Elections, politics and parties
Published: November 5, 2009
Updated: November 5, 2009
Regardless of which candidates were celebrating on Tuesday night, it is a grand state of affairs, that “we, the people” get to choose.
Many citizens of this grand republic bemoan the nature of “politics,” but like it or not, it has been prevalent since the Continental Congress in 1776.
The United States of America was formed as a “republic,” defined as a form of government, not ruled by a monarch and heavily influenced by the resident citizens.
At the Constitutional Congress of 1787, the issue of who would elect — the people or an electoral college — the executive magistrate. The electoral college won out, was included in the Constitution, and for two terms unanimously elected George Washington to the post to be known to this day as the president of the United States.
There was a rumor that Washington was asked to be king, but it did not resonate well with the upstarts credited with the success of the American Revolution.
The electoral college called for each state to appoint or later elect a number of men equal to that state’s representation in Congress. These individuals would cast two ballots; the highest vote getter would become president and the second, vice president. The possible issues of no majority or a tie would be resolved by the House of Representatives.
Before Washington’s election to a second term, seeds of political conflict had been sown. By the end of his second term, difficult issues and strong differences of opinion gave rise to a vociferous two-party system, comprised of the Federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton and the Anti-Federalists, better known as Republicans (not the modern Republicans) and led by Thomas Jefferson. Put aside today’s political party tags and read on.
In a nutshell, the Federalists supported a centralized national government, with the strength to foster commerce and preserve America’s traditional class structure. The party of Jefferson proposed to give property-owning citizens a more influential voice and autonomy, and was predicated on an agrarian economy with government enjoying a less controlling role.
The first contested presidential election occurred in 1797 with Republicans supporting Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr and the Federalists campaigning for John Adams and Thomas Pinckney. An interesting note: only Burr participated in any active campaigning. The other candidates stayed home, while their respective campaign teams waged a rather raucous battle, proving that mud-slinging and dirty politics is not exclusive to modern-day electioneering.
The Republicans accused Adams of being a monarchist who desired to return to the days of titled nobility and characterized his rather round confirmation with the title of “His Rotundity.” The Federalists described Jefferson as an indecisive, philosophical, atheist whose support of the French Revolution would cause another war with England. In an odd twist of fate, the electoral college elected Adams as president and Jefferson to the No. 2 spot.
The Republicans would dominate the political system from 1800-1824. During the ensuing 20 years, the party would split, resulting in the formation of the current-day Democratic Party.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
Thanks mvy, I generally agree with scrapping the electoral college. I didn’t read all you have here but one of my main objections is that the electoral college is biased to thinly-populated mostly north central states. WY for example gets a disproportionate influence in the outcome. Their voters count for about 4 times as much per voter as a voter in CA in the electoral college. They have 1/68 of the population yet 1/18th of the electoral college. Doesn’t sound fair.
A survey of 800 Virginia voters conducted on December 21-22, 2008 showed 74% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
By age, support for a national popular vote was 82% among 18-29 year olds, 75% among 30-45 year olds, 75% among 46-65 year olds, and 68% for those older than 65.
By gender, support for a national popular vote was 82% among women and 65% among men.
By race, support for a national popular vote was 73% among whites (representing 76% of respondents), 79% among African Americans (representing 21% of respondents), and 65% among Others (representing 3% of respondents).
By political affiliation, support for a national popular vote was 79% for a national popular vote among liberal Democrats (representing 17% of respondents), 86% among moderate Democrats (representing 21% of respondents), 79% among conservative Democrats (representing 10% of respondents), 76% among liberal Republicans (representing 4% of respondents), 63% among moderate Republicans (representing 14% of respondents), and 54% among conservative Republicans (representing 17% of respondents), and 79% among Others (representing 17% of respondents).
see www.NationalPopularVote.com
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.
The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The Constitution gives every state the power to allocate its electoral votes for president, as well as to change state law on how those votes are awarded.
The bill is currently endorsed by over 1,659 state legislators (in 48 states) who have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. This national result is similar to recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado—68%, Iowa—75%, Michigan—73%, Missouri—70%, New Hampshire—69%, Nevada—72%, New Mexico—76%, North Carolina—74%, Ohio—70%, Pennsylvania—78%, Virginia—74%, and Wisconsin—71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Delaware—75%, Maine—77%, Nebraska—74%, New Hampshire—69%, Nevada—72%, New Mexico—76%, Rhode Island—74%, and Vermont—75%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas—80%, Kentucky—80%, Mississippi—77%, Missouri—70%, North Carolina—74%, and Virginia—74%; and in other states polled: California—70%, Connecticut—74% , Massachusetts—73%, New York—79%, and Washington—77%.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 29 state legislative chambers, in 19 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Oregon, and both houses in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, and Washington. These five states possess 61 electoral votes—23% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
With the current system of electing the President, candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided “battleground” states. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided “battleground” states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 “battleground” states. Similarly, in 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states and over 99% of their money in 16 states.
Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the winner-take-all rule enacted by 48 states, under which all of a state’s electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.
Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in one of every 14 presidential elections.
In the past six decades, there have been six presidential elections in which a shift of a relatively small number of votes in one or two states would have elected (and, of course, in 2000, did elect) a presidential candidate who lost the popular vote nationwide.
The Founding Fathers said in the U.S. Constitution: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . .“ The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “plenary” and “exclusive.“
Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, that the voters may vote and the winner-take-all rule) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation’s first presidential election.
In 1789, in the nation’s first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, it was necessary to own a substantial amount of property in order to vote.
In 1789 only three states used the winner-take-all rule.
There is no valid argument that the winner-take-all rule is entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The winner-take-all rule (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in a particular state) is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention, or the Federalist Papers. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all rule.
As a result of changes in state laws, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all rule is used by 48 of the 50 states.
Post a Comment(Requires free registration)
- Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
- Respect others.
- Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
- See the Terms and Conditions for details.
Advertisement