Showing posts with label electoral college. Show all posts
Showing posts with label electoral college. Show all posts

October 4 - President Hayes's Birthday!

Posted October 4, 2017

Did you know that more U.S. presidents were born in October than in any other month?

I guess I missed my calling, because I was born in October, too.

With only 44 people having been president (Grover Cleveland was president for two non-consecutive terms, so his two terms have separate numbers), and 12 months of the year, we might expect 3 or 4 presidents to be born in each month. However, 6 presidents were born in October!

Jimmy Carter - October 1
Rutherford Hayes - October 4
Chester Arthur - October 5
Dwight D. Eisenhower - October 14
Teddy Roosevelt - October 27
John Adams - October 30

Rutherford Hayes was a Republican, back when Republicans were still the "Party of Lincoln." He was a Civil War hero who fought to maintain the Union. 




And he paid a dear price for his support-of-nation: he was wounded five times during the war!

Hayes earned a reputation as a courageous soldier, and he was rewarded for his bravery: he became Governor of his home state of Ohio through three terms, and then was elected president in 1876.

The 1876 election was full of shenanigans. At this time, many people in the Southern states were still upset that they lost the Civil War. They were upset that slavery had been ended, and they were even more upset with the new constitutional amendments ensuring that black people - even former slaves! - could vote and (in theory, at least) enjoyed equal protection of the law.

Some of those upset Southerners deliberately suppressed the vote. I read that there were threats of violence against black people to make sure that they wouldn't vote. There were also several different sorts of voter fraud. 

For example, in South Carolina, there were more votes cast than there were voters. So obviously, someone was cheating! 

At that time, the political parties would print ballots or "tickets" to encourage people to support them. Many voters were not able to read - or were not able to read well - and to help illiterate voters, he parties would print their symbols on the tickets.

But in this election, many Democratic ballots were printed with the Republican symbol, which was a picture of Abraham Lincoln. 

South Carolina's election commission saw this fraudulent move and disallowed enough Democratic ballots so that they could award their electoral votes to Hayes.

It's unknown how much the voter suppression and fraud cost Hayes and the Republican Party in the general election, but the Democratic candidate, New Yorker Samuel J. Tilden, seemed at least to win the popular vote. 

But the popular vote isn't the actual election - that happens in the electoral college. And the vote there was 184 for Tilden to 165 for Hayes, with 20 votes disputed (mostly for very good reasons).

Accusations and counter-accusation flew about. It was the most controversial election in the young nation's history - and it ended in a back-room deal, apparently:

The Republicans agreed to take federal troops out of the South - which basically ended the Reconstruction Era - in return for the Democrats allowing ALL of the disputed votes to go to Hayes.

And that deal - called the Compromise of 1877 - resulted in the tightest electoral college election ever (Hayes with 185 votes beating Tilden with 184). 

But the biggest result was that the Republicans basically gave away the South to the folks who wanted to return it to pre-Civil-War times. These white Southerners couldn't re-enslave black people, but they did a LOT to keep black people down in both political power and in earning power, and they did a LOT to keep black and white people separate.

It took almost a century before the segregation and discrimination that Southern Democrats inflicted on an already racially-troubled society began to be unraveled. And we are still trying to unravel the inequalities today.

(Interestingly enough, the party of voter suppression and of bigotry has basically flipped from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party, starting in 1968 with the Republicans' "Southern Strategy," which was designed to attract racist former-Democrats to the Republican Party, and culminating in the current Republican president, who regularly makes bigoted statements and who was a big pusher of the racist "birther" conspiracy against former President Obama.)

Probably not Hayes's fault...

I find myself feeling quite bad about Hayes's election, because of the uptick in institutionalized racism in the South. However, I cannot see any indication that Hayes was power hungry or that he, himself, thought up the Compromise. He had promised not to run for a second term as president, and he kept that promise. 

Also, he seemed to have some good ideas, according to these quotes:

Abolish plutocracy if you would abolish poverty. As millionaires increase, pauperism grows. The more millionaires, the more paupers.

Diary (16 February 1890)
The progress of society is mainly—is, in its proper sense, the improvement in the condition of the workingmen of the world.
Diary (27 February 1890)
The unrestricted competition so commonly advocated does not leave us the survival of the fittest. The unscrupulous succeed best in accumulating wealth.
Diary (12 December 1890)
Personally I do not resort to force — not even the force of law — to advance moral reforms. I prefer education, argument, persuasion, and above all the influence of example — of fashion. Until these resources are exhausted I would not think of force.
Diary (9 October 1883)

The man who thinks that the perpetuity of slavery is essential to the existence of the Union, is unfit to be trusted. The deadliest enemy the Union has is slavery — in fact, its only enemy.

