Elections where the winning party lost the popular vote.

[Famous Mortimer]

The Georgia Gubernatorial Election of 1966

Lester Maddox (Dem) - 450,626
Bo Callaway (Rep) - 453, 665
Ellis Arnell (Dem, write-in) - 69,025

A bitter Democratic primary between Maddox and Arnell - representing the conservative and liberal wings of the party, respectively - led to Arnell leading an insurgent write-in campaign.  At the same time, Callaway, marking a resurgent Republican Party in Georgia, became the party's first viable candidate for Governor in living memory.

As a result, the three-way contest failed to produce a winner with an overall majority.  At the time, if a candidate failed to win a majority at the election, the General Assembly will choose the governor - much as the federal House of Representatives still does under the electoral college. 

Of course, Democrats made up the overwhelming faction of the legislature at the time and easily chose Maddox as Governor, even though he won 3,000 fewer votes than Callaway.

EDIT: Just remembered that this is technically the International General Discussion board, but I thought this result was too interesting to fail to mention.

Bolivia had a similar system where the Congress chose between the top 2 if no one got a majority. I don't know how many times (if ever) they picked the second place winner.

[Barnes]

Vermont retains the system to this day, and actually put it in practice last month.  However, I don't know of any time when the second-placed candidate was selected.

[Oak Hills]

In 2 federal elections in the 1950s, the SPÖ won the popular vote but the ÖVP got a seat more.

I thought Austria used PR?

[jaichind]

Vermont retains the system to this day, and actually put it in practice last month.  However, I don't know of any time when the second-placed candidate was selected.

Well, if we are going to count systems where there is an election and if no one gets a majority some other body picks the winner among the top N candidates, then I can point to Bolivia Prez elections of 1985 and 1989 where winner of the popular vote plurality did not win the congressional ballot.

[Famous Mortimer]

Yeah, now I'm remembering. Bolivia '89 was particularly famous and horrible. A non sensical congressional coalition of left and right was formed to oust the centrist candidate.

[Boston Bread]

Yeah, now I'm remembering. Bolivia '89 was particularly famous and horrible. A non sensical congressional coalition of left and right was formed to oust the centrist candidate.

Who did the left and right agree on? Another centrist candidate?

[MaxQue]

Yeah, now I'm remembering. Bolivia '89 was particularly famous and horrible. A non sensical congressional coalition of left and right was formed to oust the centrist candidate.

Who did the left and right agree on? Another centrist candidate?

The left-wing candidate, which ended 3rd (behind the centrist and the right-wing former dictator).

[Vosem]

Vermont retains the system to this day, and actually put it in practice last month.  However, I don't know of any time when the second-placed candidate was selected.

The custom in Vermont is to always select whoever came in first under FPTP, regardless of politics. This was last broken in the lieutenant gubernatorial election of 1970, because the candidate who came in first had fallen under an ethical cloud since the election.

[Zinneke]

Belgium 2010. Flemish nationalists N-VA got more popular vote but Walloon parties on average need less votes to gain a seat in the Belgian Federal government. This meant the Socialist ''family'' had more seats than N-VA despite less popular votes.

[Insula Dei]

Belgium 2010. Flemish nationalists N-VA got more popular vote but Walloon parties on average need less votes to gain a seat in the Belgian Federal government. This meant the Socialist ''family'' had more seats than N-VA despite less popular votes.

The comparison is a little disingenuous, since PS and sp.a combined outpolled N-VA by some 350,000 votes.

[jaichind]

I found another one

Chile 1920

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilean_presidential_election,_1920

Alessandri narrowly lost the popular vote but won the electoral college vote to become President.

[Famous Mortimer]

Southern Rhodesia 1933:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Rhodesian_general_election,_1933

[Lumine]

I found another one

Chile 1920

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilean_presidential_election,_1920

Alessandri narrowly lost the popular vote but won the electoral college vote to become President.

Well, considering how particularly crooked those elections were (which is why a Tribunal of Honor was needed to choose a winner), I wouldn't trust Barros Borgoño being the actual winner of the popular vote, but I suppose it technically qualifies as an example.

[thumb21]

I know I'm here late, but in the European elections of 2014, the winners lost the popular vote 38,610,376 to 40,202,068.

[Starpaul20]

Not an international example, but:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_General_Assembly_elections,_2009

Republicans won 51.89% to the Democrats 47.62% but only got 33 seats (in an 80 seat chamber).

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

BC 1952 was a minority government

Minority government doesn't automatically mean losing the popular vote.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

This has happened a few times in Australian states. The last two SA elections Labor eked out wins despite losing the two party vote. And of course, there is the infamous history of Queensland as essentially a quasi-democratic fiefdom of John Bjelke Peterson.

[Lord Halifax]

This has happened a few times in Australian states. The last two SA elections Labor eked out wins despite losing the two party vote. And of course, there is the infamous history of Queensland as essentially a quasi-democratic fiefdom of John Bjelke Peterson.

Sir Joh was christened Johannes Bjelke-Petersen.

[morgieb]

This has happened a few times in Australian states. The last two SA elections Labor eked out wins despite losing the two party vote. And of course, there is the infamous history of Queensland as essentially a quasi-democratic fiefdom of John Bjelke Peterson.

Along with that, Playfair lost the two party vote like five times in his run as Premier, but still won due to malappointment between rural and urban areas.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

This has happened a few times in Australian states. The last two SA elections Labor eked out wins despite losing the two party vote. And of course, there is the infamous history of Queensland as essentially a quasi-democratic fiefdom of John Bjelke Peterson.

Sir Joh was christened Johannes Bjelke-Petersen.

oops

[IceAgeComing]

Funny thing about the 1951 UK result - in that election Labour set a record for the most votes cast in a UK general election for a single party that lasted until 1992 (it's still second), yet they still lost.  I'm of the belief that whoever won that election would have been around for a few due to the post-war boom hitting, so that's a little annoying.

In 2 federal elections in the 1950s, the SPÖ won the popular vote but the ÖVP got a seat more.

I thought Austria used PR?

Depends on the form of PR used - I believe that Austria uses regional list PR with no national balancing seats so if the numbers worked out then you could end up with a wrong winner situation - although neither would have a majority so I suppose that it's less important really.

[RodPresident]

Yeah, now I'm remembering. Bolivia '89 was particularly famous and horrible. A non sensical congressional coalition of left and right was formed to oust the centrist candidate.

Who did the left and right agree on? Another centrist candidate?

The left-wing candidate, which ended 3rd (behind the centrist and the right-wing former dictator).

"Centrist" candidate Sanchez de Lozada was linked to 1st neoliberal government in Bolivia (Paz Estenssoro, 3rd term). And Paz Zamora made another neoliberal government, followed by Sanchez de Lozada and Banzer.

[Londoner2016]

1874 UK election

Liberals: 52% of vote
Conservatives: 54% of seats

[SNJ1985]

Swiss National Council election, 1951

[Sir John Johns]

One of the worst examples ever is the Nigerian general election of 1959 when the party with the most seats actually finished third in the popular vote:

National Council of Nigeria and the Cameroons: 81 seats, 34.0%
Action Group: 73 seats, 26.1%
Northern People's Congress: 134 seats, 25.2%