Talk:List of United States presidential elections in which the winner lost the popular vote

Citation of something that doesn't exist?
A citation is requested for the line which states that the U.S. Constitution does not require states to hold a vote. The fact that such a thing is absent from the Constitution cannot be cited. I would recommend however asked for the citation to dispute the claim if it is in doubt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.235.128.27 (talk) 21:14, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

horizontal lines on the chart
hello, I feel the first chart would be easier to read and identify which candidates were in which election if there were horizontal lines separating each year. thank you Ajlee2006 (talk) 07:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

The New One
Should we add the 2016 election or is it still too early to call that? 68.55.111.219 (talk) 04:12, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The 2016: Donald J. Trump section already exists. Peaceray (talk) 19:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The section is not correct. It should be amended to point out that absentee votes won't be counted until they are collected, counted and the state electoral boards certify the election. 2602:306:B8B9:DBC0:D569:2412:AA41:B6BB (talk) 20:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2016
Albanydog (talk) 05:40, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I request the removal of this sentence under "George Bush": Clinton and Gore did not often campaign together, a deliberate decision resulting from the Lewinsky sex scandal two years prior. This sentence and all reference to Bill Clinton is unnecessary as the election was between Bush and Gore and had nothing to do with Clinton. The sentence is a political bash by the republican party and does not belong on this page!
 * Padlock-silver-open.svg Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Andy W. ( talk ) 18:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Reason this Wikipedia entry exists
This Wikipedia entry exists mainly because Hillary Clinton and her supporters cannot accept defeat! Whenever a political body consists of more or less equivalent and autonomous subentities, like a federal state, it is quite common all over the world that these subentities appoint delegates that actually vote on behalf of them. The number of delegates depends on the number of persons each subentity represents, not on the number of actual voters within each subentity. Therefore it is possible that more actual voters support one actual political party, yet more delegates support another political party. Especially this can occur in the presidential election for the United States of America, where in most states all delegates for the actual presidential elections will be backing the majority within that state, according to the principle "the winner takes all". In many states of the USA this majority is so unchangeable that it hardly matters when people miss out on voting, so there is no factual need to vote. It will therefore occur once in a while that, although the one presidential candidate receives the most individual votes, the other presidential candidate has more delegates supporting him or her at the actual presidential election by these delegates.Amand Keultjes (talk) 17:01, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The timestamp for the creation of this article is . Your argument that this article exists because of events on 2016-11-08 therefore makes no sense. Peaceray (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree (of course) with Peaceray. Furthermore, this article does not say that the given elected presidents did not win the elections, only that they lost the popular vote and that more people voted for another person. Recently this happened with Clinton versus Trump, where more people voted for Clinton. It is a completely neutral fact. If anyone have problems accepting something here it seems to be you, Amand Keultjes; somehow you do not seem to accept the neutral fact that more people actually voted for Clinton. Due to intricate U.S. rules, that does not mean she won the election; it only means that the majority actually did vote for her. --Jhertel (talk) 19:23, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This article probably exists because of the ambiguity around phrases and concepts such as winning a majority of the popular vote, winning a minority the popular vote, winning a plurality of the popular vote, (generic) winning the popular vote, and losing the popular vote. Often, people say "Gore won a majority of votes in 2000 but Bush became President," "Bill Clinton didn't win a majority in 1992 and Richard Nixon didn't win a majority in 1968, and they became Presidents" even tho the situations are qualitatively very different; Gore won the most votes, as did Bill Clinton and Dick Nixon. You also have people now saying "how could Trump win with a minority of the vote," tho Hillary also had a "minority of the vote," although she won the most votes of any candidate running. There is also an article of plurality victories too. Atrix20 (talk) 09:49, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact
I'm removing the NPVIC reference. Much as I would like to see the NPVIC publicized, I don't think mention of it belongs on this list page. Criticism of/solutions to the Electoral College should be confined to that article, whereas this page is merely a list of relevant historical elections. Moreover, even if the NPVIC is successful, it will not take effect before Trump assumes office. --2600:1008:B009:43E6:5980:1AD4:B2A9:E1B9 (talk) 00:39, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * OK (from the ed who added it in the first place) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:56, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I have added a See also section which includes a reference to the NPVIC: I think that is appropriate for an article such as this. I.e., this article lists instances of a phenomenon, and the article links to a movement to prevent that phenomenon happening again. MrStoofer (talk) 13:24, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, include it in the See also section. This article is not exclusively about Trump or the outcome of this election, and the rules for a See also section dictate that tangentially related articles can be listed. This fits. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 13 November 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: move to List of United States presidential elections in which the winner lost the popular vote, for grammar's sake. JudgeRM  (talk to me)  02:15, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