Diary (5 June 1862)

We all agree that neither the Government nor political parties ought to interfere with religious sects. It is equally true that religious sects ought not to interfere with the Government or with political parties. We believe that the cause of good government and the cause of religion both suffer by all such interference.

Speech, Marion, Ohio (31 July 1875)



 

Also on this date:
















Great Books Week (First full week of October)




Mystery Series Week (First full week of October)

























Plan ahead: 



Check out my Pinterest boards for:
And here are my Pinterest boards for:

November 6, 2012 - Election Day in the United States

It's time, once again, to think about the electoral college.

Presidents and their vice-presidential running mates are the only governmental officials elected by the entire nation. Rather than just comparing the raw vote—how many people voted for this candidate compared to how many voted for that other candidate—candidates win the electoral votes of a particular state by winning the presidential election in that state. It is the total number of electoral votes, not the total number of raw votes, that determines who wins and becomes president.

This means that, instead of winning one big national election, a successful candidate must win many smaller state elections.

States with small populations have a lot fewer electors than large states with large populations. The number of electors of a particular state is the number of senators from that state (and every state gets the same number of senators—two) plus the number of representatives from that state (which depends on the population). 


So Delaware and Alaska have three electoral votes each, Texas has 38, and California has 55 electoral votes.

Why is the presidential election set up this way? Do you think this method is fair? Read on....

Why and when?

The Founding Fathers created the electoral college system in order to make sure that the large states wouldn't have undue control over the presidential elections; another way of saying this is that this system was devised to safeguard the voice of the less populous states.

The first plan to elect U.S. presidents was to have Congress elect the president. (This would be somewhat similar to the British Parliament/Prime Minister system.) However, some of the Founding Fathers thought that the president wouldn't have the proper amount of independence from Congress—in other words, that the president would be under Congressional control.

The Founding Fathers did briefly discuss the idea of direct election—each citizen voting for president directly, and the winner being the guy (so far, it's always been men!) with the most raw votes. James Madison liked this idea but pointed out that southern states wouldn't, because much of their population was made up of non-voting slaves. A lot of compromise over slavery happened during the crafting of the Constitution; it's surprising that the document has served as well as it has, for as long as it has, with as few amendments as it has had, considering!

Note: the Constitution refers to “electors” but not to the “electoral college.” The latter phrase began to be used in the early nineteenth century and appeared in written form in a federal law in 1845.

Good things about the electoral college:
  • In a close election, a recount would have to happen with ALL the ballots in the whole nation, if we went by raw votes. With the electoral college, there is only a recount of votes in the really close states. Recounts are expensive and time-consuming.

  • The electoral college gives more influence to small states, with their different perspectives, and to rural areas than a raw vote count would. It also gives a bit more influence to racial and ethnic minorities, who often live in large cities in populous states and who therefore can tilt all the electoral votes of those states.

  • The electoral college system tends to prevent candidates with only regional support from winning.
  • The electoral college system encourages stability through the two-party system. (Only some people think this is a good thing!)
An analogy... 
What if the World Series of baseball was decided by the raw total of all the runs made in all the games of the Series? 
Let's say that the Giants won six out of seven games but totaled only 10 runs in all seven games. If the Tigers had one freaky game in which they scored 7 runs, and won that one game—would it be a good thing if the Tigers ended up winning the whole series with 11 total points, even though they lost six games and only won one?
In sports, we almost always have a series of small competitions adding up to a large win. A tennis player doesn't win a match because someone tallied up all the points she made in a match, and compared that tally to her opponents. Instead, she has to win more sets than her opponent (and to win a set, she must win more games).

Bad things about the electoral college system:
  • Candidates tend to focus on large swing states such as Florida and Pennsylvania and Ohio, almost ignoring states with few electoral votes or states that are “safe” for a particular party.
  • The electoral college system to some extent discourages voter turnout. However, since there are other offices and propositions in any given election, apathy and non-participation seems to me to be a problem largely separated from the whether we use direct voting or the electoral college.

  • It's an unnecessarily complicated system. Many people think that one citizen-one vote makes more sense.
  • Some people think that some of the things on the “good” list above are really bad. For example, some people don't like the fact that the current system favors less populous and more rural states. Some argue that the system makes disadvantages third parties, but others claim that the electoral college system actually improves chances of third-party candidates in some situations.
  • Voter suppression (passing state laws that make it harder for some people to vote) isn't punished by our electoral college system. However, a direct-vote system wouldn't help fight against voter suppression efforts, either....

To learn more...

Kids Discover offers an infographic about the Electoral College.  

Congress for Kids has a page on this system. 

Also on this date: