What would it take for the U.S. to abolish the Electoral College before 1900?
What would it take for the U.S. to abolish the Electoral College before 1900?
I'd agree on the second part, to a degree. (AIUI, the EC was intended to "brake" the "unwashed masses", which the elitists mistrusted.)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...
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).
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.)Lothal said:it could turn America into a one party Northern state, so I'd say it wouldn't work.
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.
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?
Believe it or not it was possible. To quote myself:
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.
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?
Suppressing the vote thus reduces the state's overall power and influence, but only when the Electoral College isn't in play.
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?
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.
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.