List of United States presidential elections where winner lost popular vote → List of United States presidential elections where the winner lost the popular vote – Is there any reason to avoid using definite articles in this title, aside from making it more concise by eight characters? I think the current phrasing sounds awkward. bd2412 T 19:46, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Mildly support, but comment: if we're gonna get nit-picky on grammar, perhaps it should be "... in which the winner lost the popular vote" ? — Andy W. ( talk ) 21:06, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I would be fine with that. The title as it stands brings to mind a Tonto, Tarzan and Frankenstein sketch from SNL. bd2412  T 21:39, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * OK NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support List of United States presidential elections in which the winner lost the popular vote as current title is incomprehensibly bad. Ribbet32 (talk) 02:19, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support The current title seems grammatically incorrect; the new title seems to be much better. ~ Appleseed w (talk) 03:42, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I also support changing the title to something a little more grammatically correct. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 05:25, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per nomination and Andy W. &mdash;Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 07:24, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per nom MrStoofer (talk) 12:02, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support changing to List of United States presidential elections in which the winner lost the popular vote Earthscent (talk) 13:01, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No change. The question of grammar and titles is remarkably different than for content. Do we use newspaper style (where brevity and lack of articles is the rule) or complete sentences and proper grammar? Titles should be as brief as possible without leaving ambiguity. The current title is fine, since the normal grammar rules do not apply to titles. This is likely addressed somewhere in our style guidelines, but I can't find it right now. Here are relevant sources: Headlinese, Headline, Dropping articles in the title.... -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:55, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * BullRangifer, I'm annoyed by your use of quotes as though you were actually quoting bold when you say you can't actually find anything... which means you're just making a WP:VAGUEWAVE at the MOS.   I did look at the MOS and what I found was WP:CONCISENESS.  Under that provision, reasonable minds could differ whether the addition of a few words of grammar are better (or not).  Since we are WP:NOTNEWSPAPER we don't have the same space limitation that hard-copy headline editors have to deal with.  Frankly I could go either wayNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:26, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Support I'm not a native English speaker, and the lack of articles has confused me a lot. Let's support diversity on Wikipedia and be inclusive, especially on such important to understand topics.--Adûnâi (talk) 12:11, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support I literally can't find a reason why not to make the title sound like normal English. Teammm  $talk email$ 07:15, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. Either of the proposed new titles works for me, but I'll note that everyone who has expressed a specific preference for one of the two prefers List of United States presidential elections in which the winner lost the popular vote ( if you could clarify your respective positions on the "where"/"in which" issue—mainly whether you have any objections to the version with "in which"—that'd be great). Proposing close to that effect and subsequent move as soon as 7 days have passed since the discussion was opened; the WP:CONSENSUS to make a change seems clear. TompaDompa (talk) 02:42, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * in which  I already voted "support" above, but overlooked the more subtle question where  in which Andy asks us to go the extra grammatical mile. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:12, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * in which Sounds more precise to me. But can't it be "which the winner lost the popular vote in"?--Adûnâi (talk) 15:43, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That would be ending a sentence with a preposition, which is also considered incorrect grammar. bd2412  T 15:46, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That, to paraphrase Winston Churchill, is the kind of pedantry up with which we should not put. Ending a sentence with a preposition is incorrect grammar in Latin, but not in English. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 23:15, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * but not English in? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:02, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Support for the sake of proper grammar. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 04:16, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support move to List of United States presidential elections in which the winner lost the popular vote as it sounds more professional than the current suggested change. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 18:11, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support move using in which the in the title, per Millionsandbillions. Teammm  $talk email$ 04:52, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

I have requested semi-protection
I have requested semi-protection due to high level of IP and newbie vandalism. As long as the election is unresolved, we're going to continue to see lots of attacks, so protection is necessary. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:44, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Amen, thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Overturn EC
I'm not calling for its removal, but I'm not sure if that passage about the petition is extremely notable. 108.54.106.8 (talk) 15:31, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Notability is not a requirement for content, only article creation. It is mentioned in many RS. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:35, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Donald J Trump versus Donald Trump
Donald J Trump is necessary to be consistent with the other names in the article, namely Rutherford B. Hayes & George W. Bush. The names of John Quicy Adams & Benjamin Harrison are complete in themselves & thus they do not have an initial.

Besides, it's been Donald J Trump since it was added, so let's not change it on a whim & without consensus.

Peaceray (talk) 21:24, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The header should be consistent with the title of the Wikipedia article. Donald Trump's Wikipedia article does not include the middle initial in its title unlike both Rutherford B. Hayes and George W. Bush. To include the middle initial would go against consistency. Regarding the middle initial being included "since it was added" so it cannot be changed, read WP:ONUS "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Nothing gets grandfathered into an article. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 21:41, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I am only requesting consensus & not individual editors removing information without getting some agreement first. Just as the the statement above talks about inclusion, I think most would agree with a corollary that that "The onus to achieve consensus for exclusion is on those seeking to remove indisputable content", particularly since there is no dispute that Donald J. Trump's middle initial is, well, J.


 * Really, I am fine with consensus. Please, just do the due diligence of getting it first.


 * Peaceray (talk) 21:56, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * There is no obvious reason why the use of the middle initial needs to be consistent in this particular article when it differs in other articles, and no obvious reason why it should differ in this article from the commonly used name for that person. January  ( talk ) 22:16, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I support the Donald Trump version. Avoid the middle initial, please.  To me, the consistency should reflect the main article. Horst59 (talk) 02:44, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS to remove the middle initial to be consistent with the article title per WP:COMMONNAME has been reached. Making the change. TompaDompa (talk) 02:01, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I would agree that all article subjects should be named consistently with their article titles. bd2412  T 03:48, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Be consistent with title of main bio pageNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The middle initial is entirely unnecessary; it is rarely used compared to simply "Donald Trump" (which is the article title), as opposed to George W. Bush (to distinguish him from H. W. Bush) and John F. Kennedy or Rutherford B. Hayes (who are rarely referred to without the initial). 93 04:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Opposition to the following statements regarding the 2016:Donald Trump section
"There is a scenario in which Clinton might become president. The Electoral College, as originally set up, was intended to debate and vote on the candidates; the general election merely decided who the electors would be. As of November 2016, 29 states and the District of Columbia legally require their electors to vote according to the popular vote in their state, but other states still allow their electors to vote against their state's popular vote (earning such electors the label "faithless electors"). A scenario where Clinton wins is not impossible[12] but is very unlikely because about 37 Republican electors would have to vote against their party's candidate and their respective state's plurality vote.[13][citation needed] Various petitions are being circulated asking the electoral college to elect Clinton instead of Trump. As of November 12, 2016, according to FoxNews, one of these petitions had garnered over 3 million signatures.[12]"

