Bush vs Gore and the Electoral College

[Mioshi]

I expect to get flamed for this short history lesson because I'm not a far left Democrat. I've noticed that moderate Democrats don't generally make themselves known here and I'm not sure why. Perhaps they're afraid of getting blasted. Anyway, I'm a history nerd and I thought these facts might be interesting to some readers. Facts are stubborn things.

If you want to make the case that Bush stole the 2000 election because Gore got more popular votes than Bush, you should know history doesn't support the argument. Three times before in history, a candidate has won the popular vote but lost the election.

In 1824, Andrew Jackson won both the popular AND electoral vote but no one in the four man race won a majority in the Electoral College so the House of Representatives decided the outcome. The House picked John Q. Adams who had come in second in both the popular and Electoral College votes.

In 1876, Sameul J. Tilden won 51% of the popular vote while Rutherford B. Hayes captured 48%. However, Hayes won 185 electoral votes while Tilden got 184. A special electoral commission picked Hayes to be President.

In 1888, Benjamin Harrison became President by winning 233 electoral votes even though he received only 47.8% of the popular vote. His opponent, Grover Cleveland received 48.6% of the popular vote yet receive only 168 electoral votes.

In 2000, Al Gore won 48.38% of the popular vote and 266 electoral votes. George W. Bush won only 47.87% of the popular vote but received 271 electoral votes and thus won the election.

You can shoot the messenger if you want, but I did not make these figures up. As Yogi Berra once said, "You could look it up."

Arrogant Newbie