The Splintering GOP Base

Damocles said:
Did you know, Watermark, that Electors were supposed to put two names on their ballots and then the top two were elected as President and VP in the original constitution?

Your proportional counting was actually rejected later as it was found to cause problems with the Executive branch.
Click to expand...

What? No, there wasn't ever proportional counting.

Everyone would cast the same vote for their parties president, but they'd usually split on the vice president, and so the guy who had the second most votes was usually of the opposite party.

That's why Jefferson and Burr tied whenever the parties started requiring that people vote the same for the vice president also.
 
uscitizen said:
Yeah imagine President bush and VP Gore. Hmm might not be in Iraq....hmmm
Click to expand...
Early on it came to blows, and sometimes even to shots being fired at each other.

Could you imagine how it would have been during the Civil war if the VP were of the same party as Calhoun?

There was a reason to Amend the constitution. It was causing far more serious problems than people might think today.
 
It's a common misconception that the early system they used to elect the president would cause the VP to be of the opposite party.

Think about it. If you were in a two member legislative district, all the Democrats would cast their two votes for the two Democrats running, and all the Republicans would cast their two votes for the two Republicans running. Whichever party had the most voters would get both seats, unless some people only cast one vote or some people split their ticket.

And that's basically how the first voting system in the elctoral college worked. The reason it elected a VP of the opposite party ONCE was because of the reasons I described - and it only happened ONCE.


And Damo, I'M NOT TRYING TO PUSH PR RIGHT NOW!

You're the only person who brought that into the debate! PR is a pipe dream, and no one ever proposes it be used to select executives anyway.
 
Watermark said:
What? No, there wasn't ever proportional counting.

Everyone would cast the same vote for their parties president, but they'd usually split on the vice president, and so the guy who had the second most votes was usually of the opposite party.

That's why Jefferson and Burr tied whenever the parties started requiring that people vote the same for the vice president also.
Click to expand...
You are wrong. There was proportional counting. The electors were supposed to put two names on the ballot, and the second-most votes were to be the VP. The first two elections, the popularity of George Washington, overcame the rules, each elector only put one name on the ballot, and George Washington was elected unanimously both times. However, thereafter the party system started taking control and parties got together to throw their weight behind their two. This caused every election to end up with opposing parties in office.

The party system changed things. After the third election, it was always one of one party, and one of the other and this caused problems.

Shoot, the parties held so much power, that votes were not even recorded until 1824. In order to change this and the problems that it caused they changed the system so that it was one 'ticket' they were voting for. This made the constitution more 'party-friendly' unfortunately it also made it only two-party friendly.
 
George Washington (none) Virginia 69
John Adams (none) Massachusetts 34
John Jay (none) New York 9
Robert H. Harrison (none) Maryland 6
John Rutledge (none) South Carolina 6
John Hancock (none) Massachusetts 4
George Clinton (none) New York 3
Samuel Huntington (none) Connecticut 2
John Milton (none) Georgia 2
James Armstrong(g) (none) Georgia(g) 1
Benjamin Lincoln (none) Massachusetts 1
Edward Telfair (none) Georgia 1



Damo, you're right. Every person in the room cast a vote for George Washington. There were 69 electors. Then they cast another vote, and this other vote was intended for who they wanted to be vice president. So, basically, if people kept a unified vote and voted party line, the vice president would be of the same party.
 
"Shoot, the parties held so much power, that votes were not even recorded until 1824. In order to change this and the problems that it caused they changed the system so that it was one 'ticket' they were voting for. This made the constitution more 'party-friendly' unfortunately it also made it only two-party friendly."


Damo, they ammended the constitution to change it to a VP and P vote in 1804. I believe you are mistaken.
 
Watermark said:
"Shoot, the parties held so much power, that votes were not even recorded until 1824. In order to change this and the problems that it caused they changed the system so that it was one 'ticket' they were voting for. This made the constitution more 'party-friendly' unfortunately it also made it only two-party friendly."


Damo, they ammended the constitution to change it to a VP and P vote in 1804. I believe you are mistaken.
Click to expand...
I am not mistaken. The parties were so strong they did not record the votes until 1824.
 
Damocles said:
I am not mistaken. The parties were so strong they did not record the votes until 1824.
Click to expand...

You are mistaken that the first presidential election system would always result in a Vice President of the opposite party, yes. That was due to vote-splitting on the second vote.

They didn't record votes in the electoral college? Yes they did. They have them up on wikipedia.

It's true that they voted for the speaker of the house on secret ballot - but this was meant to decrease, not increase, the power of parties. In modern times, the fact the vote for speaker is open basically means that party leaders decide who gets to be speaker instead of individual representatives, who will be punished by not being given a commitee seat if they vote off the party line.

Did they not record ANY votes in congress? I wouldnt' know about that.
 
Watermark said:
"Shoot, the parties held so much power, that votes were not even recorded until 1824. In order to change this and the problems that it caused they changed the system so that it was one 'ticket' they were voting for. This made the constitution more 'party-friendly' unfortunately it also made it only two-party friendly."


Damo, they ammended the constitution to change it to a VP and P vote in 1804. I believe you are mistaken.
Click to expand...
Anyway, read the statements on this site:

http://presidentelect.org

1789 election:

When the constitution had finally been ratified and the time came for the new republic to elect its first president, there really was only one choice. George Washington was a delegate to both constitutional congresses, was unanimously named commander-in-chief of the Continental Army during the American Revolution, and was unanimously named president of the Constitutional Convention that drafted the Constitution. His popularity cut across the political spectrum, including those who advocated a strong central government (the Federalists, with whom Washington agreed), those who wanted the states to hold the most power (soon to be called the Democratic-Republicans), and even those who didn't really care about politics. From the 69 electors, who had to name two choices for president on their ballot, Washington received one vote on every ballot -- once again a unanimous election.