My concern with the paragraph as currently phrased, is that it appears to violate a Core Content Policy, the Neutral Point of View. Despite statements to the contrary, it nonetheless seems to overstate the microscopic odds of Hillary Clinton becoming elected president.(see here). Discussion of the original intent of the Electoral College is completely irrelevant, because that is not at all how it currently operates, as well as redundant, seeing as the Electoral College is explained in sections above. It is not merely unlikely that 37 out of 538 electors will change their votes, it is de facto impossible, given that there are no relevant historical scenarios to reference, meaning such a move would be wildly unprecedented. Lastly, while the segment about petitions is fair in regards to policy, it does seem to overstate the validity of online petitions, namely those from Change.org.

Keep in mind (as some of you may be curious), I come at this from a left-wing perspective. A neutral Wikipedia is something I highly value. If not removed, at the very least I request this be changed to meet the curriculum suggested above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.246.1 (talk) 2016-11-23T12:19:49
 * Regarding the chances of the Electors of the Electoral College bolting & voting for Hillary Clinton, I am reminded of the Snowball clause essay. I think that there are elements of Current Events Editing are worth contemplating as well. Nevertheless, the Change.org petition having obtained over 4.3 signatures is a notable news event, & I despair when I think of any other appropriate place for this other than making it its own article & linking to it from this article. I think that would be overboard, & while noting a scenario in which the Electoral College would vote differently than it has in the past may have the appearance of violating a Neutral Point of View, there are others who would argue just as strongly that removing it would also violate the same pillar. I think it best to wait until the Electoral College meets on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December (12/19). At that time it should be a moot point & I do not think anyone would object to removing the "scenario". Peaceray (talk) 21:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Article's title
While attempting to reverse the good faith change made earlier today to this article's title by JFG, I inadvertently changed it myself from the newly agreed upon title as discussed above on this talk page. Before I simply restore consensus title, let me ask, does anyone object to leaving "list of" out of the title? Thanks for your understanding. Drdpw (talk) 00:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You (both) should have asked, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and . The current status of disrespecting a clear and very recent talk page consensus is inacceptable. First revert yourself now, then ask if they want to discuss consensus over again. --SI 14:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC) p.s. And your title "United States presidential elections in which the electoral vote winner lost the popular vote", Drdpw, is substantially wrong as John Q. Adams did not win the electoral vote, just read the first section. Do you really want to additionally discuss if we kick him out of this list? --SI 14:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * , did you not read what I wrote? My mis-revert was inadvertent; I had no intention of disrespecting the earlier consensus. I intend to clean up my mistake. Drdpw (talk) 15:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry if my words sounded harsh, this wasn't my intention. --SI 15:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Support (dropping 'list of')  Dropping "list of" wasn't part of the prior discussion, so I'm glad this has been brought up.  I didn't think about it before.  Our manual of style discusses list articles.  The current article is much more developed than a short bullet list serving the purpose of navigation to detail articles.  It's sort of a hybrid, part list, part synopsis of each entry.   There is enough development of each subtopic that I favor dropping "list of".  Also, I'd like to thank  for recognizing a whoopsie and doing something reasonably low drama to rectify it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:56, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I moved the article back to the original after the RM. There should be a full discussion before making such a change (maybe convert this discussion into another RM, if not then at least have this discussion follow RM rules). JudgeRM   (talk to me)  15:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Good move. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Support (dropping 'list of'), per NewsAndEventsGuy. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: How about shortening it even more?
 * 1 Current: United States presidential elections in which the electoral vote winner lost the popular vote
 * 2 Shorter: United States presidents who won the electoral vote but lost the popular vote
 * BullRangifer (talk) 15:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Why do you want to remove John Quincy Adams from this article? --SI 15:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Support (dropping "list of") per the above. I like BullRangifer's suggestion #2 - shorter, accurate, and punchy. Neutralitytalk 15:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * withdrawing my vote in light of the J.Q. Adams issue. Neutralitytalk 19:56, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * This article already has the following redirects:
 * Electoral College popular vote splits
 * List of United States presidential elections in which the winner lost the popular vote
 * List of United States presidential elections where the winner lost the popular vote
 * List of United States presidential elections where winner lost popular vote
 * List of United States presidents who lost the popular vote
 * US Presidential Elections in Which Winner Lost Popular Vote
 * United States presidential elections in which the electoral vote winner lost the popular vote
 * I consider both ideas of dropping the "list of" and of shortening the title as being good suggestions. My suggestion is United States Presidents who lost the popular vote, so we don't have to kick Ol' Adams out ;-) --SI 15:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a potentially problematic title, as it begs the question, Why aren't incumbent presidents (J. Adams, Van Buren, B. Harrison, and etc.) who lost the popular vote when they ran for re-election included? Drdpw (talk) 16:11, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I also support (dropping "List of") while keeping the rest of the established consensus above as per MOS:LIST this is not a list. --SI 19:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

