So, more people voted against Willard than for him, and yet he's a winner

[Siwsan]

It just seems one would have to accumulate more than 50% of the votes to actually consider it a true win.

[Selatius]

1. That's only true in majority voting. Plurality voting is a different matter.

You could be in a three way race where the first person gets 33%, the second person gets 31%, and the third person gets 36%, and the third person would win the whole election, even though 64% of voters essentially voted against him.

Had there been a run-off round between the top two performing candidates, then one could be assured that the winner got a simple majority of the vote. There wouldn't be a spoiler effect, and it would actually encourage the emergence of viable third parties.

[Siwsan]

2. I'm just being snarkey

As I recall, isn't this how palin became governor of Alaska? More voted against her, but she got more than 34%?

[Selatius]

3. It's actually pretty common in many states. Palin won with just 48.3%.

The Democratic governor Tony Knowles garnered only 40.9% against Palin. The rest voted for third party candidates. If majority voting were in place, there would've been a run-off vote between Knowles and Palin. Nobody knows how the other 11% would've voted or even if they would've swung the election to Knowles.

[DinahMoeHum]

4. The voting tallies do not count who you vote against. . .

. . .only who you vote for.

This is why third parties right now are dangerous; they dilute the vote and all too often you end up with somebody you don't want.

[SaintPete]

5. Clinton won his 1st term with only a plurality

Clinton - 43.0%
Bush - 37.5%
Perot - 18.9%