If you were watching the news on that wild November night in 2016, you probably remember the map slowly bleeding red. It was a shocker for most of the pundits. But even years later, people still argue over the final tally. Was it 306? Was it 304? Honestly, the answer depends on whether you're talking about the night of the election or the day the votes were actually certified in DC.
The Big Number Everyone Remembers
On election night, the math seemed pretty straightforward. Donald Trump had flipped the "Blue Wall"—states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin—and the projections showed him with 306 electoral votes. Hillary Clinton was sitting at 232.
🔗 Read more: Middle Tennessee Braces for Impact: Why Friday’s Winter Storm is Catching Everyone Off Guard
That 306 number became a bit of a catchphrase. It’s the number Trump himself pointed to as a "landslide" victory. But here is the thing: the Electoral College doesn't actually vote on election night. That happens weeks later, and in 2016, that process got a lot messier than usual.
How many electoral votes did Trump have in 2016 after the "Faithless Electors" voted?
By the time the dust settled and the official count was certified by Congress on January 6, 2017, the final score was 304 for Donald Trump and 227 for Hillary Clinton.
Wait, what happened to the others?
Basically, seven people decided to go rogue. These are known as "faithless electors." They are the folks chosen to cast the official ballots, but they decided to vote for someone other than the candidate who won their state. It was a historic moment. We hadn't seen that many defections in a single election in over a hundred years.
- Trump lost 2 votes: Two electors in Texas broke ranks. One voted for John Kasich and the other voted for Ron Paul.
- Clinton lost 5 votes: This is the part people often forget. Clinton actually lost more electors than Trump did. In Washington state and Hawaii, electors cast votes for Colin Powell, Faith Spotted Eagle, and Bernie Sanders.
The Breakdown by State
If you look at the map state-by-state, you can see how Trump built that 304-vote mountain. He didn't just win the Republican strongholds; he poached states that Democrats thought they had in the bag.
The Rust Belt Flip
Trump won Pennsylvania (20 votes), Michigan (16 votes), and Wisconsin (10 votes) by a combined margin of fewer than 80,000 people. That tiny sliver of the popular vote in those three states handed him 46 electoral votes. If those states had stayed blue, the whole story would’ve been different.
The Florida Factor
Florida is always the big prize. In 2016, its 29 electoral votes went to Trump. He won the state by about 1.2%, which is actually a decent margin for Florida standards, but it was enough to make the path to 270 nearly impossible for Clinton.
The Split States
Maine and Nebraska are the outliers because they don't do "winner-take-all." In Maine, Trump managed to snag 1 electoral vote from the 2nd Congressional District, while Clinton took the other 3. This kind of "cherry-picking" is rare but proved that every single district mattered that year.
Why the popular vote didn't match the electoral count
This is where the nuance of the American system really hits home. Hillary Clinton actually received nearly 2.9 million more individual votes than Donald Trump.
In a direct democracy, she wins. But we use the Electoral College.
Because Trump won a lot of states by very small margins, he gained all (or most) of their electoral power. Meanwhile, Clinton won states like California and New York by massive landslides. In our system, winning California by 4 million votes gives you the same 55 electoral votes as winning it by 1 vote. Those "extra" millions of votes don't help you reach the 270 threshold.
Historical Context: Was 304 a "Landslide"?
Politicians love the word landslide. But if we look at the history books, 304 is actually fairly middle-of-the-road.
- Obama (2008): 365 votes
- George H.W. Bush (1988): 426 votes
- Reagan (1984): 525 votes
Compared to those, Trump’s 304 (or the projected 306) was a solid win, but not a record-breaker. It was significant because of where those votes came from—flipping states that hadn't gone Republican since the 1980s.
What this means for future elections
The 2016 results changed how campaigns look at the map. You've probably noticed that candidates don't spend much time in California or Tennessee anymore. They live in places like Pennsylvania and Arizona.
✨ Don't miss: What Really Happened With the Trump on China Parade Comments
The lesson from Trump's 304-vote win is that the "Blue Wall" is more like a "Blue Fence"—it can be hopped if a candidate appeals to specific demographics in the Midwest. It also sparked a massive legal debate about faithless electors. In 2020, the Supreme Court actually ruled that states can force electors to vote for the winner of the popular vote, mostly because of the chaos we saw in 2016.
If you're trying to track how these numbers might shift in the next cycle, your best bet is to look at the recent census data. Electoral votes are redistributed based on population shifts. Some states that helped Trump in 2016, like Ohio, have actually lost electoral power, while states like Texas and Florida have gained it.
Keep an eye on the "Certified" numbers rather than just the "Election Night" projections. As 2016 taught us, those two numbers aren't always the same.
Next Steps for You:
- Check the updated Electoral College map for 2024 and 2028, as state vote totals have changed due to the census.
- Research "Faithless Elector" laws in your specific state to see if your electors are legally bound to the popular vote winner.
- Compare the 2016 results to the 2020 tally to see exactly which counties in the Rust Belt are the most volatile "swing" areas.