I already asked this question in another thread, but I think it is worthy to have its own thread. I know the answer, but I am curious, just how many people know it, who argue about democracies/politics in message boards.I assume not that many...

So here it is again:

What is the minimum % in the American presidential election system with what a candidate still can win the presidency??? (% of voters, who actually voted and not eligible voters)

Please try to answer it by yourself first, then you can try researching it, if it is too difficult. The result might surprize those whom believe America is a democracy.

P.S.: Be advised that the question asks a most improbable, but not impossible scenario.

If only one guy voted in the entire United States, that would be enough.

what if nobody voted?

Then obviously nobody wanted the job. You can always vote for yourself.

If only one guy voted in the entire United States, that would be enough.

Nope, because the election would be not valid in that case.

My assumption was right, no math or political experts here so far. Keep trying guys. And I wasn't asking the minimum number of voters but the minimum % of the voters, supposed there is a valid turnout.

Come on, you guys have the whole weekend! As a help, just think of the Electoral College system (aka bullshit on square).

Remember that all the electoral votes of a state go to the candidate who got the most popular votes in that state. So if someone gets 50% plus one vote in just the right number of states such that their electoral votes give her a majority, then she can get zero votes in all the other states.

Next, remember that it doesn't matter how many people actually vote in any state, it still has its assigned number of electoral votes. (Which equals its number of Representatives plus two--its number of Senators.)

So grab a table showing the total population of each state and its total electoral votes. Sort the table by population.

Then start at the bottom of the table with Rhode Island, Alaska, Delaware, New Mexico... the states with the smallest populations. Assume only one person votes in each state and they all vote for Condi. All of the electoral votes of each one go to Condi. Keep working your way up the table and keep a running total of electoral votes. When you get to a majority (I think it's half of 535 plus 1, the total number of Representatives plus Senators) then stop. You probably used up about forty states that way, the forty smallest ones. Maybe only 35.

Now assume that the entire voting population of all the rest of the states vote--the ten or fifteen biggest ones--and they all vote for Hillary. Not one vote for Condi. All of their electoral votes go to Hillary but we know it's not enough because Condi already got more than half. Yet Hillary got all the popular votes in the biggest states and everyone there voted. That's a huge number of popular votes, a large eight-digit number, perhaps even a small nine-digit number.

So Condi gets something like 40 popular votes. Hillary gets all the votes of all the registered voters in California, New York, Texas, Illinois, Florida, etc.

Condi wins with a percentage that's almost too small to measure. Forty votes out of something like a hundred million. Four hundred-thousandths of a percent.

.00004%

Roughly.

That would be enough to get a constitutional amendment going to do away with the Electoral College. :)

So the government is not really representative, then.

The Indian system is very different. We have a parliamentary form of government. We use the Single Transferable Vote.

The Single Transferable Vote, or STV, is a preferential voting system designed to minimise wasted votes and provide proportional representation while ensuring that votes are explicitly for candidates rather than party lists. STV achieves this by using multi-seat constituencies (districts) and by transferring votes that would otherwise be wasted. STV initially allocates an individual's vote to their most preferred candidate, and then subsequently transfers unneeded or unused votes after candidates are either elected or eliminated, according to the voter's stated preferences.

And proportional representation.

Proportional representation (sometimes referred to as full representation, or PR), is an electoral system delivering a close match between the percentage of votes that groups of candidates (grouped by a certain measure) obtain in elections and the percentage of seats they receive (usually in legislative assemblies).

India has at the federal level a head of state - the president - and a legislature. The President of India is elected for a five year term by an electoral college consisting of members of federal and state legislatures. A system of proportional representation, with equal weightage for the Union and the States is adopted for the election.

Parliament has two chambers. The House of the People (Lok Sabha) has 545 members, 543 members elected for a five year term in single-seat constituencies and 2 members appointed to represent the Anglo-Indian community. The two unelected members are a relic from the past. The special dispensation of nominating two members of European or Eurasian blood was created as a transitory arrangement, at the time of Independence in 1947, to protect the interests of the departing ruling class. The 543 members are elected under the plurality ('first past the post') electoral system.

The House of the States (Rajya Sabha) has 245 members, 233 members elected for a six year term, with one third retiring every two years. The members are elected by legistators of the state and union (federal) territories. The elected members are chosen under the system of proportional representation by means of the Single Transferable Vote. The twelve nominated members are usually an eclectic mix of eminent artists (including actors), scientists, jurists, sportspersons, businessmen and journalists.

Remember that all the electoral votes of a state go to the candidate who got the most popular votes in that state.I don't think that all of the States approprte their votes like this.

What is the minimum % in the American presidential election system with what a candidate still can win the presidency??? (% of voters, who actually voted and not eligible voters)

ZERO. You don't need any votes in the general election. You need 270 votes in the electoral college. If the electors all got together and decided to vote for Rush Limbaugh, even though he wasn't even running, he'd be in.

When you vote, you are really voting for "electors" of a certain party. The electors are then supposed to vote for their parties candidate. But there's nothing in the constitution that says they have to.

