1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
fomenos
3 years ago
5

Which winning presidential candidate received the fewest number of

History
1 answer:
cluponka [151]3 years ago
4 0

Answer: Donald Trump 2016.

Explanation:Of the 58 presidential elections in the history of the United States, 53 of the winners took both the Electoral College and the popular vote. But in five incredibly close elections—including those for two of the past three presidents—the winner of the Electoral College was in fact the loser of the popular vote.

Here's how that can happen: The U.S. president and vice president aren’t elected by direct popular vote. Instead, Article II, section I of the Constitution provides for the indirect election of the nation’s highest offices by a group of state-appointed “electors.” Collectively, this group is known as the Electoral College.To win a modern presidential election, a candidate needs to capture 270 of the 538 total electoral votes. States are allotted electoral votes based on the number of representatives they have in the House plus their two senators. Electors are apportioned according to the population of each state, but even the least populous states are constitutionally guaranteed a minimum of three electors (one representative and two senators).

This guaranteed minimum means that states with smaller populations end up having greater representation in the Electoral College per capita. Wyoming, for example, has one House representative for all of its roughly 570,000 residents. California, a much more populous state, has 53 representatives in the House, but each of those congressmen and women represent more than 700,000 Californians.

Since most states (48 plus Washington, D.C.) award all of their electoral votes to the person who wins the statewide popular vote, it’s mathematically possible to win more electoral votes while still losing the popular vote. For example, if one candidate wins by large percentages in a handful of very populous states, for example, they’ll probably win the popular vote. But if their opponent wins a bunch of smaller states by tight margins, he or she could still win the Electoral College. That’s basically what happened in 2016.

Take a look at all five times a president won the White House while losing the popular vote.

This is the first of two occasions when the man ultimately elected president first lost both the popular vote and the electoral vote.

Back in 1824, there were four contenders for the presidency, all members of the same Democratic-Republican party: Andrew Jackson, John Quincy Adams, William Crawford and Henry Clay.

When the votes were tallied, Andrew Jackson won a plurality of both the popular vote and the Electoral College. But to win the presidency, you need more than a plurality (the most electoral votes), you need a majority (more than half), and Jackson was 32 electoral votes shy of the mark.

You might be interested in
WILL MARK BRAINLIESS !!!!!
Ede4ka [16]

Answer:

B or D

Explanation:

5 0
2 years ago
When did nine eleven ended?
Alchen [17]

nine eleven ended the day it happened September 11,2001

4 0
3 years ago
Why do you think President Truman dropped an Atomic bomb on Japan instead of invading Japan?
guapka [62]

Answer:

he showed it to them but never actually made the decision to drop it

Explanation:

it scared everybody and he felt to horrible if he drooped it.

7 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Texas leads the nation in energy usage and production. Please select the best answer from the choices provided T F
Ira Lisetskai [31]

Answer:

True

Explanation:

Texas is a large state with a wealth of energy resources and leads the nation in energy production. The state provides more than one-fifth of U.S. domestically produced energy.

6 0
3 years ago
How did the sit-down stoke DIFFER from a traditional strike in which workers walked off of their jobs ?
svetlana [45]

A sit down strike is a strike which has a somewhat nontraditional nature as it is when employees take "illegal" possession of their workplace by committing to a strike at their work stations. Furthermore, employees 'sit-down' at their station but do not work. It is considered a form of civil disobedience. This differs from a traditional strike as in traditional strikes workers walk off their jobs and therefore can be replaced whereas a sit-down strike causes work stations to be occupied and therefore does not allow employees to be replaced easily.

7 0
2 years ago
Other questions:
  • What is the general attitude of white settlers towards indians on the frontier ?
    9·1 answer
  • What describes an advantage oral history over written history
    9·2 answers
  • What did the indian removal act 1830 allow the state of georgia to do?
    10·1 answer
  • How did Kublai Khan organize Mongol rule in China?
    8·2 answers
  • What were the 3 major causes of WW1?
    14·2 answers
  • What was the name given to the series of laws that closed Boston harbor required colonists to put up British soldiers in their h
    8·1 answer
  • Which statement correctly reflects events on the Iberian peninsula? *
    6·1 answer
  • Why Alexander the Great conquering the world was so important?
    15·1 answer
  • What is one major similarity between the Supreme Court's rulings in brown v. Board of education and United States v. Virginia
    8·1 answer
  • How did the Ghana Empire expand its power, territory, and wealth?
    13·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!