5th time candidate won most votes, lost
Clinton joins Gore in electoral history
WASHINGTON — For only the fifth time in U.S. history, the 2016 presidential campaign has ended with an Electoral College winner who won fewer votes than his or her opponent.
Under the system established in the Constitution of 1787, the winner is the candidate who wins the majority of electoral votes based on the state-by-state tallies, and that candidate is Donald Trump.
Hillary Clinton finished second, even though she beat him by over 200,000 votes in the popular vote.
For Democrats, it makes for a painful repeat of recent history. In 2000, Vice President Al Gore won 539,000 more votes than Texas Gov. George W. Bush, but Bush squeaked out a win in Florida, giving him a majority of the electoral votes and the presidency.
Before that, it hadn’t occurred since 1888.
The electoral system is a legacy of a Constitution written in 1787 as a compact between states, including Southern states that had more slaves than free men who were eligible to vote.
It was also an era when ordinary people living far from the handful of cities could not be expected to know leading figures of the time who could serve as the chief executive.
“So they decided to delegate the decision to wise elites. The framers thought they would be a check on demagogues and the popular passions,” said Jeffrey Rosen, president of the Na- Clerks unseal certificates of results at a meeting of the Electoral College, a system that dates all the way to 1787. tional Constitution Center in Philadelphia. “It seems antiquated, and it didn’t work as they anticipated.”
The Constitution does not use the phrase “electoral college.” Rather, it says “Each State shall appoint … a Number of Electors” that is equal to its representation in Congress, including its two senators.
However, by the early 1800s, the state electors were voting as a block in favor of the presidential candidate who won the most votes in their state.
Critics of the Electoral College have pointed out how slavery played a role in its creation.
Southern delegates to the Philadelphia convention feared their states could be dominated by the new federal government because the Northern states had more people and more voters. So they fashioned a compromise that divided power based on counting the “whole number of free persons” in the states as well as “three-fifths of all other persons.”
Thanks to this deal, the Southern states were bolstered and given more seats in House of Representatives as well as more “electors” who selected the president.
Pennsylvania may have had more free people and voters than Virginia, but the largest Southern state had more electors.
“It’s no accident that for 32 of the first 36 years the presidency was occupied by a white, slave-holding Virginian,” said Yale Law Professor Akhil Amar, a critic of the Electoral College.
While the Civil War ended slavery and the “three-fifths” deal, the electoral system survived as the method for choosing the president, in part because the Constitution is hard to change. Amendments need the approval of two-thirds of the House and Senate and three-fourths of the states.
Supporters of the system say it encourages candidates to campaign across many states, rather than focusing on the huge states like California or Texas.
But in practice, presidential candidates tend to ignore states where one party already dominates, such as California, Texas and New York, and instead focus on the half-dozen states that are deemed to be battlegrounds where either party might prevail.
Critics have insisted the electoral system violates the basic principle that it is voters who elect the president, so the winner should be the candidate who wins the most votes.
One such critic in 2012 was Trump, who tweeted: “The electoral college is a disaster for democracy.”