*(supplemental) Support Bullrangifers 2nd shorter option In addition to dropping "list of" for reasons I explained above, BullRangifer's subsequent suggestion is even better so let's go an additional step and make it United States presidents who won the electoral vote but lost the popular vote NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:45, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support (dropping "list of"), The consensus title agreed to earlier would work well without "list of", United States presidential elections in which the winner lost the popular vote. It's clear, concise, and not too terribly long Drdpw (talk) 16:11, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support (dropping "list of") for this article, at this state of development. bd2412  T 16:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Why do you want to remove John Quincy Adams from this article? --SI 16:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * John Q. Adams did NOT win the electoral college!!! Again, again and again: please read the discussion above and the article's first section. If you want to change the title to anything containing "who won the electoral …" then you are voting to kick Adams out of it! --SI 17:11, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Supplemental 3rd Option - United States Presidents who lost the popular vote;  This idea combines BullRangifer's 2nd option (above) but also takes note of Schmarrnintelligenz' observation that JQA was selected by the House of Reps and did not win the electoral college.   If we stick with the current form, which references EC victory in the title, we might have a list-criteria problem under the Manual of Style.  If you oppose this 3rd option, please explain what you think we should do with JQA? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC) I see now that BullRangifer's 2nd option moves focus from elections to presidents, which creates new problems, so I'm no longer in favor of that.  I think we should just drop "list of" and leave the title as United States presidential elections in which the winner lost the popular vote per my original !vote in this thread. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * copy of statement from above - That's a potentially problematic title, as it begs the question, Why aren't incumbent presidents (J. Adams, Van Buren, B. Harrison, and etc.) who lost the popular vote when they ran for re-election included? Drdpw (talk) 16:11, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't get because it seems like those guys' second election (where they lost the popular vote) should be included whether the title includes "electoral college" or not.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * There is no problem here if the consensus title or that title minus "List of" is used. I thought that JudgeRM had restored the consensus title, but I see that he simply added "list of" to my wayward move from yesterday. Drdpw (talk) 18:01, 28 November 2016 (UTC) I think this comment has been overtaken by moving/rename events NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That was an error on my part; I didn't notice you added "electoral vote winner" to the title. Sorry 'bout that. JudgeRM   (talk to me)  19:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Since there were no objections to dropping "list of" in the title agreed in the earlier thread "List of United States presidential elections in which the winner lost the popular vote" I made that move today. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

John Quincy Adams
FWIW, John Quincy Adams was not elected by the Electoral College. Indeed nobody was, in 1824. Therefore, the 1824 entry should be deleted. GoodDay (talk) 18:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Please, would either or  restore this article's consensus title. This J. Q. Adams drama is unnecessary. Thank you. Drdpw (talk) 18:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ bd2412  T 18:57, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and I apologize for adding to the confusion. I didn't "get" the nuances raised by this fracas until just now. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Admittedly, I didn't realize "electoral vote winner" was added to the changed title in the first place. I would've changed it when I first reverted had I noticed. JudgeRM   (talk to me)  19:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Qualifying elections of incumbents
It has been suggested in another thread that this article's inclusion criteria seems to include all elections, regardless if the victor was an incumbent. However, incumbents who won reelection but lost popular vote aren't included. I don't know if this is historically factual, and I don't know if the other ed correctly assessed our article in this regard. But since the subject was raised, I'm tossing it out there for the election experts to consider. Are we missing elections of incumbents who lost pop vote when they ran for re-election? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:10, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No. --SI 19:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This article is, and should be, focused on the elections, not on their participants, or their past or future successes. Obviously Nixon (probably) lost the popular vote in 1960 before later winning it to become President, and Carter and the elder Bush each lost the popular vote after having won it to become President, none of which is of any significance to this article. bd2412  T 19:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Good point, I guess "elections" should remain in the title. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you may have misunderstood the point that was brought up. The issue as I understood it was that the title "(List of) United States presidents who lost the popular vote" should by all appearances include every incumbent who lost the popular vote when they ran for re-election. Unless there was something I missed, the problem was specific to that proposed title. TompaDompa (talk) 19:29, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The point I'm raising here is that the issue seems INDEPENDENT of the various article titles we're debating, but it was presented as only a problem with one but not the other.  I don't see it that way.  If the title is some variant of "lost the pop but won EC" incumbents who lost the pop should be included.  However, if the title omits reference to the EC and instead just says "lost the pop" then incumbents shold still be included.  Am I missing something? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I think so, yes.
 * As of 2016, no incumbent has ever won the election but lost the popular vote. That makes the issue of whether such candidates should be included purely academical, for now.
 * However, there have been incumbents who lost both the election and the popular vote (most recently Bush in 1992).
 * A title about "presidents who lost the popular vote" would seem to include both (1) and (2). I believe that the issue of incumbents who failed to win the popular vote when they ran for re-election was brought up purely as an argument against such a title.
 * Does that make sense, or are we still not understanding each other? TompaDompa (talk) 20:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I apologize for not grasping the original implication. If we keep the title focussed on "elections" where winners lost pop vote, instead of "presidents" who lost pop vote, that will clear this up I think. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Table reformatting edit summary
I was bold and made a few modifications to the table of elections: removed the election number column, to conserve vertical space, as it's function was unclear and the information provided inconsequential; separated shaded-text party name cells and modified the abbreviation format, and also the legend to further explain what the colors and abbreviations mean (per MOS:COLOR); modified 1824 popular vote figures that didn't match those stated in the 1824 election article; changed turnout column link (from Voting age population to Voter turnout); shifted popular vote votes and margins columns to the left, to match the EV columns pattern, the votes column comes before the percentage column; and, modified the way notations are presented. Hope these are seen as constructive improvements by others. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 19:57, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Regarding sorting candidates by last name: I don't see any point in doing so when there are only five rows. Had that number been greater, it might've been useful for navigation (locating a particular candidate out of the bunch), but not as it stands right now. In general, I think columns should be made unsortable if there is no particular reason to have them sortable; all they do is run the risk of being accidentally clicked (thus inconveniencing the reader by changing the sorting).
 * Likewise, I don't see any point in sorting electoral votes by number (as opposed to percentage). TompaDompa (talk) 23:42, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Good points TompaDompa. General question to all: What columns should be unsortable? Drdpw (talk) 23:53, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * In a table with so few rows, I prefer clean and simple, i.e., no sorting and or other bells/whistles. Those features are clutter, but on a big table they more than pay for themselves with their features.  On a small table, there really isn't any reward but they're still clutter.  In my opinion, anyway.  It's subjective though.  Your mileage may vary NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Request for Comment and Clarification: "Losing a Popular Vote"
We seem to be using terms like "win" and "lose" fast and loose. Can we take a moment to build a consensus as to what it means to "lose" the popular vote so we have an objective standard to measure future edits and avoid edit-warring? Here are a few options: If standard #1 is adopted, Donald Trump would have lost the popular vote in 2016 (along with every other candidate, but this would not materially change the article since he would still be listed as a president who "won" despite "losing"). If standard #2 is adopted it would mean Donald Trump lost the popular vote in 2016 along with every other candidate except Hillary Clinton, but - again - the article would not materially change (Trump would still be listed as a president who "won" despite "losing"). If standard #3 is adopted, only Frank Atwood would have lost the popular vote in 2016 as he received 337 votes, fewer than any other candidate (this would materially change the article). LavaBaron (talk) 18:25, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Lose the Popular Vote means to Secure Less than 50% of the Popular Vote
 * 2) Lose the Popular Vote means to Secure Fewer Popular Votes than the Person who Received the Most Popular Votes
 * 3) Lose the Popular Vote means to Secure Fewer Popular Votes than Any Other Candidate

