Answer:
The situation you're describing, where a candidate receives fewer actual votes than their opponent but still wins the presidential election, is a result of the United States' unique electoral system known as the Electoral College. The Electoral College is the method used to indirectly elect the President of the United States.
Step-by-step explanation:
Here's how it can happen:
Electoral Votes: In the U.S., each state is allocated a certain number of electoral votes based on its population, with a minimum of three electoral votes per state. The total number of electoral votes is 538.
Winner-Takes-All: In 48 out of 50 states (except Maine and Nebraska), it's a winner-takes-all system. This means that the candidate who receives the most popular votes in a state wins all of that state's electoral votes.
Battleground States: Not all states are equally competitive. Some states are considered "battleground" or "swing" states, where the election outcome is uncertain and both major candidates campaign vigorously. In non-battleground states, one candidate often has a significant advantage.
Electoral College Majority: To win the presidential election, a candidate needs to secure a majority of electoral votes, which is at least 270 out of 538.
Now, consider a scenario where one candidate wins by large margins in non-battleground states, while the other candidate wins narrowly in some battleground states. Even if the candidate who won narrowly in battleground states receives fewer total popular votes, they can still accumulate enough electoral votes to win the election.
This is why, in some instances, a candidate can lose the national popular vote but win the electoral vote and, as a result, become the President of the United States. It's a unique feature of the U.S. presidential election system and has led to discussions about potential reforms, such as a direct popular vote system, but changing the system would require a constitutional amendment, which is a complex and challenging process.