Election Winner Determination in the United States: Plurality vs. Majority System

The United States presidential election system, often criticized for its complexity and perceived unfairness, is a prime example of a plurality system rather than a majority system. This article aims to clarify how a candidate, even without a majority of votes, can still be considered the winning candidate, especially in the context of the Electoral College.

Understanding Plurality vs. Majority System

In the context of the U.S. presidential election, the term 'plurality system' refers to the process where the candidate with the most votes in a given state or district wins. This differs from the 'majority system,' where a candidate must receive more than 50% of the votes to win. The U.S. does not adopt the majority system at the federal level, except for in certain states for some local or state-level elections.

The Role of the Electoral College

The Electoral College plays a crucial role in determining the winning candidate for president. In the vast majority of states, regardless of the national popular vote, the candidate with the most votes in that state wins all of the state's electoral votes. This scenario can occur even if the candidate does not have a majority of the votes cast. This is particularly true in states like Maine and Nebraska, where electoral votes can be split, but such cases are uncommon.

Historical Examples and Trends

The following historical examples illustrate how a candidate can win despite not having a majority of the votes in a state. The cases of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, John Kerry, George W. Bush (again), and Hillary Clinton demonstrate the prevalence of this phenomenon.

1992 Presidential Election

Bill Clinton won the election that year, securing the most votes in Arkansas and the District of Columbia. However, he did not win in any other state with over 50% of the vote. His opponents, George H.W. Bush and Ross Perot, each received less than 50%. Perot's presence resulted in him coming in second in Maine and Utah.

1996 Presidential Election

In 1996, Ross Perot's third-party campaign garnered nearly 19% of the vote. This increase in third-party support meant that Bill Clinton did not achieve over 50% in most states he won. For instance, while Clinton got over 50% in a few states, he was still under 50% in 13 other states where he still won.

2000 Presidential Election

The 2000 election is one of the most contentious examples. Both George W. Bush and Al Gore received less than 50% of the vote in almost every state, with the exception of a few. The decisive factor in the election was the outcome in Florida, which was extremely close. Both candidates received less than 50% of the vote in Maine, Iowa, New Mexico, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Oregon.

2004 Presidential Election

John Kerry won the 2004 election, securing 49.70% of the vote in Wisconsin despite not reaching the 50% threshold. This is one of the closest elections where a candidate won without achieving a majority in their home state.

2008 Presidential Election

Barack Obama, the incumbent, won states like New Hampshire and North Carolina with less than 50% of the vote. His opponent, John McCain, managed to win states like Montana and Missouri with similarly low percentages, primarily due to the presence of third-party candidates like Ron Paul and Ralph Nader.

2012 Presidential Election

Interestingly, in 2012, every state where a candidate won had voted for them with over 50% of the vote. This trend signifies a shift away from the previous years where candidates often won with less than 50%.

2016 Presidential Election

Donald Trump's victory in the 2016 election saw several states won with less than 50% of the vote. Hillary Clinton secured victory in states like Virginia, Florida, Arizona, and Minnesota despite not hitting the 50% mark. Meanwhile, Trump won states like North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin with similarly low percentages, with Evan McMullin receiving a significant portion of the vote in Utah.

2020 Presidential Election

The 2020 election further highlighted the plurality system in action. Joe Biden won states like Georgia, Arizona, and Wisconsin with less than 50% of the vote, while Donald Trump still managed to win North Carolina with less than 50% of the vote.

Implications and Future Possibilities

This trend underscores the challenges and complexities of the current electoral system. The requirement for a majority often leads to second elections or protest votes, which can be both time-consuming and costly. The rise of third parties has further complicated the process, as seen in the 1992 and 2000 elections.

Some argue that the adoption of a ranked-choice voting system could address these issues, ensuring that a candidate with a clear majority wins. However, any changes to the electoral system require significant political will and legislative action at the federal level, making such changes challenging.

In conclusion, the U.S. presidential election system relies on a plurality system, allowing a candidate to win without a majority of votes. Historical data and contemporary elections illustrate this phenomenon, highlighting both its benefits and its shortcomings.