Could Bush or Gore Win By Losing?

Nov. 1, 2000 -- As the presidential candidates approach Election Day neck and neck, there’s speculation that George W. Bush or Al Gore could pull a Grover Cleveland.

Cleveland is the last of three presidential candidates in history to get more votes than his opponents, yet still lose the election.

“The fact that [Bush vs. Gore] is a close election raises the specter,” says Neal R. Peirce, a syndicated columnist.

Contrary to what some people may believe, American voters do not directly elect the president. Instead, they vote for special electors from their state. It takes votes from 270 of the 538 members of the Electoral College to win the White House.

“Those of us who are critics of the system believe there would be severe credibility problems for someone who has just lost the election to win the electoral vote,” adds Peirce, co-author of The Electoral College Primer 2000.

A pair of professors at Columbia University believe that if this year’s race is close, a split decision between popular and electoral votes could happen.

Robert Erikson and Karl Sigman have crunched poll numbers, considered where Bush and Gore are most likely to win, and determined that Bush would probably need at least 51 percent of the votes cast for either candidate to get the majority of electoral votes needed for a victory. A small edge in popular votes would not do.

“Bush has big leads in several states, but they account for a more modest number of electoral votes,” says Erikson, a political science professor. “By contrast, Gorehas smaller leads in states that yield a greater number of electoralvotes. With a close popular vote, the electoral edge goes to Gore.”

Turmoil Possible

If that happens, it could produce political fireworks, observers say.

“There would be an outcry and, yes, there would be pressure and, yes, there would be demands that we reform the system,” says Curtis Gans of the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate.

Most electors are directed to follow the will of the majority of their state’s voters. But in about half the states, electors’ votes are not bound by law. Political watchers say that could mean a whole new campaign, long after the polls have closed.

“There would be a lot of jockeying among the Electoral College for them to switch their votes,” said Craig Crawford of the Hotline political digest. “Can you imagine the wheeling and dealing?”

Different Political Times

Three times in American history, a candidate for president has gone down to defeat even though he was the popular choice of the American people. And once, a candidate who finished second in both popular and electoral votes became president anyhow.

But times were different then, and many think today’s electorate wouldn’t allow such an event to occur without demanding change.

“The last time was 1888, and we weren’t quite at the democratic fervor that we have now,” Peirce said. “Women didn’t vote yet, blacks were just getting the right to vote, and it was quite a different world.”

There are already calls, as there have been hundreds of times in the past, to eliminate the Electoral College. Today, Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., and Rep. Ray LaHood, R-Ill., announced they are backing a push to adopt a constitutional amendment to have presidential elections decided by popular vote.

“It’s time to put this electoral dinosaur permanently in a museum,” Durbin said.

Has Happened Before

That dinosaur dates back at least 175 years.

In 1824, Andrew Jackson outpaced John Quincy Adams in both popular and electoral votes, but because of additional candidates in the race neither Jackson nor Adams gained a majority of the 261 electoral votes available that year.

Under the Constitution then and now, if no candidate gets a majority of electoral votes, the decision goes to the House of Representatives. Each state gets a single vote, and that year they chose the second place finisher — Adams.

In 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes became president when he eked out one more electoral vote than Samuel Tilden, even though Tilden had defeated him at the polls. The electoral total was 185-184 for Hayes; the popular vote was 50.9 percent to 47.9 percent for Tilden.

It happened again in 1888, when Cleveland, the incumbent president, beat Benjamin Harrison at the polls, 48.6 percent to 47.8 percent. Despite the popular vote, Harrison defeated Cleveland 233 electoral votes to 168 to become president.

Incidentally, four years later, Cleveland once again beat Harrison at the polls, but in that case managed to regain the presidency by defeating him in electoral votes as well.

Bush and Gore Not Worried

This year, representatives for the Bush and Gore campaigns say they are not thinking about the possibility of a split decision between the electoral and popular vote.

“Al Gore is fighting to win the Electoral College and the popular vote, and he is not planning for anything else,” says Doug Hattaway, national spokesman for the Gore campaign.

“We do not expect that to happen and have not spent any time concerned about it,” says Ray Sullivan, a spokesman for the Bush campaign. “We expect that the popular vote and the Electoral College will go the same way, and are optimistic they will go toward George W. Bush.”

ABCNEWS’ Barry Serafin contributed to this report.