![[Greene County Daily World]](http://gcdailyworld.com/images/nameplate-small.png){kind=small}
Greene County, Indiana ~ Sunday, July 6, 2008
| Blogs |
|
Whatever Happened to Sam Tilden?
Posted Tuesday, January 22, 2008, at 2:26 AM<< Previous | Read comments | Respond | Email link | Next >>
Why do we elect our President with an Electoral College? Why not just use the popular vote? Doesn't this seem odd that we would have a system like this? Under our current system, it is relatively easy for a candidate to win the election and lose the popular vote. It would seem to me that we should want to elect that individual who received the most votes. Not necessarily true in the United States. The founders of this nation, who were battling with issues that are now over 230 years old, decided that they couldn't allow a tyrant to manipulate the opinion of the general populace and rise to power. They didn't trust the voters' capacity to directly elect the President of the United States. These learned gentlemen did not feel like the general populace was smart enough to perform this task; therefore, they decided that there must be a buffer between the voters and the selection of the most powerful man in the country. Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers: "It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations." There was another reason for this decision to have an electoral college. It was evident to the representatives of the smaller, less populated states, that the more populated states had an unfair advantage when it came to electing their favorite candidates. The Electoral College was supposed to even this out, but as you see, a state such as California, with 55 electoral votes is much more important than a state such as Wyoming that has only 3. Another interesting aspect to this situation is the fact that the winner of that state election takes all the votes in that state. Whether the winner of the popular vote has 50.1% of the vote or 90% of the vote, that candidate receives all of the electoral votes. This is something that is not mandated by the Constitution, but by the states themselves. Let me dazzle you with some math here for just a second, please bare with me. Let's take a state like California, which has somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 million voters. If a candidate wins 90% of the votes (9,000,000) and his opponent (assuming there is only one) gets 10% (1,000,000), then the winner gets all 55 electoral votes. If that same candidate receives 50.1% of the votes (5,010,000 votes) and his opponent receives 49.9% (4,990,000), he still gets 55 electoral votes. Indiana only gets 11 electoral votes, so when the election rolls around, get out there and vote. Just remember your vote is 1/5th as important as that of a voter from California and you are really not smart enough to elect a President. Comments Showing comments in chronological order [Show most recent comments first] |
Constructive and Imaginary Ambiguity  - Archives - Blog RSS feed ![[Feed icon]](http://gcdailyworld.com/images/icons/feed-icon-14x14.png){kind=icon} - Comments RSS feed - Login Hot topics Custer, Calculus and Cadet Ol' Simmons(52 ~ 4:41 AM, Jul 4)
It's a Long Way to Tipperary
Can't You Hear the Captain Callin' ?
I Matriculated to USMA
The Peacemaker and The Springfield Rifle
Mailing list
Enter your email address to join our daily headline mailing list: |
Great blog Sims. Maybe one day we'll move forward but not too soon...some of us are still not smart enough to elect a president.
OK - I give. Whatever happened to Sam Tilden?
Seems strange to give that title to something and then never discuss the subject.
In 1876, Samuel J. Tilden won the popular vote over Rutherford B. Hayes (the bearded guy in the picture) and had 184 Electoral Votes to Hayes' 165 with 20 still to count. (He only needed 185 to win the election.) The 3 states in contention, Florida, Louisiana and South Carolina reported returns that favored Tilden, but this was a time of Reconstruction after the Civil War and there appeared to be a good deal of voter fraud throughout much of the South. There was also one electoral vote in Oregon that was in dispute that finally went to Hayes. It is an extremely long and complicated story, so let's just say that the whole thing became a Constitutional mess, Hayes made a deal in Congress with a promise to end Reconstruction, a 15 man Electoral Commission was established and Hayes received all of the 20 outstanding votes and beat Tilden 185-184. Poor old Sam Tilden. There has been a lot written about this election; including a good book "Samuel Tilden, The Real 19th President" by Nikki Oldaker.
