Man'o'man, tailgater, don't get me started on ontology and epistemology before my morning cuppa! "Why" is a tricky questions in the best of times. I don't think anyone has won a 'why' argument since David Hume critiqued 'cause and effect' (and he died in 1776, well before our current constitution was written)
Of course, three candidates *did* win the popular vote but lost the election [I leave their names as an exercise for the Board], and 16 candidates won without a popular majority.
I don't know what you mean by 'why' but the simplest answer would be: The electors chose the president, not the popular vote, and under Article II, Section I of the constitution, electors can be chosen in any manner the state sees fit. Electors are *not* chosen by the popular vote, and in fact, until 1872, they weren't even chosen *in accord* with the popular vote in all states. Further, Electors are constitutionally free to vote for anyone they want, especially after the first ballot.
Just a few of the other factors:
- 'En bloc' (Winner take all) voting can mean that winning 51% of a block-voting state can get you more electoral votes than 75% of a larger 'proportional voting' state.
- The electoral college is deliberately weighted somewhat in favor of the smaller states, due to the fact that each state has two senators despite its size
- Voter turn-out does not factor into election results. If only one person votes in RI, RI will still carry three electoral votes. You can see how this could skew the results.
- Incidentally, quorum for an electoral college vote is only "one elector from each of 2/3s of the states", which means that an electoral college vote could be (but never has been) cast and won, with (in theory) as few as 34 out of 538 (16%) electors present.
- And of course, if the electors can't make a selection in three ballots, it goes to Congress
Fun, fun, fun! Shouldn't we move this to the political board? (Which I avoid, since folks don't like their politics cluttered with facts.)
