Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Dixiecrats have been dead for a few decades now. For instance, every Democrat but two who voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, remained a Democrat until the day he died. Strom Thurmond switched to the GOP, and Richard Gephardt is still alive (and still a Democrat).
Democrats have gone through a few changes -- from segregationist progressives and populists, to civil-liberty liberals, and now back to being progressives and populists but increasingly in opposition to civil liberties. And they've abandoned the goal of a color-blind society, and now everything is about race to them.
Largely the Dixiecrat electorate are Republicans and those states went from blue to red except when you had southern Democrats are the Presidential nominee as with Carter and Clinton. Largely the religiously convicted racists in the Dixiecrat went from blue to red, not the party itself.
I think you fell for identity politics 101. The right are just as guilty with the alt.right movement in the last two/three years. Just replace black, woman or Muslim with White Christians.
Largely the Dixiecrat electorate are Republicans and those states went from blue to red except when you had southern Democrats are the Presidential nominee as with Carter and Clinton. Largely the religiously convicted racists in the Dixiecrat went from blue to red, not the party itself.
The Southerners voting Republican today were never Dixiecrats. The ones old enough to have been Dixiecrats must be in their 90s today, and they were Yellow Dog Democrats. As was recently noted, if the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had such a major effect on voting patterns, why did it take over 20 years for Republicans to take away the Senate seats held by the Southern Democrats who voted against? And why did it take until 1994 -- 30 years after passage of the Civil Rights Act -- for Republicans to pick up a majority of House seats in the Deep South?
If civil rights legislation passed in 1964 had a party-switching effect on Southern voters, why did it take them 20 to 30 years for those voters to react? The answer, of course, is that Southern voters today are not the segregationist Democrats of yesteryear.
The Southerners voting Republican today were never Dixiecrats. The ones old enough to have been Dixiecrats must be in their 90s today, and they were Yellow Dog Democrats. As was recently noted, if the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had such a major effect on voting patterns, why did it take over 20 years for Republicans to take away the Senate seats held by the Southern Democrats who voted against? And why did it take until 1994 -- 30 years after passage of the Civil Rights Act -- for Republicans to pick up a majority of House seats in the Deep South?
If civil rights legislation passed in 1964 had a party-switching effect on Southern voters, why did it take them 20 to 30 years for those voters to react? The answer, of course, is that Southern voters today are not the segregationist Democrats of yesteryear.
You're talking two points that are irrelevant to the Electoral College, Dixiecrat politicians and congressional voting patterns. I am talking presidentially. Since Goldwater in 64, the only Democrats to win states in the Dixiecrat south were Wallace, Carter and Clinton, all Democrat Governors. That said whether we talk Nixon, Reagan, Bush '41 (in 88), Bush '43, McCain, Romney and Trump all won a majority of the "Dixiecrat" states.
You're talking two points that are irrelevant to the Electoral College, Dixiecrat politicians and congressional voting patterns. I am talking presidentially. Since Goldwater in 64, the only Democrats to win states in the Dixiecrat south were Wallace, Carter and Clinton, all Democrat Governors. That said whether we talk Nixon, Reagan, Bush '41 (in 88), Bush '43, McCain, Romney and Trump all won a majority of the "Dixiecrat" states.
I was merely rejecting the notion that the "Southern Strategy", invented to explain Republicans breaking-up the Democrat domination of the Deep South, actually explains anything. Republicans from Hoover to Eisenhower occasionally picked up electoral votes in the South, but it was Reagan and not Nixon who actually peeled voters in great numbers away from the Democrats. And he never appealed to any residual racist instincts. He did not have to -- it was the Democrat policies on abortion, appeasement, gun control, etc., that drove Southern voters to make the switch to the Republican Party.
The idea that the President should be elected by a majority of the country was important in the constitution. No one wanted a simple plurality.
In 1992 no one had a majority of popular votes
43.01% Clinton
37.45% Bush
18.91% Perot
But it is not impossible to imagine a future election where 4 candidates run, and no one gets more than 30% of the popular vote. The idea of selecting the candidate with the largest number of popular votes would be repugnant.
Keep in mind that the original concept was that each congressional district would vote for an "elector" who would be free to vote his conscience. The thought was that a large percentage of elections would not produce a majority of electoral college votes, the top 3 would then be selected and the winner determined by the House of Representatives.