GC Expatriate -- As an explanation: I didn't use the total census for my calculations, only an approximation of the number of registered voters. California actually had a little over 13 million voters in the 2004 Presidential Election, so I underestimated a bit.
You stated "California is a solid blue state", but starting back in 1952, California has voted Red (Republican) for President 9 times in 14 elections. Even the elder Bush carried the State in his first election in 1988.
In Indiana, the GOP has carried the State 16 of the past 17 elections. That is really quite a "red leaning state", if I can borrow your term. The last Democrat to win in Indiana was LBJ and even then, Goldwater only carried 6 states. I think I'd prefer my chances in California, if I were a Democrat candidate.
On the "Why don't presidents have beards?" under the picture...Beards became popular with President Lincoln...His VP Johnson does not have facial hair in most pictures and was basically impeached. The next seven presidents (Grant to Cleveland) had facial hair. The next president, McKinley was clean shaven and assassinated...so T.Roosevelt and Taft figured they better grow something....The next President was Wilson, and he has set the trend...No facial hair since Woodrow!!!!!
Simmons, I really enjoy your blogs, as each of them are small lessons in history. This one is very interesting, and not in the way of electoral votes and what they actually count for....but about Samuel Tilden. What a guy! To get ripped from the throne in the manner he did and respond with, "I can retire to public life with the consciousness that I shall receive from posterity the credit of having been elected to the highest position in the gift of the people, without any of the cares and responsibilities of the office." I think that's where the term "sportsmanship," came from.
Personally I believe democracy is akin to a lynch mob. The republican system that the fore fathers set up is just fine. I would hate to see all the political power in this country weilded by people in Los angles and New york.
With this current system, a candidate can carry eleven states and win the election. Or, if you want to look at it another way, a candidate can carry 39 of 50 states, win the popular vote in a landslide, lose 11 states by a handful of votes and lose the election.
I guess if that works for you, it must be a great system.
In all my years, I've only known one elector in the State. Maybe I knew more, but I never knew it at the time. Sounds like a good research project.
How convenient of a blog subject for my reading. I watched "All the Kings Men" last evening. Although it was voted, (and I partially agree)the worst movie of 2006. Sean Penn (who I very much dislike) stated, "if you don't vote, you don't count."
Better yet:
"The strength of the nation derives from the integrity of the home."
IF someone nominates me and I win you would have a bearded President! :)
I have an idea that I think will help all the problems stated before --- and then it will never get implemented because the "POWER BROKERS" like this system.
IF each Elector - (who is a representative of a congressional district) were to vote the way his district does and the 2 senate votes vote as the state does I feel we would have what the Founders were really after....
Just my Idea.
I have been always had a soft spot for ol' Sam ever since Senator Tipton taught us about that election in US History class.
Greene County Expatriate, what part of 16 out of 17 dont you believe. 1964 was the last time Indiana went for a Democrat in a Presidental race. California has voted Republican 9 out of 14. If you do the Math, that would actually make both Red States. As one great Politican stated, "All Politic's are Local", and that is about as good as it gets, your vote does count in local elections much more so than in National Elections. I think the Bloomfield Town Council election just proved that. Also as for as California, I think they now have a Republican as Gov. Just a thought.
If you want some really good reading on American politics, do a little research on the 1800 Presidential election. It was a little different back then, as the No. 2 position became Vice President. Thomas Jefferson did not get a majority vote, so it was sent to the House and he won on the 36th ballot. Aaron Burr finished second to become the VP after Alexander Hamilton, who didn't like Burr (who defeated Hamilton's father-in-law Philip Schuyler in a Senate race in 1791) or Jefferson, threw his political weight behind Jefferson as the lesser of two evils. Four years later Burr (who was still the VP) killed Hamilton in a duel after a considerable amount of trash talking during Burr's race for Governor of New York. You really have to love the intensity of our Founding Fathers.
