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.
Only one presidential election (1824) actually ended up being determined by the House.
The Presidential Election of 1800 also ended up being determined by the House. Through either a miscalculation or a possibly engineered situation, both Thomas Jefferson, the Republican residential candidate and Aaron Burr, the Republican vice-presidential candidate, received the exact same number of Electoral votes. The resulting mayhem in the U.S. House (36 ballot calls in 7 days) resulted in the passage of the 12th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which added the requirement that the Electors vote separately for the two offices of the presidency and of the vice presidency.
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.
That is one of the reasons I don't support direct election. Almost any conceivable direct election system involves a runoff. Does anyone want to live through that?
[quote=PacoMartin;49233499]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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PacoMartin
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.
And remember, 1800 was also decided in the House. Initially there were four contenders, Jefferson, Adams, Pinckney (sp) and Burr. Pinckney and Adams lost out in early rounds of voting. Jefferson won when Adams (and Alexander Hamilton) steered a state to Jefferson. That was one of the causes of the fatal Burr-Hamilton duel if I recall correctly.
That is one of the reasons I don't support direct election. Almost any conceivable direct election system involves a runoff. Does anyone want to live through that?
It seems that the founding fathers did not foresee political parties and simply assumed a slate of candidates would run. As I said earlier, they anticipated a lot of runoffs in the House.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa
That is one of the reasons I don't support direct election. Almost any conceivable direct election system involves a runoff. Do And remember, 1800 was also decided in the House. Initially there were four contenders, Jefferson, Adams, Pinckney (sp) and Burr. Pinckney and Adams lost out in early rounds of voting. Jefferson won when Adams (and Alexander Hamilton) steered a state to Jefferson. That was one of the causes of the fatal Burr-Hamilton duel if I recall correctly.
I forgot about that election since the tie was between two people from the same party. It is difficult to believe that it took 36 votes in the House to resolve which of the Jefferson/Burr team should President and which should be Vice President.
It reminds of that season of VEEP on HBO.
The famous duel was four years later, and was the result of years of conflict. So certainly the POTUS election of 1800 was one of many factors.
Location: Removing a snake out of the neighbor's washing machine
3,095 posts, read 2,041,231 times
Reputation: 2305
Quote:
Originally Posted by PacoMartin
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.
If there are only two candidates, then yes, majority >50%. If there are three or more, that 50% rule goes out the window.
Suppose a roomful of 3rd graders are voting on a flavor of ice cream. There are three choices. The flavor with the most raised hands win, whether it's half(50%) the classroom or not.
If there are only two candidates, then yes, majority >50%. If there are three or more, that 50% rule goes out the window.
No it doesn't. If no one candidate gets 50% of electoral college vote, then the top 3 candidates go to the House with each state getting one vote.
In the 1824 presidential election four candidates received some electoral college votes but no one had over 50%. After that election, in America the word "plurality" came into popular usage to refer to someone who had the most votes, but not over 50%.
The word "plurality" is from the 1300's, but it didn't assume that meaning until the 1820's.
We have both the popular vote and electoral college so every year it can be a scandal as to how/who gets into office. Because there is ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS A problem.
Then we get to fight about it for four years without fixing anything. And lather. rinse. rePEE HEEEEEEEEAT. (and tegrin ... spelled backwards ... is nirget)
Anyone who believes their vote actually matters isn't paying attention. It doesn't.
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.
Swiftly?
Alabama elected its first Republican senator in 1980, Jeremiah Denton. (POW in Hanoi from 1965 to 1973, so a bit of a special circumstance).
Also 1980 in Georgia.
Louisiana, 2004.
South Carolina: Thurmond switch parties in 1964. The other senate seat was held by Democrats until 2004.
Is the Electoral College Flawed and if So How do We Change It?
No. Losing doesn't mean the system is flawed. It simply means you lost.
Indeed. There were very few discussions of replacing the Electoral College following each of Obama's victories.
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.
No offense.
