5 (maybe 6) out of 45 (although there have actually been 58 elections). There were 3 in the 19th Century and 2 in the 21st Century. The whole of the 20th Century had no such events officially, but there is some doubt about the 1960 election due to the way Alabama worked out its EC electors in which case it would have had 1 (hence my "5 (maybe 6)" comment to start with.
That's not really in the realms of "so many". It's not without precedent, but it's uncommon, being at best 10.3% of the time and probably 8.6% of the time.
Five
In 1824, John Quincy Adams
In 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes
In 1888, Benjamin Harrison
In 2000, George W. Bush
In 2016, Donald Trump
Not insignificant, but I agree, hardly so many.
But good call on Alabama. Not too many know that. The way Alabama worked their electors was .... unusual.
The intent of the electoral college is to elect the candidate that garners the majority of the votes in the majority of states. Not just the majority of votes. Like most things in our government, it was a compromise. Similarly with representation in the Congress, there was a schism between large population states and low population states and how each can partake in the election of the chief executive. The compromise was the Electoral College. Imperfect, but it works.
According to the archives, when it comes to amending the constitution, the issue of the electoral college leads the way by far with over 700 proposed constitutional amendment bills. Significantly more that for any other single issue.
To me, the issue is not the Electoral College, but in how each state chooses (and it is their choice) of how to assign the electors. There is no federal law that mandates a "winner take all" schema as illustrated by Nebraska and Maine who have a modified proportional way of assigning electors.
Perhaps the solution is for each state to decide to assign their electors according to the proportion of the popular vote in that state. No more of this winner take all. No Constitutional Amendment needed, just a change to the individual state law.
The downside of using proportional allotment of electors is that it is quite possible that at the end of the election, no candidate will get the majority of electors across the nation. The Electoral College is one of the few if not the only election in the US that requires a majority instead of just a plurality to win. This would necessitate a run-off election of the top candidates. Other countries have run-off elections.
I wonder how the American people would react to a run off election? One thing that American's like is to get the election over and done with so they can go back to posting on the Internets Tubes.
Prolonging the agony of elections by having a run-off election (or worse two?) would be a cultural change.
