AHC: Abolish the Electoral College

What would it take for the U.S. to abolish the Electoral College before 1900?

phx1138 said:

What would it take for the U.S. to abolish the Electoral College before 1900?

Click to expand...

It would be hard to have direct popular election before the ACW because that would cut down on the political power of the South (especially of states like South Carolina where a substantial majority of the population were slaves and therefore non-voters--yet three-fifths of them were counted for purposes of House apportionment and therefore of the Electoral College). There *were* numerous proposals to mandate electoral votes by districts, some of which came close to passing https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.history.what-if/VG0dvMkIOsI/fduIHi1JwXsJ but of course that is not the same thing as abolishing the Electoral College.

phx1138 said:

What would it take for the U.S. to abolish the Electoral College before 1900?

Click to expand...

I would suggest something along the lines of "A number of elections in which the winner of the electoral college vote is not the same as the winner of the popular vote, hurting both parties" but then, I think frustrating the people's will is really what it was supposed to do...

TimeMeddler said:

I would suggest something along the lines of "A number of elections in which the winner of the electoral college vote is not the same as the winner of the popular vote, hurting both parties" but then, I think frustrating the people's will is really what it was supposed to do...

Click to expand...

I'd agree on the second part, to a degree. (AIUI, the EC was intended to "brake" the "unwashed masses", which the elitists mistrusted.)

As for the elections, there was at least one (1824?). How hard would it be for the yellow journalists to crank up popular opinion after that?

Make there be a lot of elections like 1828, 1876, 1888, and 2000 in a row, all with tons of semi-successful third-parties, and getting thrown into the House. This might stop the College. But regions such as the South and the West will never accept it, because it takes away their power. Also it could turn America into a one party Northern state, so I'd say it wouldn't work.

Have a couple of elections in a row where the winner of the popular vote does not win

David T said:

It would be hard to have direct popular election before the ACW because that would cut down on the political power of the South (especially of states like South Carolina where a substantial majority of the population were slaves and therefore non-voters--yet three-fifths of them were counted for purposes of House apportionment and therefore of the Electoral College).

Click to expand...

Hmm, now wouldn't this be a good reason to eliminate it after the Civil War, and help along Reconstruction? Like you could suppress the black vote during the Presidential election, but in so doing you'd make your state in general less politically relevant.

Lothal said:

it could turn America into a one party Northern state, so I'd say it wouldn't work.

Click to expand...

I'm not seeing how. A strong Northern bias, agreed, but not a 1-party system. (Unless you mean it's like now, with two labels but only 1 {Northern} bias.)

Sabot Cat said:

Hmm, now wouldn't this be a good reason to eliminate it after the Civil War, and help along Reconstruction? Like you could suppress the black vote during the Presidential election, but in so doing you'd make your state in general less politically relevant.

Click to expand...

How would stopping people who are going to vote for the "wrong" party less beneficial under majority popular vote (or what system?) than the EC?

Jasen777 said:

How would stopping people who are going to vote for the "wrong" party less beneficial under majority popular vote (or what system?) than the EC?

Click to expand...

The Electoral College is based on total Congressional seats in both chambers of Congress, which in turn partially derives from the population-dependent apportionment for the House of Representatives. However, a majority popular vote doesn't take into account population, just the national totals for each candidate. Suppressing the vote thus reduces the state's overall power and influence, but only when the Electoral College isn't in play.

Andrew Jackson was opposed to the electoral college, and openly called for it to be removed. Maybe he could convince Southerners and Northerners to abolish it?

Percent of popular vote versus percent of electoral college in the South, 1916:


Alabama---130728-----0.71%12 2.26%
Arkansas---170104----0.92% 9 1.69%
Florida-----80734------0.44% 6 1.13%
Georgia 160681 0.87% 14 2.64%
Louisiana 92982 0.50% 10 1.88%
Mississippi 86679 0.47% 10 1.88%
NC 289837 1.56% 12 2.26%
SC 63952 0.35% 9 1.69%
Texas 372467 2.01% 20 3.77%
Virginia 152052 0.82% 12 2.26%
Total 18536585 8.65% 531 21.46%

Argh, can't get that to format correctly. The point is that the South holds 21.46% of the Electoral College votes but only 8.65% of the national total in 1916.

There is a definite way to get Jackson to want to kill the college: As I posted in my old thread, WI: John Quincy Adams wins 1828 (if very narrowly)?,

Nofix said:

Believe it or not it was possible. To quote myself:

Nofix said:

To quote Sean Wilentz (of The Rise of American Democracy fame): "If a mere 9,000 votes in New York, Ohio, and Kentucky had shifted from one column to the other, and if New York, with an Adams majority, had followed the winner take all rules of most other states, Adams would have won a convincing 149 to 111* victory in the Electoral College."