Finally we had 2 pretty good responses, but they are wrong:

1.Froggle: You are on the right path with the EC and the way you think, but didn't take into account the minimium number of voters needed to validate a vote in the individual states, counties. I can do a research on it, but I am more than sure that having only 1 (or even 1000) valid votes per state wouldn't validate the voting process, thus they would have to redo it.

2. MadAnthony brought up another interesting point, namely, that the electors actually can vote for ANYBODY, and not just for the person who got their states' vote. (another stupidity of the EC). Lots of states has no penalty against doing such a thing, but if I am correct, some do. So it is unlikely that such thing would occur, although only 50+% is needed from the EC.


Well, my math was much simpler (I will wait with posting it until tonight) but my point was, that the needed % is much less than 50%.

Here is a cool interactive map of the EC:

http://www.270towin.com/

I really started to like Anthony's answer, but let's not suppose such an evil thing that the electors vote for somebody else, or that there is only 1 vote in
Maine (as Fraggle would have it). So let me modify my original question this way:

Supposed each state has a valid voters turnout (an average election, and voters turnout is evenly distributed among the states) and the electors vote according to their states' popular vote, what is the minimum % needed from the valid votes to be the president?

america uses a simple plurality system where the president needs to have a majority of electoral college votes, not % of actual voters. in the case of 2001 al gore had more % of votes than bush but lost out on electoral college votes. to win the candidate has to simply get 270 or more electoral college seats out of 538

So your answer to the question is...?

if you want to be anal its 50.19% of the electoral college votes

I want to be CORRECT, and the question asked about the % of voters, not EC votes. Your answer was already given by the way...

OK, I don't think I am gonna get it so here it is: about 25%.

It is possible, that in the most extreme case a candidate gets only 25% of the votes of ALL voters (who actually voted, not registered voters), and still gets to be elected president.

So the question arises, can you call a system democratic, when 3/4 of ALL voters vote against a candidate and still gets the guy as their President????

of course its not, we have the same problem in the uk. if 51% of constituencies are won by labour with a majority of only 1% and 49% of constituencies are won by the conservatives with a majority of 15% then labour still gets in with a majority in parliament despite more voters voting conservative

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector

Thanks for the link:

"Twenty-four states have laws to punish faithless electors. While no faithless elector has ever been punished, the constitutionality of state pledge laws was brought before the Supreme Court in 1952 (Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214)."

I knew that some of the states have laws against Electors voting against the popular vote. It is an interesting fact, nevertheless irrelevant to my question/solution...

So the question arises, can you call a system democratic, when 3/4 of ALL voters vote against a candidate and still gets the guy as their President????If that actually happened there would indeed be turmoil. Look what happened when the electoral and popular votes were only out of synch by a tiny fraction. Imagine the uproar if it were worse. The election would be legal but the incoming President would probably have to resign to avoid riots on a scale that would bring down civilization here.

And that wouldn't help, of course, because her Vice President would automatically succeed into the office. If the other candidate happened to be Speaker of the House then of course one more resignation would do it, but otherwise the problem would be unsolvable. There would be no legal way to install the popular winner. I don't think it could even be pulled off by a Supreme Court with so much disrespect for the Constitution that it has never nullified the War on Drugs.

It takes years to amend the Constitution, eventually we'd just have to live with it and try to make sure it never happened again.

Fortunately, the odds are against it. We're more likely to get wiped out by an asteroid.

I would like to see your math. We deserve it. :)

There is a movement in some states (California is one) to require their Electors to cast their votes for whoever wins the total national popular vote. I don't know which states would have to have had that law enacted to have fixed the Bush-Gore problem.

If that actually happened there would indeed be turmoil.

Well, I am not so sure, because:

1. These voters taking it like a sheep.
2. It would be LEGAL. Perfectly legal according to the book.

These voters didn't object to attacking and occupying a country that did nothing against the State, so why would they riot for such an irrelevant issue as a national election? (they also didn't riot against the Diebold machines, a statistical impossibility)

But finally somebody wanted to see the actual math, so here it is:

If the candidate loses big in the states where he eventually loses (let's say close to 100%) and wins very minimal in the states where he eventually wins
(let's say 50.1%) and he gets the EC by the very minimum (270 votes, thus basicly half-halfed the country by EC, not by popular vote) if you add the two percentages (100+50.1)/2= 75% popular vote, but only just slight majority at the EC.

Of course this is the most extreme case, but using the same logic/math a more likely scenario could be let's say losing the 60-65% of the popular vote and STILL winning the EC vote.

There is a website where the math goes into more details and it actually got I think 23.7% or something, depending on which states fall into the candidate's hand, but the point really is that it is a mathematical possibility to lose 2/3 or even 3/4 of the popular vote and still win the EC vote. In a democracy, of course... :)

P.S.: This is my lucky day, I have found the website. Enjoy!

http://www.squarefree.com/2004/11/01/winning-an-election-with-22-of-the-popular-vote/

I think my version is more fun. You saw how Americans reacted to the last election fiasco when the declared winner only lost the popular vote by a hair, yet you think that if the next one loses by a margin of 3:1 some sizeable portion of the 3/4 of the people who feel disenfranchised are not going to riot?

