Welcome to Past Tense, a blog devoted to history of all kinds. In my web travels, searching for other history blogs, it seems that most are authored by those who would be considered authorities in the field: teachers, authors, curators, etc. Consider this my disclaimer that I am none of these, at least not in the professional sense. I’m just a guy who happens to enjoy history and has so much free time on his hands that he can spend hours writing a blog about it (the free time part is supposed to be sarcastic, hence the italics). In the past I could at least claim to be an offical student of history, though recently my claim to even that status is nominal at best.
The main purpose of this blog is to share what I do know, but also to learn more about what I don’t. I encourage, even implore for, questions that you may have about any facet of history. American, world, wars, anything you don’t know, but would like to. If I know the answer I’ll share it. If I don’t, I’ll find it. I try to keep it light, injecting humor where appropriate, mostly in an attempt to keep you from just clicking over to Wikipedia to find your answers.
So that’s the scoop. I hope you find whatever it was that brought you here in the first place and if not, please see above disclaimer. Please stop by again, ask questions, leave comments, tell your friends. Believe it or not, history can be fun. Or at least interesting. Yes, let’s stick with interesting. Believe it or not, history can be interesting.
As a fellow student of history, although not as accomplished as yourself, I am very much impressed with your site and rather envious. I can only wish that I had the time and amount of passion as you do to have a site like this! Keep it up!
Thanks for the encouraging words Garrett. I’m glad you enjoy your time spent on Past Tense.
Finally! A good history blog. There is a scarity of them.
There’s just one thing i want to ask: I’m a big RSS guy, by any chance can you have the RSS set to show full post please?
Now’s the Time to Abolish the Electoral College
============================================================= 7/19/08 by Arthur J. Klein
When we vote for president and vice president on November 10, 2008, we generally believe we are voting for the candidate we favor. In fact, we are really voting for a group of electors from our state who are pledged to cast the state’s electoral votes for the candidates you favor if they win the popular vote in that state. Most of the time, the candidate who wins the popular vote achieves the office of president. However, there have been four presidents in the history of our great nation who did not receive the majority of the popular vote:
1) John Quincy Adams 1825-1829
2) Rutherford B. Hayes 1877-1881
3) Benjamin Harrison 1889-1893
4) George W. Bush 2001-2005
As the saying goes in America, “three strikes and your out.” However, in the case of the Electoral College, we have had four strikes! And still, the anachronistic system is in place and has yet to be thrown out. Let’s go ahead and give it a proper burial. It’s about time.
The Electoral College system has demonstrated both durability and adaptability during more than two centuries of government in our country. But, although its structural elements remain largely unchanged, in operation it has never worked in quite the way the founders anticipated. It has evolved into a patchwork assemblage of constitutional provisions, state laws, political party practices and enduring traditions.
What is the Electoral College and How Did it Come About?
The US Electoral College is a term used to describe the 538 presidential electors who meet every four years (according to the Constitution) to cast the electoral votes for the president and vice president of the United States. The presidential electors from each state are elected by the popular vote on election day. Presidential electors then meet in their respective state capitols (and in the District of Columbia) on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December, never as a national body. At the 51 meetings, held on the same day, the electors cast the electoral votes. (See the US Constitution, Article 2, Section 1.)
Electors for each state = the sum of its Senators & Congessmen
In each state, voters vote for pre-selected candidates for presidential
Elector, representing the various candidates for president.
Most states use what is termed the “short ballot,” in which a vote for one party is interpreted as a vote for the entire slate of Presidential Electors. In these states, with rare exceptions, one party wins the entire electoral vote of the state.
Maine & Nebraska choose Presidential Electors by using what is termed as the “Maine Method,” which makes it possible for the voters to choose electors of different political parties and split the electoral vote of these two states.
Presidential Electors of each state meet 41 days following the popular vote to cast the electoral votes. Each elector signs a document entitled “the certificate of vote” which sets forth the electoral vote of the state. One original “certificate of vote” is sent by certified mail to the office of the Vice President.
One month following the casting of the electoral votes, the US Congress meets in joint session to declare the winner of the election. If a candidate receives the vote of 270 or more Presidential Electors, the presiding officer (usually the sitting Vice President of the US) declares that candidate to be the president-elect (and the same for the vice-presidential candidate).
A Bit of History
More than two months after the constitutional convention completed the task of defining a congress that would share power with the states, it turned to the next problem, the creation of a chief executive. Part of this problem was how a president would be chosen. There were numerous opinions, but none of them enjoyed widespread support. Some delegates favored a direct popular vote of the people, while others preferred a more indirect method (choice by Congress). The Electoral College was a compromise between these two positions.
The opponents of a direct popular vote believed that most citizens would be unaware of the qualifications of the nation’s leaders and could therefore not make an informed choice for president. In addition, Southern states feared a loss of influence because slaves, counted individually as three-fifths of a person in the census, were not allowed to vote. In addition, the smaller states also believed they would have little influence over the choice of a president because of their limited population numbers. Finally, many of the delegates thought that a popularly elected president might develop a personal relationship with the people that would be so powerful it would threaten the role of Congress as a representative institution. With respect to the opposite point of view, some delegates felt that Congress would use its electoral role to control the presidency and make that office ineffective.
