Who are the only Presidents in US History that have won the electoral college but lost the popular vote?

Question

Please name all of them by there full names, as I am doing a report on abolishing the Electoral College.

Answer 1

In the first few decades it's difficult to even know how to COUNT the "popular vote", since in several states the people did not vote for the Presidential electors (as is now the case); rather their legislators did. (Thus, for example, Jefferson won the vote of New York electors in 1800 because Aaron Burr ran an effective campaign to win the legislature for the Republicans early in the year.)

But the basic list you are looking for consists of precisely FOUR:

John Quincy Adams (1824) [with four major candidates, NO ONE had a majority -- note this election was NOT decided by the Electoral College, but in the House of Representatives]
Rutherford B Hayes (1876) [though the popular vote count in this election was confused by MASSIVE ballot stuffing and Democratic intimidation of blacks in the South to keep them from voting]
Benjamin Harrison (1892)
George W Bush (2000)

These last three were all EXTREMELY close, at times when the national division between the parties was essentially equal and results easily switched back and forth from one eletion to another. And although folks are very conscious of the most recent case, note that the "mismatch" has occurred ONE time --in an extremely close election-- in the past TWENTY-EIGHT elections. . . hard to suggest its a massive problem.

Another thing to consider in your argument -- to suggest a NEW system, it is not enough to show that there may be problems with the current one (esp. if all you can show is ONE tight case in over a century). Rather, you have to argue FOR the replacement... and that must include an honest look at ITS possible downsides. For example, what of the distinct possibility that in a very close election the 'counting battle' of Florida 2000 would take place across the entire nation!! What kind of mess would THAT be!? (And how much greater an invitation to vote fraud in areas where a particular party held a lot of power?)

By the way, you also need to define what you mean by "won the popular vote", since different systems count this differently? Do you mean won a majority or plurality? If the former, the following Presidents would have to be added (though they DID have the most votes, they short of 50%, because additional candidates won significant numbers of votes). In addition to the four listed above, the following fifteen electoral winners won without a majority (though they had a plurality):

1844 -James K. Polk (D) 49.3%
1848 -Zachary Taylor (Whig) 47.3%
1856 -James Buchanan (D) 45.3%
1860 -Abraham Lincoln (R) 39.9%
1876 -Rutherford B. Hayes (R) 47.9%
1880 -James A. Garfield (R) 48.3%
1884 -Grover Cleveland (D) 48.8%
1892 -Grover Cleveland (D) 46.0%
1912 -Woodrow Wilson (D) 41.8%
1916 -Woodrow Wilson (D) 49.3%
1948 -Harry S. Truman (D) 49.5%
1960 -John F. Kennedy (D) 49.7%
1968 -Richard M. Nixon (R) 43.4%
1992 -William J. Clinton (D) 43.0%
1996 -William J. Clinton (D) 49.0%
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781456.html

You might also consider adding Thomas Jefferson (1800), since the only reason he had enough electors was that 3/5 the number of black slaves --who had no right to vote-- was included in the state's population count, giving these states MORE electors. (As a result, Timothy Pickering, a strong opponent of slavery, dubbed Jefferson "the ***** President".. NOT because they supported him, but more to imply the opposite -- that he was able to get enough electoral votes to win a "free election" ONLY because slaves who could NOT vote caused their masters' votes to count for more!)

Incidentally, if you're arguing against the Electoral College, one important thing you must consider is how campaigns would be changed if that were done. Currently Presidential races are NOT run to try to amass the largest aggregate total of votes, but to win the individual popular elections in enough STATES. (This is why it is OK to ask whether we should change the system going forward, but NOT to suggest that anyone did not "really win" because they didn't win the popular vote. They were all playing by rules that DIRECTED them to campaign to win states, not the overall total.)

Answer 2

upload on the very end of your "checklist" upload that the electoral college will in no way bypass away by way of fact it might require amending the form and since the small states of the union might in no way supply up the extensive skill they now have below the electoral college, relative to their inhabitants, any desire of passing an modification may well be doomed formerly it even grew to become an professional attempt. The electoral college forces presidential applicants to nicely known all areas of the country and take their concerns into attention. devoid of it, applicants would desire to particularly blow off Wyoming and North Dakota as nicely as different small states.

Answer 3

Bruhaha has a very nice answer. You may want to factor in that in the Kennedy-Nixon race, it's quite possible that the Daly machine in Chicago dug up enough votes (literally, as in dead people voting) to swing that election. And the farther back in history you go, the less certainty there is.

Answer 4

George W. Bush, for sure.

Answer 5

bush monroe because adams gave his votes to him in order to win