1792:

From the moment the Constitution was ratified, divisions among those in power arose and political factions developed. The two most prominent factions were the Federalists (with whom Washington and John Adams agreed) who advocated a strong central government, and the Democratic-Republicans who believed the states should hold the most power. George Washington, who had originally wanted to retire after his first presidential term, decided to run again in order to try to halt the rise of political parties. The Democratic-Republicans, who were aware of Washington's obvious and undiminished popularity and who were at the time outnumbered by the Federalists, didn't oppose his reelection. Once again Washington received a vote on every elector's ballot, giving him his second unanimous presidential election.

1796:

With the retirement of Washington, the political parties began their dominance. For many years the parties were more important in choosing the president than even the populace. In congress members of each faction met together and would decide who to support for president. The electors who would choose the president were picked by the states using various different methods including by state legislatures, by popular vote, and in some other ways. The "will of the people" was secondary to the "will of those in power". In fact, popular vote totals weren't even officially kept until 1824!

Because the constitution wasn't written with political parties in mind, this election would be the first of two in a row in which an unexpected situation would develop. At the time, after the electors were chosen they would vote for two candidates for president; no mention of vice president was made on the ballot. After all the votes were tallied, the person with the majority of votes was named president and the runner-up was named vice president.

The political parties, however, didn't just run candidates for president. They ran teams of candidates with one person running specifically for the runner-up spot of vice president.

The Federalists in congress met together in caucus and agreed to support Washington's vice president John Adams for president and Thomas Pinckney, a diplomat from South Carolina, for vice president. The Democratic-Republican members met and decided to support former Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson for president and Aaron Burr, a senator from New York, for vice president. After eight years of having to keep their opposition to Washington's policies toned down to avoid the appearance of offending the popular president, the Democratic-Republicans came out swinging against Adams. Jefferson's camp accused the vice president of wanting to go back to the days of the monarchy. Adams accused Jefferson of preying on the fears of the people for votes.

In the end, it was probably the endorsement of Adams by George Washington that decided this close election. Adams received 71 electoral votes and was named president. However, because not every Adams elector voted for his running mate as well, Thomas Jefferson came in second with 68 electoral votes and was named the vice president. This quirk in the system caused by the unforseen rise of political factions would be fixed with the ratification of the 12th Amendment in 1804.
Click to expand...

Please note the bolded portions.
 
Popular vote totals were almost never kept. We don't vote for presidents, we vote for electors. In modern day we just setup a party bloc - by pressing "George Bush" on the ballot, your voting for his party bloc to vote for George Bush in the electoral college, not George Bush himself. In the old times you actually had to memorize all of your parties electors and vote for them individually. However, the votes for the individual electors were kept, and by lookiong at the vote totals for the electors we can guess who the people were voting for.
 
Damocles, I still can't see how you can call giving people two votes for two different seats a "proportional" system. It's a pluralitarian system just like in a single member district.
 
Watermark said:
Popular vote totals were almost never kept. We don't vote for presidents, we vote for electors. In modern day we just setup a party bloc - by pressing "George Bush" on the ballot, your voting for his party bloc to vote for George Bush in the electoral college, not George Bush himself. In the old times you actually had to memorize all of your parties electors and vote for them individually. However, the votes for the individual electors were kept, and by lookiong at the vote totals for the electors we can guess who the people were voting for.
Click to expand...
Tallies were never kept. In what way were the populace sure that the electors were even close to doing as they were elected to do?

You keep ignoring my point. The only reason to do that was to simply do as the party wished rather than what was voted for. The system was changed from what you promoted, to one that you dislike.
 
Watermark said:
Damocles, I still can't see how you can call giving people two votes for two different seats a "proportional" system. It's a pluralitarian system just like in a single member district.
Click to expand...
They were supposed to write two names on the ballot, from those they would select the one with more votes to be the President, and the one with the next to be VP.

This is exactly as you described. It was not two separate votes, it was one with multi-named ballots. This is a proportionally counted system. One that you advocated.
 
Damocles said:
They were supposed to write two names on the ballot, from those they would select the one with more votes to be the President, and the one with the next to be VP.

This is exactly as you described. It was not two separate votes, it was one with multi-named ballots. This is a proportionally counted system. One that you advocated.
Click to expand...

Yes.

They write two names on the ballot. Those two names were counted as seperate votes for two different people.

If they could only cast one vote for one person and two people were selected, that would be minority representation. Not proportional representation.
 
Watermark said:
Yes.

They write two names on the ballot. Those two names were counted as seperate votes for two different people.

If they could only cast one vote for one person and two people were selected, that would be minority representation. Not proportional representation.
Click to expand...
It was one election. They could write whomever they wished. That the parties met and agreed on how to vote doesn't change that this is exactly the proportional counting that you promoted. There could have been and, as you posted earlier shows, there were any number of candidates voted for. The most popular two were selected. Later this system was rejected because of the problems that it caused. You promote an already failed system.
 
Damocles said:
It was one election. They could write whomever they wished. That the parties met and agreed on how to vote doesn't change that this is exactly the proportional counting that you promoted. There could have been and, as you posted earlier shows, there were any number of candidates voted for. The most popular two were selected. Later this system was rejected because of the problems that it caused. You promote an already failed system.
Click to expand...

The biggest pluralities second and first favorite candidates should've usually been selected if there were no vote splitting and they were in complete agreeement. Not the top two pluralities first favorite person. Get it?
 
It is closer to modern day bloc voting, which is used all around the United States, than proportional representation. THAT would be the "failed system" you were talking about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top