So in my version she loses by 99.99...% and 99.99...% of the voters feel disenfranchised. How many posters think there won't be a major tumult over that? Forty people out-voting a hundred million? A ratio of a million to one?

Even if we adjust my scenario to accommodate all the defects pointed out... Okay, maybe most states require a two-digit number of votes in every precinct so there would be a minimum of a couple hundred thousand votes for the winning candidate in each state that votes for her. And we throw out the states in which the EC votes are not apportioned in the traditional way, throw them in the pile with the states that vote for the winning candidate and limit them to the legal minimum number of votes. If it's a big state then our electoral tally rises faster and we can stuff the polls with pro-loser votes in several medium-size states.

We still end up with only a few million votes for the winner and close to a hundred million for the loser. The EC winner loses the popular vote by a 10:1 margin. Still enough of a disparity to cause riots.

Nonetheless I think even your way will do it. :)

Hey, let's test it! I am writing the code for the Diebold machines as we speak. We can even bet on it, I say no riots, voters will take anything right up in their asses...

I already asked this question in another thread, but I think it is worthy to have its own thread. I know the answer, but I am curious, just how many people know it, who argue about democracies/politics in message boards.I assume not that many...

So here it is again:

What is the minimum % in the American presidential election system with what a candidate still can win the presidency??? (% of voters, who actually voted and not eligible voters)

Please try to answer it by yourself first, then you can try researching it, if it is too difficult. The result might surprize those whom believe America is a democracy.

P.S.: Be advised that the question asks a most improbable, but not impossible scenario.

In order to be President, all you have to do is win the top 1%. Winner of the top 1% of the country, usually becomes President.

How do you become part of the top 1%? You get born into it most of the time. Ultimately, people decide who the next President will be, starting at the top 1%, then they create the choices for the bottom 99% to choose from.

Hey, let's test it! I am writing the code for the Diebold machines as we speak. We can even bet on it, I say no riots, voters will take anything right up in their asses...

Are you really writing code for Diebold?

The plan to side step the electoral college that California's legislature agreed to {I haven't heard if the Governator signed it} is dangerous. It states that each signatory state will give all its electoral votes to whoever gets the most votes in the general election. It doesn't come into effect until enough states sign it to constitute a majority in the electoral college.

At that point, it's a go. Now consider. It doesn'[t require a majority. Only a plurality. Suppose we have an election where there's a Republican, a Democrat, a Green Party guy, a couple indepents from the left and right, and a Nazi. Now the normal candidates split the rational vote, but twenty percent votes Nazi. Nazi's win!

The electoral college requires a majority, albeit of electors. This pretty much insures reasonable candidates. When only a plurality is required, a dedicated minority can seize control.

In order to be President, all you have to do is win the top 1%.

Clinton wasn't born into the top 1%. No, I was just joking about the Diebold machines, but check out the movie Man of the Year...

Now the normal candidates split the rational vote, but twenty percent votes Nazi. Nazi's win!

The electoral college requires a majority, albeit of electors.

I can't believe someone here is advocating the EC. By the way Arnold vetod the proposition.

I bet I can come up with a scenario that Nazis would win even with EC. By the way if nazis won using the popular vote, so be it, that is what the people wanted. Democracy is a devil...
By the way, in a representative democracy people vote for parties not for individuals. Thus the nazi would need a nazi party. Nevertheless it is what MOST people wanted.

The reason why EC was created becayse they wanted to control new, upcoming parties. What do you call the almost 20% voters who voted for Perrot? Disenfranchised...

The electoral college requires a majority, albeit of electors. This pretty much insures reasonable candidates. When only a plurality is required, a dedicated minority can seize control.Reasonable candidates??? You absolutely must be joking. Bush understands current events about as deeply and speaks his native language about as fluently as a 12-year-old. Carter is a sensible, good-hearted person but he didn't have the sophistication to get along in Washington. Nixon had absolutely no morals. Kennedy had nothing but charisma and a powerful family.

And those are just the winning candidates!

Ralph Nader and Ron Paul really don't look so bad. Jesse Jackson... well yeah okay. :)

I can't believe someone here is advocating the EC. By the way Arnold vetod the proposition.
Glad to hear it. I used to be against the electoral college, until it kept Al Gore out of office.:)
By the way if nazis won using the popular vote, so be it, that is what the people wanted. Democracy is a devil...
By the way, in a representative democracy people vote for parties not for individuals. Thus the nazi would need a nazi party. Nevertheless it is what MOST people wanted.
The problem with the plan Arnold vetoed is that it didn't require a majority, just a plurality. So the Nazi's could win even though a majority of the voters didn't vote for them.

Clinton wasn't born into the top 1%. No, I was just joking about the Diebold machines, but check out the movie Man of the Year...

Clinton, well, he is a rare exception, I'm not sure how he got to where he was, I think maybe he was just a shrewd genius. I think most Presidents ARE born elite and become more elite.