic republic.
2006-12-04 16:42:16 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
John Quincy Adams, Rutherford B Hays, Benjamin Harrison & George W Bush.
2006-12-04 14:43:16 · answer #6 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
You should note that everyone that mentioned 2000, based their answer on the 'unofficial' election night totals. These numbers do not include the majority of absentee and provisional ballots. No one has ever actually reported the final 'official' counts.
2006-12-04 21:03:10 · answer #7 · answered by STEVEN F 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
your report will be a waste of time because it will never happen, the small states would lose out to California and Texas.
2006-12-04 13:12:25 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