That's about as absurd as Steely's imaginary constituencies the other day. What's the lowest share of the popular vote that a President has been elected on in a 2 candidate contest?
That's about as absurd as Steely's imaginary constituencies the other day. What's the lowest share of the popular vote that a President has been elected on in a 2 candidate contest?
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Depends on how strictly you're interpreting those parameters. The President who served with the least proportion of the popular vote who did not succeed to the position from being Vice President was John Quincy Adams in the 10th election back in 1824. He had 31 percent of the popular vote, while Andrew Jackson had 41 percent. Two other candidates each received about 10 percent of the popular vote. No one had a majority in the electoral college and so the election was thrown to the House of Representatives, as per the Article II rules and the 12 amendment to them in the Constitution.
Next up was Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876. He lost the popular vote by a three-percent margin (had 47.9 overall*) but was elected in the Compromise of 1877, which awarded disputed electoral votes to him in exchange for a pledge from the Republican party to end Reconstruction. Note that The lowest share of the popular vote by a President who was elected normally was Benjamin Harrison in 1888. He lost the popular vote by a margin of .83 percent.
*note that there were good solid reasons for dispute. All kinds of shenanigans in this election in the disputed states. If you think it may be impossible to ever know whether Dubya really won Florida, you should take a close look at fraud in Florida back in 1876.
Last edited by LittleFuzzy; 04-13-2016 at 10:10 PM.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Oh, but all the party leaders say our delegate system is democracy -- the 'representative' kind where the parties control the process. You're right it's party management, but that's what people are complaining about! Even though we don't have a direct democracy (where the popular vote wins) maybe our voter participation rate stinks is because people don't feel their vote matters?
Example: I live in PA, which has a closed process. That means you either have to register as a (R) or (D) to vote in their primary. If you're a new voter the deadline to register was March 30, but if you're already a registered voter and wanted to change party affiliation the deadline was months ago.
Our (R) party has 17 bound delegates (3 of whom are 'party officials' bound to the RNC) so that leaves 14 who will vote according to their congressional district outcome....and 54 unbound delegates who can do whatever they want at the state convention, even on the first ballot, regardless of how "the people" voted. And delegates can be swayed to vote a certain way, using all sorts of "perks", just not out-right cash bribes.
All 50 states have two political parties making up their own rules....from voter registration requirements/deadlines to whether it's a caucus or primary process (or just a state convention where the only 'voting' is for delegates going to the national convention). Explain how that mess makes sense.
It is a mess, but again, this is an internal party process. It is not really connected to your general elections, direct democracy, or whatever, except that it determines who runs in the general election. But not even exclusively, anyone can run then, this is just how the major parties determine who runs for them. If you don't like the candidates they put forward, vote for someone else. If you don't like how parties are run, join them, become active and try to change it. Or start/support a new party. If enough people actually cared about this that surely wouldn't be a problem, but until people do you might be sick with what you've got.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
I wasn't thinking of your "elected by the House" alternative solution, since popular vote is entirely moot in that scenario and the election is thrown to a different set of votes; but since the election would then be decided by the votes for the House I can't foresee a party that had got very significantly below 21.8% of the popular vote holding a majority in the House in any realistic scenario. Similarly I think that winning a majority of the Electoral College on 21.8% is simply implausible in modern reality too.
The two parties have monopolized things for so long it's practically impossible for "anyone" to run for office as a third party. And if they do it's after the (R) and (D) candidates already had televised debates, 'townhall meetings', interviews, and front page stories that dominated the news for months.
*I think you underestimate how powerful the two parties are in our government. That's probably why Ron Paul ran as a Republican (instead of a Libertarian), or why Bernie Sanders is running as a Democrat (instead of a Democratic Socialist)....or why the Tea Party decided they'd have more clout/power by inserting themselves into the GOP rather than starting a new party.
And since the media pays more attention to (R) and (D) candidates than any "new" party/small party/third party, it becomes a vicious cycle. I wonder if that's why Donald Trump decided to run as a Republican, and why the GOP practically begged him not to run third party? It's a messed up system, and hoping it will be changed from within is something politicians have been promising for decades.
It's called Duverger's Law. And we've had this system since 1789.
Hope is the denial of reality
That doesn't mean it shouldn't be reformed or updated for the 21st century. You mentioned gerrymandering, which is a part of our system, too.It's called Duverger's Law. And we've had this system since 1789.
Good luck with that. I'm sure 2/3 of Republicans and Democrats in Congress will vote for an amendment that will weaken their duopoly.
Hope is the denial of reality
Exactly. But that's also why so many Americans hate politicians, and party politics. Is it any wonder we have pathetic voter turnout rates?
Back to changing the system from within: perhaps that's why the Sanders campaign has been so popular, and enduring, even though Clinton is leading in number of votes and delegates? He started by calling for a political revolution, from the bottom up. He's even said the movement is more than just Bernie Sanders the candidate, getting the nomination, or winning the Presidency....but it's more about mobilizing people to get involved, engaged, and voting. He's right that when voter turn-out is low, Republicans win (because their activists are more active); but when voter turn-out is high, Democrats win (because they reflect majority views).
He's already successful, as a candidate, because he's caused Clinton to change some of her talking points and policy positions, in response to his. ie, millions of voters are telling Clinton what they want, not the other way around. When she said she was running to be the first woman President, that wasn't enough. When she said she was going to continue Obama's policies, that wasn't enough either.
If nothing else, Bernie has forced Hillary to become a broader candidate for a general election, not just a legacy/establishment Democrat. And if Sanders gets enough delegates (using this crappy system), that can have a real influence in creating the official Democratic platform.
The Republican Party has used that strategy too, when the Tea Party or Christian Evangelicals (Moral Majority throwbacks) were the groups influencing the RNC platform. But that didn't work out so well for their party on a national level. And while 'conventional wisdom' says all politics is local....the new truth is that all politics is also national, even global.
Last edited by GGT; 04-29-2016 at 05:22 AM.
It's also part of the reason why you're one of the most successful nations in the globe. Your system works.
You posted that before Trump became the presumptive (R) nominee. Well before the (R) party nominating convention and delegate voting, the RNC chair declared Trump is their main man (because every other candidate has dropped out).
Now millions of Republicans are in shock, burning their voter registration cards, and wondering WTF happened. Others are willing to hold their nose and support Trump because he has an (R) behind his name, even though they don't agree with his principles or policies -- because they want party power in the White House.
And you think our political system is working?
Yes. You think its a shock that Trump as a mere nominee (let alone actually being President) because it is a shock. It's not standard to have types like Berlusconi reach the top of power for you guys. If Trump becomes President then so be it, it means he'll have been democratically elected but that would be an even bigger shock.
Rand, I think you're giving kudos to our political system (which is NOT working), instead of crediting our constitutional system where three branches of gov't have checks and balances.
Part and parcel of the same thing.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...der-gop-rules/
Thought that was interesting for this thread.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote