nd electoral votes have had the same outcome. But this year, that is not the case. The media frequently refer to this year’s presidential election as one of the most competitive in recent history, perhaps since 1960 when Kennedy won with 34,227,096 popular votes to Nixon's 34,107,646. In the final sprint of the marathon 2000 presidential campaign, Democratic nominee Al Gore and Republican nominee George W. Bush are neck and neck. Particularly in a contest close as this one, the Electoral College warps national politics and could lead to a major constitutional crisis. So, with a race this tight, it is entirely conceivable that one candidate may win the popular vote and still lose the election. This would mark the first time since 1888 that the president-elect lost the popular vote. Since it has happened three times before in American history, in 1824, 1876 and 1888, it could certainly happen again. In 1824, John Quincy Adams received fewer electoral votes and fewer popular votes than his opponent Andrew Jackson but won the election when the House of Representatives favored him by six state votes. Then again, in 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes beat Samuel J. Tilden with just one electoral vote in spite of having lost the popular vote. It was a contentious victory because the electoral votes of four states were disputed until eventually awarded to Hayes. Finally, in 1888, incumbent Grover Cleveland won a narrow lead over his Republican opponent with some 100,000 votes in the popular vote but lost the election because Benjamin Harrison led the Electoral College. If a situation such as that would happen to this election, Americans would become even more disillusioned with their anti-democratic government. A change needs to be made to this procedure, and although there has been over 700 proposals to alter the system, only a handful have been enacted. A constitutional amendment replacing the Electoral College with a simple popula...