There's also the 1824 mud slinging race between Jackson, J.Q. Adams, Clay and Crawford, if you're interested. How do you think it would go today if a candidate was accused of murder?
I'll add my 2 cents for those who don't think much of the electoral college system.
1. The candidates know the rules of the game they are playing very well, and even if they didn't, their highly paid consultants sure do. They campaign to win the electoral votes, not popular votes, so hence you see the things mentioned above such as a Republican not campaigning in California because it is viewed as a lost cause. If the rules of the game were based on popular vote, then you would see the campaigns not bypassing states the way they do now, which would certainly change the popular vote totals. Hence, the popular vote totals we see today are a bit of an after-thought to the campaigns, and talking about who won the popular vote is somewhat akin to saying the winner of a football game should be the team with the most offensive yards gained, or some other type of measure, instead of points scored.
2. I'm not much of a historian, (but I do recall the Bush/Gore Florida recounts), but reflecting primarily on the types of examples often given regarding the use of the popular vote versus the electoral college votes, they often look at how fairly small differences in the popular vote are reversed by the electoral college. In a close vote, such as the Bush/Gore election, can you imagine the cost and whether we would ever really get it 100% right in a recount covering the entire country? It would be like what we had in Florida times 50. Talk about a mess. It might take a year to sort out.
My bottom line - while I think the idea that the popular vote is attractive for several reasons, if you think about the complexity of having a nation-wide vote, and considering that the game's rules are very well established and have served this country pretty well while isolating situations such as we had in Florida to a single state, I think the electoral college system has, and continues, to serve our nation pretty well.
Question? - First of all, what happened to the Mysterians?
Seriously, you made a couple of good points there. I do think that we should be able to get it right. Especially with the technology available today, processing of votes should be a snap. But will it ever be done? Not in my lifetime. As long as our Government continues this exponential growth, as it has been doing, we will not be able to afford to do the right thing.
While the Electoral College may seem unfair at times with regard to popular vote, do you REALLY want to choose the leader of the free world by popular vote? I know people who don't know the current VP's name, who is on the Supreme Court, who the Secretary of State is, or can name the three branches of government. They probably don't know the names of our own Governor or Lt. Governor. The general public, for the most part, could tell you everything you wanted to know about Britney or Paris, (and could probably name Britney's kids and Paris' dogs) before they could tell you who's in the election. Those are NOT the people I want to elect my President!
Another great point and we've had some Presidents and Vice Presidents in the same category. I'm sure Britney and Paris couldn't name the folks you mentioned either.
"The man with the best job in the country is the Vice President. All he has to do is get up every morning and say, "How's the President?"" Will Rogers
the 1800 election was covered in a recent history magazine I get... I forgot what one... old age and too manny magazines.
I have always said we need to be able to pass a test before you vote... dont pass you dont get to vote.
and I have refused to cast votes for races I dont know either of the canadates ... I take it that seriously.
Gillette gives so much money to the candidates just to use their razor, money won out over looks. And just think how Hillary would look with a beard.
Surely this blog has died. I cannot even imagine Hillary with beard. This is just too much for me.
Thanks to all who have contributed. I just wish that I was smart enough to keep up.
I vote yeah for the electoral college! Haha~
And,it seems to me,the above posts have made a fairly strong case for our current system.
I do agree, silerCityDude, passing a test of how and why our great country came to be, as well as who was involved, etc., would be a sensible approach in determining voter eligibility. Now, how do we get such a law to pass?
::sigh::
Hiya Keith!
I know at one time in this country we had "tests" and well they were declared unconstitutional... BUT! sometimes you need to limit some Freedom to keep the rest of it.
dittos to siler city dude. You should at least be able to show a little bit of compentency (?) to choose our leaders. I totally disagree with the idea that everyone should vote. I do not want a law to say that people can not vote, but think we should just keep quiet about which day is election day and the people who can keep track and care will show up.
Great Idea! I know that'd weed out some of the Floaters. LOL