The Electoral College system seemed to be a good compromise between the opposing positions. And so we have Article II, Section 1, in the Constitution of the United States. The Electoral College was not to meet as a single body at any time and place, in order to prevent any conspiracies or deal-making. As part of this goal, the actual counting of the electoral votes and the determination of the winner was deemed a responsibility of Congress.
Problems inherent in the Electoral College became apparent within just a few years. When Washington retired after two terms, the battle for succession became intense. The nation had two active parties, the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans. The Federalists advanced John Adams for president and Thomas Pinckney for vice-president. Thomas Jefferson for president and Aaron Burr for vice-president were the candidates of the Democratic-Republicans. The election was close; Adams got 71 electoral votes (9 states); Jefferson got 68 electoral votes (7 states). Adams was the obvious winner. However, there was a problem with the vice-presidency. Many electors did not vote for the vice presidential candidates advanced by the parties. Consequently, Pinckney finished in third place with 59 electoral votes. Jefferson, the major rival of Adams and the leader of the opposition party, was the nation’s new vice president by virtue of attaining the second largest number of electoral votes. Because of the partisan rivalry between the two, Adams (the new president) could not assign any important executive responsibilities to Jefferson.
Problems inherent in the Electoral College became even worse in 1800. Both Adams and Jefferson ran again, with Jefferson winning by a margin of 73 to 65 electoral votes. However, Aaron Burr also received 73 votes. The House of Representatives had to choose between Jefferson and Burr. The problem to many people was that most electors had intended for Jefferson to be president and Burr to be the vice-president, but there had been no way to make their preferences known. Burr responded to this dilemma by running for president in the House election, and he received the support of many Federalist members. It was only after 36 ballots in the House that Jefferson won. This battle, together with the experience of the 1796 election, led to the 12th Amendment to the Constitution, adopted on September 25, 1804. Now there would be separate and distinct ballots for both president and vice-president. The person having the most votes for president would become the president, and the person having the most votes for vice-president would become the vice-president. If no candidate got a majority of the whole number of appointed electors, there would be a run-off election among the top three candidates. If there was no clear majority, there would be a run-off election between the top two.
While the 12th Amendment informally recognized political parties as the nominating institutions in presidential elections, additional problems arose in subsequent years, particularly in 2000.
The Four Presidents Who Did Not Receive the Most Popular Votes
1. John Quincy Adams was recognized as one of the country’s most skillful diplomats. He had negotiated the end of the War of 1812 and had served as Secretary of State under James Monroe. In 1823, his name was put forward as a candidate for president. Other candidates included John Calhoun who had been Secretary of War under Monroe, and John Crawford who had been Secretary of the Treasury. Henry Clay and Andrew Jackson were also candidates. No clear victor emerged in the Electoral College. Calhoun was nominated for vice president. Jackson got 99 electoral votes, Adams 84, Crawford 41, and Clay 37. No one had a majority, so the outcome was determined by the House of Representatives which was confined in its choice to the three candidates with the most votes. Henry Clay, who was Speaker of the House, supported Adams and thereby secured his election on the first ballot.
2. At Harvard Law School, Rutherford B. Hayes graduated at the top of his class. He joined the cause of the North during the Civil War, rising to the rank of brigadier general and during the course of the was wounded five times. He was a scholarly representative to Congress after the war and went on to be elected Governor of Ohio three times. By 1876, Ohio Republicans were pushing their favorite son toward the presidency even though Hayes was mostly unknown outside Ohio. In November, the Democratic candidate Samuel Tilden narrowly won the popular vote. Tilden got 51% of the popular vote vs. Hayes’s 48%. However, there were serious discrepancies in the vote count in three former Confederate states: South Carolina, Louisiana and Florida. There had been violence against Southern Blacks, who were prevented from voting. The popular vote was called into question by the Republicans, so the dispute was put before an Electoral Commission. As party leaders argued and bargained, Hayes refused to make any political concessions. After nearly four months of stalemate, Southern Democrats were secretly assured that if Hayes were named President, he would end Reconstruction and pull federal troops out of the South. With that assurance, it was announced that Hayes, not Tilden, was the country’s 19th president (with an electoral vote count of 185 to 184).
Hayes took office under a terrible cloud, and indeed went on to put an end to Reconstruction as promised. The civil rights revolution that Hayes had inherited would be stalled until well into the 20th century. Pledges he had received from Southern Democrats to protect the rights of black citizens proved worthless.