After some checking, his calculations were wrong numerically, but still true. Adams had 83 Votes OTL, +20 from a winner take all NY (have some better 1827 state elections as your POD), +16 from Ohio, +14 from Kentucky. Adams now has 133 Votes to Jackson's 128, just barely past the 131 marker. So long as there are no faithless electors, Adams in is the clear.

Click to expand...

Adams also could have taken another 5 votes from Maryland, which had electoral districts vote on each EV. Conversely if Jackson wins a few of those he could beat Adams, but lets ignore that possibility for now.

What if? The South voted later from the Northeast, so some early strong victories for Adams could have overtaken him in the Electoral college, damn the popular vote. If he wins without a popular majority twice in a row would their be a stronger, more successful, movement to abolish it? A Civil War brewing from Adams twice stained victory? Jackson running a third time in 1832?

Click to expand...

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

TLDR: If New York had a winner take all system for it's EV's in 1828, and he sweeps the Northeast, which voted before the South and West, he could win the Electoral College before everyone had voted. This could mean he'd win without the popular vote, again. Whether he wins the popular vote again or not, Jackson is going to definitely identify the Electoral College as his true enemy. In 1824 he won with a plurality of the vote, in 1828 a lot of the nation hadn't even voted by the time Adams could be declared the winner, and now he's going to kill the college or it will kill him.

Sabot Cat said:

Suppressing the vote thus reduces the state's overall power and influence, but only when the Electoral College isn't in play.

Click to expand...

But that "influence" is going to people you don't want voting. Are Reconstruction era white Democrats going to worry about losing the influence of African Americans voting Republican?

It's pretty easy to make 1876, 1880, 1884, and 1888 all have the popular vote winner different from the electoral college winner. Sixteen straight years of the electoral college overriding the popular vote (with both parties seeing the losing end of the system), plus an earlier surge in the populist movements advocating referendum, initiative, popular election of Senators, presidential primaries, etc., and you could reasonably tack abolishing the electoral college onto that string of reforms.

Jasen777 said:

But that "influence" is going to people you don't want voting. Are Reconstruction era white Democrats going to worry about losing the influence of African Americans voting Republican?

Click to expand...

There was (briefly) an era when the Republicans were powerful enough to amend the Constitution without any help from the Democrats--that's what made the 14th and 15th amendments possible.

However, it was not likely that they would use this opportunity to abolish the Electoral College. After all, they had won with the Electoral College in 1860, 1864, 1868, etc. They *were* concerned that with slavery and the three-fifths rule gone, the South would now get power in the Electoral College even more disproportionate to its actual votes--but sought to avoid that problem with the 14th Amendment (which allowed Congress to cut back on the House representation--and therefore the electoral votes--of states which disfranchised people) and the 15th (which theoretically outlawed disfranchisement based on race). Why they did not do more to enforce those amendments is of course another story, but by the time it was clear the South was making them a dead letter, the Republicans could no longer amend the Constitution by themselves--and anyway, why should they want to abolish the Electoral College by then, since in 1876 and 1888 it enabled them to win while losing the popular vote?

Lothal said:

Make there be a lot of elections like 1828, 1876, 1888, and 2000 in a row, all with tons of semi-successful third-parties, and getting thrown into the House. This might stop the College. But regions such as the South and the West will never accept it, because it takes away their power. Also it could turn America into a one party Northern state, so I'd say it wouldn't work.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily.

If the South votes reasonably solid for proslavery candidates, while northerners divide between Dems and Reps, that would clearly benefit the South.

Having cities not grow as much as they did and havng the country become much more suburban in population could help bring about a dynamic that would make the representation argument for the college obsolete.

But to actually bring about change? I'd say you need multiple consecutive elections where the popular vote winner does not win, or if a third party candidate strikes a "corrupt bargain" and ends up being elected by the House with less than 10% of the Popular Vote.

TinyTartar said:

But to actually bring about change? I'd say you need multiple consecutive elections where the popular vote winner does not win, or if a third party candidate strikes a "corrupt bargain" and ends up being elected by the House with less than 10% of the Popular Vote.

Click to expand...

Well the OP asked for before 1900, but I did a timeline where Powell runs as an independent in '96 (it has some things go his way via authorial fiat). Powell wins the popular vote, Clinton is 2nd and wins the most electoral votes, but the election goes to the House where Dole wins (the House almost deadlocked, which would have seen acting president Gingrich). They don't scrap the Electoral College though

I think the little scenario I posted about the 1832 election would end up satisfying this. (I.E. Van Buren defeated for VP that year)