Survey

 * #1 To a global, non-American audience to "lose" a vote would mean to secure less than 50% of the vote; as of the date of this RfC, a second-round presidential election is occurring in Austria because no one "won" (secured 50%+1) the vote in the first round ... a two-round election has been discussed in France because conventional wisdom is that no one will "win" (secure 50%+1) the vote in the first round - we should use terminology that has broad, international understanding and is not American-centric. LavaBaron (talk) 18:25, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * #2 We should use terminology that is applicable to the nation about which the article is written. In federal (and most state) elections in the United States a person can win the popular vote and be elected to office by receiving the highest number of votes, even if that amounts to less than 50% (a plurality) of the vote. For example, in the U.S. presidential elections of 1992 and 1996, while no candidate won a majority of votes cast, Bill Clinton got the most votes both times, and so won the popular vote; everyone else got fewer votes, thus they lost the popular vote. (the same holds true for the elections of 1912, 1948, and 1968). Drdpw (talk) 19:25, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest we expand the article to include the elections of 1912, 1948, 1968, 1992, and 1996. LavaBaron (talk) 19:41, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Why? The winner of those elections also won (with either a majority or a plurality) the popular vote; this article is about candidates who won the election even though they lost the popular vote (ie. didn't get the most votes). Drdpw (talk) 19:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The winners of those elections won despite losing (failing to get a majority) the popular vote. LavaBaron (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not the way Rss state it. Drdpw (talk) 20:57, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's an important grouping but one that should maybe be presented in a separate list/article. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * In the United States, "winning" the popular vote means getting a plurality. Dustin  ( talk ) 20:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * #2 The meaning of both "win" and "lose" depends on the nature of the contest. In a winner-takes-all voting system (which this is), "winning" means performing better than anyone else and "losing" means not winning. I disagree that this is an issue related to Americentrism; rather, I'd argue that this is an issue related to unfamiliarity with the kind of voting system in place in the US presidential election. TompaDompa (talk) 19:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's actually not a "winner take all" system as evidence by the fact the "winner" didn't "take" anything. Parliamentary elections in Canada and Britain and congressional elections in California are "winner take all" systems because the winner (whomever gets a plurality) becomes legally entitled to the parliamentary seat (the "all"). In this case the recipient of the voting plurality did not become legally entitled to the office up for election, so it is not a "winner take all" system. In order for it to be a "winner take all" system the "winner" has to actually take. This is why this RfC is needed; we're dealing with an etymologically confusing situation. LavaBaron (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You are correct, the national popular vote on Election Day is not "winner take all". In fact, the national popular vote is more or less irrelevant to who becomes President. On the other hand, the vote of the Electoral College, which is the direct presidential election, is "winner take all". Bear in mind that when individuals cast ballots in the general election, they're choosing presidential electors in 51 (50 states + the District of Columbia) distinct elections. These elections, with the exception of Nebraska's and Maine's, are also "winner take all" (winner gets all of that state's allotted electoral votes). Drdpw (talk) 20:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * When RSs say "winner take all" they're often (usually?) speaking about individual states' apportionment of electoral college votes, nearly all of which award ALL the electoral college votes to whever "won" the popular vote in that state (where won means "got more than the next person"). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:50, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * #2 (even though survey asks the wrong question) We should follow the convention of greatest WP:Weight of WP:Reliable sources writing on this topic, and if necessary we can articulate that meaning.   Outside erudite/academic writings, the vast majority (damn near all?) of the pop media sources are just comparing who got the most versus who got less.  As an editors who has added "lost" or worked on sentences with "lost", that is the meaning I assumed was meant.  We should especially avoid explaining in this article how our system works in detail comparison to other systems, and instead provide nav links to our sister articles which cover that.  So a better question than what do we mean by "win" or "lose" in context of the popular vote is what do the RSs mean when they write about this topic?   Outside of stuffy technical writing, I think the answer is pretty much #2.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:08, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * #2 on the basis that the terminology appropriate to America should apply. I also think the assertion in the initial !vote that "to a global, non-American audience to "lose" a vote would mean to secure less than 50% of the vote" is incorrect as many countries with presidents use plurality voting and do not have a second round. I'm not American and it's obvious to me what the current title means. Number   5  7  13:07, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * #2 because reliable sources always indicate that someone won the popular vote, even if it's not always the winner of the electoral vote. Clinton did not win over 50% of the popular vote, but she won more than anyone else and therefore won the popular vote. Going with #1 or #3 would be to totally ignore what reliable sources have to say.Earthscent (talk) 13:16, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * #2 See all above, except the first one.  