[Political Junkie Too]

Twice in less than two decades the majority vote in a presidential election was overruled by the math of the Electoral College.

First sentence alert!

No candidate received a majority of the vote. The majority voted against each candidate.

-PJ

[leftcoaster]

No candidate received a majority of the vote. The majority voted against each candidate.

I'm too short on time to look, but, thanks to H. Ross Perot, I don't think WJC ever got a majority in either 92 or 96.

[Yo-Yo]

No candidate received a majority of the vote. The majority voted against each candidate.

Excellent point, and one that brings up new questions if the Electoral College is to be replaced by a straight popular vote.

I recall during the Clinton years, G. Gordon Liddy would rail each time he reported on some stupid move by the administration "oh ye 43%, oh ye SUCKERS!" referring of course to the 43% popular vote that Clinton received in his first election. H. Ross Perot was a fairly strong third party candidate in that and the next election cycles.

If the U.S. were to go to a direct popular vote, what would be the threshold? The winner would be the candidate with 50%+1 votes, perhaps triggering a runoff election between the top two vote-getters? The winner would be the candidate that won a plurality? Would the plurality also have a threshold of 45%? 35%? 20%?