This post may contain affiliate links. As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
Winning a U.S. presidential election usually requires broad national support—or does it? A fascinating map created by Reddit user epicap232 illustrates how it’s theoretically possible for a candidate to win the presidency with just 22.9% of the total popular vote in 2024. The secret lies in the structure of the Electoral College and the uneven distribution of electoral votes across states.
The Electoral College Loophole
The Electoral College system, established in the U.S. Constitution, assigns each state a fixed number of electoral votes. However, these votes are not distributed evenly by population. Smaller and less populous states have a disproportionately high number of electoral votes compared to their population size. For example, Wyoming, with about 581,000 residents (as of the 2020 Census), has 3 electoral votes—giving each voter more influence than a voter in larger states like California, which has about 39 million residents but only 54 electoral votes.
This creates an opening where a candidate could focus only on winning the states with the highest ratio of electoral votes to population. By securing victory in those key states—without needing to win the popular vote—it’s theoretically possible to reach the winning threshold of 270 electoral votes while receiving less than a quarter of the nationwide vote.
How It Could Happen
The map of the United States below highlights the specific states where this strategy could work. The purple states represent those with the highest electoral votes per population ratio. The number shown on each state represents the majority of votes needed (half the votes plus one) to win that state. If a candidate won all these purple states, they could secure 270 electoral votes and the presidency—while only capturing about 22.9% of the total popular vote.
Notice how large states like California and Texas are part of the winning strategy despite their large populations. That’s because the goal isn’t to win the popular vote—it’s to secure states with high electoral value relative to the number of votes needed. Smaller or moderately populated states like Wyoming, North Dakota, and West Virginia also play a crucial role because fewer total votes carry more electoral weight in those states.
A Constitutional Quirk
This strategy underscores a fundamental tension within the Electoral College system. While the Founding Fathers designed it to balance influence between large and small states, the reality is that it allows for significant discrepancies between the popular vote and the electoral outcome.
In 2016, Donald Trump won the presidency despite losing the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes.
In 2000, George W. Bush won the presidency even though Al Gore secured more popular votes nationwide.
The fact that a candidate could theoretically win the presidency with under 23% of the vote raises questions about the fairness and democratic legitimacy of the Electoral College. Critics argue that it gives voters in small states disproportionate influence, while supporters claim it preserves the balance of power between states.
The Bottom Line
This map above is an eye-opening reminder of how the Electoral College shapes American politics. It demonstrates that the path to the presidency isn’t necessarily about winning over most Americans—it’s about securing key states where votes carry more weight. Whether this is a flaw or a feature is up for debate—but it’s a reality that could shape future elections.
If you’re interested in more fascinating insights into U.S. elections, check out these related posts:
What do you think about this electoral strategy? Should the U.S. rethink the Electoral College system or keep it as it is? Share your thoughts in the comments below!
