>2) Each time there has been a split popular/electoral winner, it has caused much trouble and grief. The splits are not popular in the US, and really diminish our nation in the view of other nations that look up to us as an example for leadership & excellence in government, as the splits bring out all the worst in us. We have eventually survived each of these crises as a nation, because our foundation is strong - but it's clear to me we would survive much, much, better without these election splits.
>
>The splits have been relatively rare before now - but my guess is we'll see more soon enough unless we act to correct it, as both major parties have learned to cater to the political center, and form philosophies largely by public poll. There is great balance in the electorate now, and it may be here to stay. Both parties have jettisoned or muzzled philosophies that led to losing, basically. The mathematical flaw in the electoral college system is quite large enough to show up frequently under these circumstances.

To the best of my knowlege, it has happened twice.

The first time was when Andrew Jackson had a majority (I think) of the popular vote and a plurality of the electoral vote. Third party candidates won enough electoral votes to put the election in the House of Representatives, which voted solidly for John Q. Adams. The results were quite divisive at the time, but the Republic survived.

The second time was when Tilden outpolled Hayes in the popular vote. There were <> some irregularities in recognizing the various electors and, in return for agreening to end the occupation of the former Confederacy and therefore ending Reconstruction, Hayes electors were recognized and he became President.

To the best of my knowlege, no president since has been elected without obtaining at least a pluralilty of the popular vote.