It is key to note that not all candidates who run for office will
receive electoral votes, as they will need to meet a popular vote threshold specific to each state.
But solution 2 will not work if for example there are exactly four persons
receiving electoral votes, each with the same number of votes exactly.
Not exact matches
Last time the ruling UMNO - led Barisan Nasional coalition
received a minority of the popular
vote, only winning a majority of the seats thanks to some creatively drawn
electoral boundaries.
Newly floor - crossed Wildrose Alliance MLA Rob Anderson
received 62 % of the
vote as a PC candidate in 2008, but past elections show a more diverse
electoral history in the region.
In the last congressional election in Brazil (where all candidates run state - wide rather than in
electoral districts) the candidate who
received the most
votes in the state of Sao Paulo was a television clown.
For example, three Candidates A, B and C
receive 60, 37, and 3 per cent of the popular
vote in State X. Because State X has 10
electoral votes, the candidate would
receive 6, 4 and 0
electoral votes, respectively (see Table 1).
Subsequently,
votes would be distributed to candidates on a proportional basis: candidates would
receive a fraction of the
electoral votes of each state, equivalent to the percentage of the popular
vote they garnered during the election.
This is overcome by removing the surplus
electoral vote from the candidate
receiving the lowest portion of the popular
vote.
A ghost ballot occurs when three or more candidates
receive a percentage of the
vote in a manner that causes the
electoral votes to round up and exceed the allotted state
votes.
If the
electoral districts are large enough (possibly nationwide), a party does get a weight in parliament roughly equivalent to the number of
votes they
received in the election.
Proportional representation means that the representatives are distributed according to the relationship to one another of the individual
electoral lists in terms of the number of
votes they have
received.
Labour
received 300,000 fewer
votes than the Conservatives but because of Britain's controversial
electoral geography Labour became the largest party in the House of Commons.
Currently, nearly every state awards its
electoral votes to the presidential candidate that
receives the most
votes within the state.
Both Rathony's answer and Brythan's are entirely correct about the authoritative, legal answers as to what would happen if neither candidate
received 270
electoral votes.
This way, a candidate who come in second place in a state with 45 % of the popular
vote would
receive 45 % of the
electoral votes from that state, instead of 0 %.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20 % of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's
electoral votes to the presidential candidate who
receives the most
votes in each separate state (with about 70 % opposed and about 10 % undecided).
After casting your
vote using your desktop computer you can thus pull out your smartphone and verify the results that were actually
received by the central
electoral servers.
When the bill comes into effect, all the
electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who
receives the most popular
votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Under this fourth consequence of the possible
electoral arithmetic, policy for non-Scottish areas of the country would be partially formed by a party that has never
received a single
vote in those areas, is completely unaccountable to the electorate and has an
electoral incentive in ensuring that another part of the country, Scotland, gets as large a slice of the national budget as possible.
In the event of an
electoral college tie, or indeed any scenario in which no candidate
receives a majority of
electoral college
votes, the election is decided by the houseof representatives.
If you could convince the state legislatures totaling exactly 36
electoral votes to exercise their option to appoint electors for Clinton, regardless of the plurality
vote, Clinton and Trump would both have 269
electoral votes, which would force the election to the House of Representatives, with each state
receiving one
vote.
So while Tim Farron would be delighted to
receive tactical
votes from Labour supporters in marginal seats, he wants nothing to do with any
electoral pact or «progressive alliance» that formally associates his party with Corbyn.
The argument of «Labour bias» in the
electoral system is based on arithmetic that shows that Labour
receives on average fewer
votes per MP than Lib Dems or Conservatives.
MUF
received victory in only 4 of the contested 43
electoral constituencies despite its high
vote share of 31 per cent (this means that its official
vote in the Valley was larger than one - third).
And MPs would
receive between 10 % and a third of the
votes (Watson recognises that MPs current war against Corbyn means the NEC will be minded to give them the bare minimum representation in any new
electoral college).
Programs, mandates, and subsidies beget vocal beneficiaries, industries, lobbyists, and crony corporatist arrangements between them and elected representatives — who
receive dinners, trips, and campaign contributions in exchange for
votes that perpetuate programs, mandates, subsidies, and
electoral success.
For example, if everyone in California were eligible to
vote and did so for a single candidate that individual would
receive over thirty million
votes and all of California's 55
electoral votes.