Only one presidential election (1824) actually ended up being determined by the House. The results after the popular election were:
99 Andrew Jackson
84 John Q. Adams
41 William H. Crawford
37 Henry Clay
According to the constitution the top three candidates were eligible for a run off in the House. Henry Clay made a bargain for his votes and John Q Adams won the presidency.
Location: Removing a snake out of the neighbor's washing machine
3,095 posts, read 2,039,700 times
Reputation: 2305
Quote:
Originally Posted by PacoMartin
The idea that the President should be elected by a majority of the country was important in the constitution. No one wanted a simple plurality.
In 1992 no one had a majority of popular votes
43.01% Clinton
37.45% Bush
18.91% Perot
But it is not impossible to imagine a future election where 4 candidates run, and no one gets more than 30% of the popular vote. The idea of selecting the candidate with the largest number of popular votes would be repugnant.
Keep in mind that the original concept was that each congressional district would vote for an "elector" who would be free to vote his conscience. The thought was that a large percentage of elections would not produce a majority of electoral college votes, the top 3 would then be selected and the winner determined by the House of Representatives.
Only one presidential election (1824) actually ended up being determined by the House. The results after the popular election were:
99 Andrew Jackson
84 John Q. Adams
41 William H. Crawford
37 Henry Clay
According to the constitution the top three candidates were eligible for a run off in the House. Henry Clay made a bargain for his votes and John Q Adams won the presidency.
Depends on you define 'majority'. In the 1992 example, Clinton simply had the biggest individual slice of that pie. Others might define majority as more than half(51% or more).
Depends on you define 'majority'. In the 1992 example, Clinton simply had the biggest individual slice of that pie. Others might define majority as more than half(51% or more).
Majority means over 50%. The American English sense that plurality means "excess of votes over rival candidates," especially when none has an absolute majority, is from 1828. The word specifically was used that way because of the results of the 1824 presidential election.
Clinton won a majority of electoral college votes, but just a plurality of the popular vote.
The founding fathers wanted the President to win a ABSOLUTE MAJORITY of the country. They defined that as a majority of EC votes. In the first election less than 2% of the population of the country voted, so they had no sense that the results of a popular vote would be meaningful. The second election had closer to 1% of the population voting.
Last edited by PacoMartin; 08-18-2017 at 09:59 AM..
I was merely rejecting the notion that the "Southern Strategy", invented to explain Republicans breaking-up the Democrat domination of the Deep South, actually explains anything. Republicans from Hoover to Eisenhower occasionally picked up electoral votes in the South, but it was Reagan and not Nixon who actually peeled voters in great numbers away from the Democrats. And he never appealed to any residual racist instincts. He did not have to -- it was the Democrat policies on abortion, appeasement, gun control, etc., that drove Southern voters to make the switch to the Republican Party.
Nixon didn't but states went his way in 72 over McGovern who was anti-war and fairly liberal. Nixon won not so much on abortion then. Eisenhower won a few states but most went Stevenson. That said the democrats who won were mostly blue dogs and all were governors.
The Southerners voting Republican today were never Dixiecrats. The ones old enough to have been Dixiecrats must be in their 90s today, and they were Yellow Dog Democrats. As was recently noted, if the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had such a major effect on voting patterns, why did it take over 20 years for Republicans to take away the Senate seats held by the Southern Democrats who voted against? And why did it take until 1994 -- 30 years after passage of the Civil Rights Act -- for Republicans to pick up a majority of House seats in the Deep South?
If civil rights legislation passed in 1964 had a party-switching effect on Southern voters, why did it take them 20 to 30 years for those voters to react? The answer, of course, is that Southern voters today are not the segregationist Democrats of yesteryear.
When legislation passes people go about their lives. They don't rush to their county's board of elections to switch parties. However change occurs much faster in the voting booth. People can vote secretly however they wish and those votes swiftly turned Republican. Note that in 1964 Strom Thurmond switched from Republican to Democratic Party. In 1966 Claude Kirk was elected at the first Republican governor of Florida since Reconstruction. There were a plethora of other switches of allegiance and voting patterns.
In the other direction Wayne Morse, Oregon Senator switched from the Republican to Democratic party. So coincident with the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the 1965 Voting Rights Act and subsequent Fair Housing Act the parties realigned.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
