U.S. Election System
Has the United States always followed the Constitution and the letter of the law in electing Presidents?
Article II. Section 1. of the Constitution says:
"Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the state may be entitled in the Congress... ...The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for two persons..."
The Constitution was ratified in 1788 (9 states, the number required to form the Union) but it took a few months to get organized. On March 4, 1789, the U.S. Senate attempted to meet but was quickly adjourned for lack of a quorum. By September the number of states had grown to 12 and delegates met in Federal Hall in New York City to name the President. 11 of the 12 states "appointed" George Washington. New York abstained.
By 1792 the Union had grown to 15 states which met and again decided, 15 to 0, to "re-appoint" Washington.
In 1796 the states had started to actually cast votes and John Adams won 9 out of 15 states. In 1800 Adams lost 9 of 16 states to a tie of 73 electoral votes between Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr. As prescribed in the Constitution, the matter was sent to the House where Jefferson was ELECTED on the 37th ballot in February, 1801.
The process in the House was one vote per state. States held caucuses, then cast one vote each. That's the system today. [NOTE: 73 electoral votes was a majority but both Jefferson and Burr had received the same number.] The process would have gone to the House under the same rules if neither had held a majority.
Elections in the United States were off to a rocky start. A tie so soon after the formation of the Union revealed a weakness in the process and resulted in passage of the 12th Amendment in 1804.
The change reduced the chance for a tie:
"The electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots, the person voted for as Vice-President..."
At first the new rules seemed to work. Jefferson won big in 1804, as did Madison in 1808 and 1812. Monroe won 16 of 18 states in 1816 followed by a sweep (23 of 23) in 1820 to become only the second man (besides Washington) to win every state, a record that still stands. Also, for the first time, in the election of 1820 a written record was made of the popular vote.
For the first thirty years (with the exception of 1800) the number of popular votes was virtually irrelevant. Electoral votes had been unanimous within states -- states had voted along regional lines (North vs. South), and the population was about equal between the regions. However, the North had began to gain in the House based on census figures for 1800, 1810, and 1820.
By 1824 there were 24 states. War of 1812 hero, Andrew Jackson (Battle of New Orleans) won 11 states and John Quincy Adams won 9 but neither had a majority of electoral votes. Once again the decision went to the House and to Jackson's chagrin the slight edge of Northern members -- plus a little horse trading -- plus, there were no organized political parties -- gave J. Q. Adams the Presidency. Adams thus became President with the lowest popular vote ever: 30.9% to Jackson's 41.3%.
The fiery Jackson was outraged. He had won more states and a greater popular vote but lost the election. He sincerely believed that the election had been stolen. But, he didn't mope, whine, speak publically about stolen elections, or hire any lawyers. He understood the Electoral College system. Instead, he instigated positive steps to improve his chances for 1828 and became the first candidate to create a political organization: a national unified party. In 1828 he won 15 of 24 states (56.0% popular vote), served two terms, and his party dominated national politics for the next twenty years.
Abraham Lincoln's 1860 popular vote total wasn't much better than J.Q. Adams'. Lincoln received only 39.8% but the Democrats' 47.6% share was split between two candidates and Lincoln's victories were in Northern states with 'winner take all' rules which gave him a majority of electoral votes. No one whined that Lincoln was an illegitimate President because two Democrats had won 47.6% of the popular vote. The general public was smarter in those days than the press is today: the public understood the system. Also, there was no NEA (teachers union) so people were better educated. Citizens understood that the system was based on the Electoral College; not popular votes. The people understood and appreciated a republican form of government.
In 1876 the Democrat candidate, Samuel Tilden, won more votes than Rutherford B. Hayes but was one electoral vote, 185 to 184, short of a majority in the Electoral College. There were twenty disputed electoral votes from four states. An Electoral Commission of 15 was appointed by Congress to consider the disputed votes and by a majority of 8 to 7 the Commission gave all of them to Hayes. Now THAT's stealing!
There's no provision in the Constitution for such a "commission." Congress can certainly appoint a committee and consider its report. If neither candidate has a majority of electoral votes, the House is suppose to ELECT the President, with each state having one vote. The Constitution does not say that Congress is suppose to RESOLVE disputed votes with a Commission: It says that the House ELECTS. Congress soon passed Title V, United States Code, to correct such nonsense and Section 3 of that statute prohibits changing the rules after an election has been held. Too bad the Florida Supreme Court didn't read Title V before changing the rules in Florida. It would have saved the country a lot of anguish.
The system is very simple if states AND Congress will just stick to the rules:
The states choose electors ("in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct,") who then cast their votes -- The electoral votes are sent to Congress -- A joint meeting of the Senate and House tallies the votes -- To challenge a states electoral votes, one Senator and one House member MUST sign a protest:
Protests for President are referred to the House; for Vice-President, to the Senate; each to be resolved by debate and vote in the respective chamber. -- The joint meeting reconvenes. -- If a challenge can NOT be resolved, that state's votes are ignored.
If results produce a majority electoral vote winner, OK. -- If not, the ELECTION then goes to the House for President; to the Senate for Vice President.
If the process is played out the way its supposed to, we could end up with a President of one party and a vice-president from another, depending on political control of the House and Senate. ... Or, if the process does not resolve who will be President and who will be Vice-President,
the "Presidential Disabilities" clause of the Constitution would take effect and those that would take office under that clause would then become acting President and VP until the matter is resolved.
[Note: If the question of Pres. cannot be resolved but a VP has been elected in the Senate, then the VP becomes acting Pres. If neither has been resolved, then the Speaker of the HOR becomes acting Pres.]
Note also, Amendment XII of 1804 specifies that electors cast separate ballots for President and Vice President. Challenges must be made and resolved to a states electoral votes on that basis. It's a quirk of the system that individuals cast votes for President and Vice President and from habit cast votes for the "team." But electors also cast separate votes for each office and may choose not to follow the "habit" of individual voters. Therefore, it's possible under the current rules to have a President from one party and a Vice President from another without the involvement of congress. But, regardless of the process used, if the rules are followed they are simpler than those of baseball and young CHILDREN play baseball every day.
... So why do adults have problems with a simple system?
Philosophos Historia
See The History Professor, for timeline-oriented original documents and factual materials of historical figures and events that led to the founding of America, the evolution of the Constitution, and the political system of the USA.