3. Benjamin Harrison served under General Sherman during the 1864 campaign in Georgia and distinguished himself for his bravery. Returning to his law practice after the war, he became a force in Republican politics. In 1888 he won the Republican nomination for president. The election was close. Grover Cleveland got 48.6% of the popular vote, vs. Harrison’s 47.8%. Cleveland carried eighteen states, but lost New York and Indiana which he had won in 1884. So coming in second to Grover Cleveland in the popoular vote, he won in the Electoral College, 233 to 168, and became the 23rd chief executive. From the start, he found the presidency frustrating. His reclusive personality was not suited for the job, especially the part of the job involving people. Unwilling to delegate responsibility, he overshadowed his Cabinet officers, outraged elected officials by ignoring them, and had little to say on important matters. His own personal philosophy was “to govern best is to govern least.” His term was forgotten almost before it ended. This was the last time a candidate became president without winning the popular vote, until the election of 2000.
4. George W. Bush ran against Al Gore in 2000. Al Gore had received over 500,000 more popular votes than George Bush. The final result of the Nov. 7th election (popular vote) was that Bush narrowly won with 271 electoral votes to Gore’s 266 (with one abstention by a faithless elector in the official tally). However, there was a controversy over who won Florida’s 25 electoral votes (and thus the presidency), as well as the recount process in that state. Gore asked for recounts in the four counties that had used punch card ballots (Broward, Miami Dade, Palm Beach and Volusia), as provided under state law. Then came a circus of law suits and counter law suits. After some recount activity, there were law suits which resulted in a US Supreme Court decision on December 12, 2000 stating that certain procedures used to recount ballots on old and unreliable machines violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution. So Florida’s Supreme Court plan for recounting ballots was unconstitutional based on the 14th Amendment. The US Supreme Court also reached a 5-4 decision that ended the recounts and allowed Florida to certify its vote. On December 12, 2000, Florida’s 25 electoral votes belonged to George Bush, and Gore conceded at that point.
Conclusion
Certainly there are pro’s and con’s when studying the Electoral College system. However, to those who say “well, the system really has served us pretty well since the founding of the country, only breaking down four times,” I say….
If I am a Republican living in New Jersey, why should I bother voting in the presidential election? The Democratic candidates always win. By the same token, if I’m a Democrat living in Oklahoma, why should I vote? EACH AND EVERY VOTE SHOULD COUNT!
The system is outdated and un-democratic.
We no longer need living electors. In this day and age of instant communications, a runner-up should never become president. People vote, and when all the votes are counted, the winner is the winner. This is the way all other democracies in the world work today…what’s wrong with us?
The winner-take-all feature of the Electoral College system discourages third party efforts.
By keeping the Electoral College, it builds into every election the possibility that the president could be the candidate who lost the popular vote.
The majority does not always rule and every vote is NOT equal.
Currently in every election, the Electoral College vote could result in a tie, 269 to 269, because there are an even number of electors (one for every senator and House member in the states, and three for the District of Columbia). Of course, this situation could change, but why even worry about it? In case of a tie, the election goes to the House of Representatives where each state delegation gets one vote. That is, one vote for Wyoming’s approximately 500,000 residents and one for California’s approximately thirty-six and a half million residents. Is this fair? Why not make every vote count, as it should?
The Constitution makes no mention of political parties, but these non-governmental organizations became the major component of American politics and the political process. The nominating function of the Electoral College was eliminated by the 1830s when parties were relying on national conventions where hundreds of delegates from state party affiliates would convene to nominate the candidates.
It is possible for a candidate to NOT get a single vote in 39 states and the District of Columbia, yet be elected president by winning the popular vote in only eleven of these 12 states:
California Ohio
New York Michigan
Texas New Jersey
Florida North Carolina
Pennsylvania Georgia
Illinois Virginia
So a few “swing” states become the focus of the candidates time, money and promises. This emphasis on swing states takes away the incentive for a large part of the population to follow the campaign, or even vote.
Lastly, at various times in certain states, politicians have proposed (in an effort to shut out the opposing party) dividing up electoral votes by Congressional district instead of giving all electoral votes to the state-wide winner. Electing a president by the popular vote would eliminate these types of political shenanigans.
Once again, let’s make every voter and every vote count!
To learn more about the Electoral College, refer to the following:
1. Longley, Lawrence D. & Neal R. Pierce, “The Electoral College Primer 2000,” New Haven, CT, Yale Univ. Press, 1999.
2. Dover, Edwin D., “The Disputed Presidential Election of 2000,” Westport, CT, Greenwood Press, 2003.
3. Best, Judith A., “The Choice of the People? Debating the Electoral College,” Lanham, MD, Rowman & Littlefield, 1996.
4. Glennon, Michael J., “When No Majority Rules: The Electoral College & Presidential Succession,” Washington, DC, Congressional Quarterly Press, 1992.
5. Shade, William G., & Campbell, Ballard C., Editors, “American Presidential Campaigns and Elections,” 3 volumes, Armonk, NY, M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 2003.
6. The Constitution of the United States and its Amendments.
Thank you so much for this site! I’m a pretty good history student (I ought to be, I lived in Yorktown, VA for 4 years!), but I occasionally have trouble keeping all of those facts straight. I especially appreciated the section on the First Battle of Bull Run because it helped a great deal with my report. Thanks!
-Rose
@–}—