Election of 1864

What about it?

 

Thanks for the link Salty, really interesting site.

Going through the years look at how the country swings from one majority to the other and back again. Not that many of the elections were that close.

Was there something special you wanted to point out about 1864. Since so many of the states were trying to form their own country it was not much of an election.

 

Now for interesting, check out 1860, Lincoln got only 39.65% of the vote but was still elected. Now that is something. Were any presidents ever elected with lower?

 

In 1888 Grover Cleveland got 48.63% of the popular vote, but lost to Benjamin Harrison who got 47.80%. Four years later they had a rematch and Cleveland got only 46.02% of the popular vote, but this time he beat Harrison who received only 43.01%.

And check out 1912, Woodrow Wilson received only 41.84% of the popular vote, but won the Electoral vote easily. (Teddy Roosevelt split the Republicans by running as an independent.)

 

John Quincy Adams received about 30% of the popular vote actually cast in 1824. However, not all states even had a popular vote, at that time, as the legislatures of several determined the electors. Nor did President Adams receive the most electoral votes, either. But since none of the four major candidates of then Secretary Adams; Secretary Crawford, Senator Jackson, or Speaker Clay received a majority of the Electoral vote, the election was thrown into the House. Clay, who was the "odd man out" after receiving the fewest electoral votes, threw his support to Adams, who managed then, to carry, 13 of 24 states in the House, becoming President.

Ed

 

The only exception I can think of would have been in the 1952 election when the Korean War was taking place.

Truman was the incumbent president. However, Eisenhower won the election.

(Actually that was really only a technicality since Truman wasn't even running for president in that election -- Stevenson was the nominee for the Democrats.)

 

Now that was a divided nation. How did John Breckenridge expect to win running as a Southern Democrat? He would have had to carry all the southern states which were less populated with voters.

 

Talk about silencing the voice of the people. Basically 24 people in the house chose the president.

Look at those percentages in the 1792 election. One Federalist got 97.8% and another Federalist got 57%. What if Hillary and Obama could run?

 

Now there is an interesting question. What if there were no 12th Amendment for the election this year? Who would be president and who would be vice-president?

 

Cute! :laugh:

The answer is George W. Bush, and Richard B. Cheney. They will serve, we assume, until Jan. 20, 2009. After that, their successors wil be "qualified" and installed in that office, in some Constitutional manner.

VP Cheney could theoretically serve in either office, but George W. Bush or William J. Clinton are the only two living Americans who cannot serve in either office, due to being elected two times as President.

Ed

 

Okay - very cute

Let me rephrase

Now there is an interesting question. What if there were no 12th Amendment for the election this year? Who would be elected president and who would be elected vice-president in November?

 

On that I have no idea. I was not trying to be cute, but the question was worded in such as way, as to be entirely unclear. I do understand the principle; I have no idea what the electors might choose to do.

Once again, remember, the populace has no constitutional right to elect the President, by any 'popular' vote, by any stretch. We do have the mandated right to elect the members of the House of Representatives in Congress since the Constitution was ratified on Jun. 21, 1788. (Art. I, Sect. 2, Clause 1)
We have only had the mandated right to choose the Senators by direct vote since Apr. 4, 1913. Before then, Senators were chosen by the Legislatures of the states. (Amend. 17, Clause 1)

The Legislatures also determine how the electors are selected. Currently, the method every state uses is the popular vote. But it does not automatically have to be this way, and only some, but not all electors, depending on the particular state, have to follow that popular vote when casting their actual ballots for the President and/or Vice-President. Incidentally, the President is technically elected, not on the first 'voting' Tuesday in November, but when the electors meet, usually in December. Even when and if elected, one could theoretically not know who is elected, until the President of the Senate opens the transmitted ballots.

Ed

 

Since the house is democratic then I don't think McCain would have a chance at either spot.

 

My point was that before the 12th amendment to person with the highest number of electoral votes was elected president and the second highest total was elected vice-president.

Chances are that we would have had something like Obama, Clinton, Huckabee, and McCain running without the primaries and conventions.

 

Very possible.
The influence any or all intended to make would have been directed toward the legislators and electors. And one could have easily had one person of one persuasion as President and another as VP, as in Adams/Jefferson, and Jefferson/Burr, for examples.

Ed