Adotchar | reply here  10:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * #2 50% is meaningless as far as popular vote in the US is concerned, and being the "winner" is symbolic at best. Timothy Joseph Wood  13:27, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * #2. Even in a two-round system the media will talk about the "winner of the first round" (google it). "Winner" always means the candidate that got more votes than any other. I would go further and say that in a system like the US, "loser" means the candidate who got the second-most votes, regardless of how many candidates there were altogether. Scolaire (talk) 14:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * #2: If we used #1 then pretty much every president would have "lost" the popular vote even though they "won" the presidency especially in cases where a there was a major third party candidate e.g. Bill Clinton. It's that very common in American elections for a presidential candidate to win a majority of votes. Furthermore, a person getting most of the popular vote while also "losing" is where most of the concern is. I'm pretty sure most of the reliable sources would be aligned with #2 as well so we should remember to follow WP:RS. Summoned by bot. Prcc27❄ (talk) 20:19, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * #2 – In the United States, popular vote winners are determined by plurality, not majority. You would find very few people who would say that Al Gore did not win the popular vote in the 2000 election. Anyway, considering this is about popular vote losers, in the United States, the popular vote "loser" is the person who failed to meet the aforementioned determination of the popular vote "winner". Dustin  ( talk ) 20:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * #2, as this is what it means in the U.S. system. bd2412  T 21:05, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Discussion
I can see how it could be confusing for people not familiar with American voting. A less ambiguous way to describe the result would be "Clinton received a plurality of the popular vote." Jc3s5h (talk) 19:10, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I would very much agree with this, Jc3s5h, though I think that ship has sailed, unfortunately. LavaBaron (talk) 19:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that word makes the article less accessible than using simpler words to explain same thing.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:12, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I can't see a way to help people that would be confused by win or lose. They play Soccer in Australia for instance. In Soccer the winner is the person who gets the most points. Not 51% of the points but simply the most points. The winner of the popular vote is the person that gets the higher amount of votes. The statutory requirement to win an election in Australia may be to receive 51% of votes but the Statutory requirement to become US President is to receive more than 50% of Electoral votes, or 270+ Electoral votes, in the electoral college. You can attempt to apply statutory election laws of Australia to the United States but it's not very logical. And If you are doing so then nothing we write here can help you.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 09:48, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Affect on lead paragraph
I think the lead paragraph ought to make readers aware of the distinction between #1 and #2. Only one person who lost a presidential election secured more than 50% of the popular vote, whereas five people who lost a presidential election secured more popular votes than the person who won the election. I have expressed this thought in the lead paragraph as follows: in four elections where the winner lost the popular vote, no candidate won a majority of the national popular vote, whereas Samuel Tilden in 1876 lost the election while winning a majority rather than a plurality of the national popular vote.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:59, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * since the article is about elections in which someone did not receive the most votes (winning the most, not most of, is how popular vote is defined in a non-runoff system), whether the popular vote winner got > 50% is immaterial. It adds no value to the header and might mislead a person to interpret "winning the popular vote" as somehow relating to 50% in a formal manner, when it doesn't. Atrix20 (talk) 09:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree with this edit. The removed material doesn't relate to "winning" the popular vote only if Wikipedia editors opt to use the word "winning" in a particular way.  Reliable sources say that 50% of votes is exactly as immaterial as a plurality of votes, because the entire popular vote is immaterial to winning the American presidency.  I will try re-wording this material in a more palatable manner.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Expanding the table at top right of article to include 1824
It seems peculiar that the table at top right excludes the United States presidential election, 1824. I will include it if no one objects (I can't imagine why anyone would).Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:BOLD Morphdog (talk) 20:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Was WP:BOLD and did my best. Learned many things about Template:Bar box and Template:Efn. Hope I did okay. TrivialJim (talk) 16:56, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Electoral flip of the popular vote?
"...contributing to the electoral flip of the popular vote." What does this mean? It makes no sense. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

1960 election
I question whether this material belongs in this article. 1960 was an anomaly, and the situation with the Alabama electors was bizarre. That doesn't necessarily make it a good choice for an article about Presidents who have lost the popular vote. Kennedy did not lose the popular vote in 1960. Arguments that Byrd, not Kennedy, should have received all of the Electoral votes in Alabama are interesting, and worthy of debate. Arguments that Byrd should have in turn been credited with another 334,000 popular votes (thereby giving the overall national popular vote to Nixon) are a different story. These arguments, while also the subject of valid debate, include a "what if" scenario. They also include a scenario that involves Byrd being credited with hundreds of thousands of popular votes that he clearly did not receive. It's a complex situation, but even assumingstrictly for the sake of argumentthat Nixon should have been the rightful winner, the bottom line is he wasn't. Fair or unfair, there is no dispute that Kennedy won the popular vote in 1960. I could see perhaps a brief footnote, alluding to the anomaly that was 1960, with a link to the article for those interested in learning more about it, but I don't think it merits coverage within this article. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:20, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with this sentiment. Afasmit (talk) 07:15, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Fake Presidents
Rather than repeat a clumsy expression such as "US Presidents who lost the popular vote," why not follow the current incumbent's practice and refer to them as "Fake Presidents?" NRPanikker (talk) 22:16, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the 2016 Election
I find problems with this line in the section regarding the '16 presidential elections:

"After the election, Trump claimed that he "won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally".[32] This claim was judged untrue by multiple fact-checkers.[33]"

I hate to have to get political here, but the claim that Trump's claim was judged untrue by multiple fact checkers is coming from a pro-left publication (The New York Times -- if you don't believe me, the headline contains the word "lie", usually an indication of [yellow journalism] or potential bias), and some of the facts may be distorted. I believe it's necessary to remove the final part and replace it with this, as a scientific hypothesis cannot be "true" or "untrue", only supported by the data or unsupported by the gathered data:

"After the election, Trump claimed that he "won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally".[32] This claim has not been officially supported by any of the data from the election."

Of course, a reference to all the official data would be required at the end. Just don't link that article, because no media outlet analyst, liberal or conservative, is going to give you a straight answer. The raw data should be presented to allow people to make their own sense of it.

If you want, the hypothesis can be scrapped if nothing seems to be supporting it, and changed to a more logical assumption based on the data for the final theory, but no hypothesis or theory is ever true. This is the nature of the scientific process, and, chances are, people are going to have different ways of interpreting the data, and, as I have found from looking at various data around the internet, not all the data can be 100% accurate. This is also the nature of the scientific process.

Or this could be political science, which means that if your hypothesis doesn't conform with reality, reality must be changed. You choose.

70.187.183.248 (talk) 07:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * We could just reword it to say "After the election, Trump speculated, without data or evidence in support of it, that..." bd2412  T 17:45, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Your premise is wrong. Fact-checking necessitates the use of terms as "lies", and the New York Times is not a left-wing newspaper.Dimadick (talk) 11:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

1876 and Colorado
In the opening section, we say "the 1824 election is distinguishable from the latter four elections, which were held after all states had instituted the popular selection of electors..." This isn't quite correct. In the 1876 election, Colorado, which had only been admitted to the Union in August, didn't have time to organize a popular vote, so its 3 electors were chosen by the state legislature. Since Hayes ended up winning by a single electoral vote, these three electors were crucial to his victory; however, since Tilden won the popular vote by 250K votes and the population of the entire state of Colorado was less than 200K people, it wouldn't have changed the popular victory even in Coloradans had voted.

I'm not quite sure how to address this or even to address it in the intro, since it strikes me as possibly unnecessarily complicating things. However, would it be worth a mention in the 1876 section of the article? --Jfruh (talk) 18:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

On Trump's Claim that Clinton used fake votes to gain the popular vote
Is it really within the scope of this article to even mention the idea that some of the popular votes were faked? He made a claim about this but that doesn't mean it's within scope to mention it as well as say this is a false claim. Who knows, maybe she did? The argument about this being true or not is really the subject of another article. Also the whole sentence is formatted poorly look at where the quotation mark starts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.252.40.216 (talk) 13:28, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree that it might not be relevant to this page, though definitely relevant to the 2016 election page.

As of this moment, however, I noticed there is an inaccurate depiction of Trump's "3-5 mil illegal immigrants voted" claim. As of now it states Trump "Correctly" claimed that millions of illegals voted, but that has been clearly debunked, and the cited links here lead to dead pages for NYT and PolitiFact. Seems like a clearly partisan edit that should be amended immediately.

Here is the actual working page for PolitiFact addressing that claim, which was a resounding "False" https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/nov/28/donald-trump/donald-trumps-pants-fire-claim-millions-illegal-vo/

Here is an actual working link for New York Times addressing this false claim as well: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/24/us/politics/unauthorized-immigrant-voting-trump-lie.html

And a third link for extra verification where the Washington Post also concluded these claims were false: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/11/27/trumps-bogus-claim-that-millions-of-people-voted-illegally-for-hillary-clinton/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c1a03c014a86 76.169.79.75 (talk) 00:09, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Electors and the College
"When individuals cast ballots in the general election, they are choosing electors and telling them whom they should vote for in the Electoral College."

The statement suggests that the population chooses national electors while the process is, sadly, not as clear cut. A vote also doesn't tell the elector who to vote for, but contributes to the majority vote within a state that should be reflected by the elector's vote within the college. That said, it would be nice if "elector" were linked to the relevant article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)#Electors

2600:1702:701:21A0:91CC:74DE:F771:29BC (talk) 06:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Do any sources often considered politically unbiased state that Donald Trump's claims about "illegal voters" were false?
I was just asking because I saw the history of the page and it seems there's some back-and-forth about the Donald Trump section. Someone deleted the statement that the "illegal voter" claim was a lie, supposedly because all sources that stated it had a liberal bias(but that edit was reverted). I tried to look for sources generally considered unbiased to add to the section, but it seems that even PolitiFact has a lot of allegations that it has a liberal bias as well (although I added it anyway, just in case). I'm not sure what to do. (By the way, if anything, I probably lean more towards liberal than conservative myself. However, I have heard of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Verifiability.) Any suggestions on how to maintain those policies while improving the article?

171.64.70.62 (talk) 18:48, 28 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Two points. 1) The New York Times is a nonpartisan source, a newspaper of record, a reliable source; 2) even Fox News disputes the veracity of this Trump statement: "unverified claims ... multiple law enforcement sources told Fox News that there was no evidence for Trump's claims", "These claims have not been verified", "an assertion that has not been substantiated". I'm not saying that Fox News should be used as a citation in this instance; much of its political coverage makes it an unreliable source. Perhaps this discussion and a hidden comment will be enough to slow the recurrent vandalism. Hameltion (talk, contribs) 19:37, 28 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I understand what you mean. I didn't say The New York Times was actually biased, merely that some editors here appear to think it is (perhaps because of their own biases). I wonder whether this page will be protected or something, as it is controversial and there appears to be quite a lot of edit-warring. (I'm pretty new here, so forgive me if I am saying something ridiculous. I was just wondering.)
 * 171.64.70.62 (talk) 19:46, 28 June 2018 (UTC)


 * No worries! After adding a hidden note, we can see if the vandalism declines. If not, a request at Requests for page protection would not be out of line. Hameltion (talk, contribs) 19:54, 28 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Don't want to bother you, but where is the hidden note you mentioned? I only saw this note in the page source for the article: 46.0856% vs 48.1846% for Clinton. Is this the one?
 * 171.64.70.62 (talk) 22:43, 28 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I hadn't actually added a comment yet (I was hoping someone else would) but doing it myself can't hurt. It is this edit. I may have worded it too aggressively; anyone if they want can make changes, of course. Hameltion (talk, contribs) 23:53, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I think this claim is universally false - I cannot find any valid source (left or right leaning) that proves otherwise. The line "After the election, Trump "correctly claim(ed) that millions of illegal immigrants had robbed him of a popular vote majority, ..."[32][33] Trump repeated this in a meeting with members of Congress in 2017,[32] and in a speech in April 2018.[34]" should be amended immediately. Both sources are dead links (probably just to give the appearance of validity, even though it is clearly a false claim from Trump.

Below are actual links from both the sources (32 and 33) that were previously cited but were dead (404) links on NYT and PolitiFact.

Here is the actual working page for PolitiFact addressing that claim, which was a resounding "False" https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/nov/28/donald-trump/donald-trumps-pants-fire-claim-millions-illegal-vo/

Here is an actual working link for New York Times addressing this false claim as well: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/24/us/politics/unauthorized-immigrant-voting-trump-lie.html

And a third link for extra verification where the Washington Post also concluded these claims were false: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/11/27/trumps-bogus-claim-that-millions-of-people-voted-illegally-for-hillary-clinton/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c1a03c014a86 76.169.79.75 (talk) 00:14, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Add section for contests where only a plurality of the popular vote was achieved by the EC winner.
For the sake of completeness, a section on elections where the EC winner received a plurality of the popular vote, but not a majority, would be nice. "Winning" the popular vote is somewhat of a misleading notion, as the Founders did not view it to be an issue. In addition, states where one party has a solid majority, like California, can depress voter turnout for minority parties. This affects the nationwide total. Therefore, other scenarios where the EC winner did not receive 50+% of the vote would be illuminating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.97.59.176 (talk) 01:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Lots of virtual ink spilled on this topic
The United States does not and never has elected its President based on the national popular vote. Until the U.S. Constitution is amended to provide for the national popular vote election of the President, this topic remains a historical curiosity, no more and no less. Tpkatsa (talk) 16:23, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This is correct, but it is a curiosity that sources seem to like to cover. BD2412  T 17:34, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Three things. First, see WP:TPG.... this page is not for general discussion of the topic, only for discussing article improvements.  Second, the subject is of interest to those debating possible constitutional amendments on the subject. Third, it is also relevant to those advocating for the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.  Now if ya'll have suggested article improvements based on RSs by all means, let's talk about those proposals.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:05, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Popular Vote
There is no Popular Vote as each state has different voting procedures and laws. Some votes rejected in one state could be lawful in another making a final tally not only impossible but totally meaningless. 97.71.136.170 (talk) 18:09, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you provide some reliable sources asserting this? BD2412  T 19:49, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

National Popular Vote
There is niko such thing. Voting rules very state to state and so render any totals useless and meaningless and the entire entry removed for sake of clarity and accuracy. 72.189.172.169 (talk) 21:53, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you provide some reliable sources in support of this claim? BD2412  T 23:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)