4 against Van Buren

https://www.msu.edu/~sheppa28/elections.html#1836

The 1836 election is unusual as
"It was the only race in which a major political party intentionally ran several presidential candidates. The Whigs ran three different candidates in different regions of the country, hoping that each would be popular enough to defeat Democratic standard-bearer Martin Van Buren in their respective areas. The House of Representatives could then decide between the competing Whig candidates. This strategy failed: Van Buren won a majority of the electoral vote and became President." [Source]​
Because of this situation, the method of calculation used was not to make another candidate win, but to find the minimum number of votes needed for Van Buren to lose. He would then not have a majority in the electoral vote and the election would be thrown into the House, as the Whig Party had planned.

VAN BUREN
Change of VotesFrom Van Buren to which Candidate? Rhode Island128Harrison Louisiana130White Connecticut248Harrison Mississippi258White Arkansas524White TOTAL1,288

Had Van Buren lost those states, totalling 24 electoral votes, the election would have gone to the House of Representatives.

WI those 1,288 votes had gone the other way and the election was thrown to the House?
 
I would think the United States would have some instability considering that it would have two elections decided by the House within 20 years. (Remember that the 1824 election went to the House as well) Not sure what would come of that though.
 
I'm doing something of a TL on this situation (with a slightly earlier POD) but I think the biggest change isn't so much the instability, but rather the precedent it sets. Something tells me that things could change in American politics to refect coalition parties in national elections. States like Massachusetts and South Carolina happy with their native sons Calhoun and Webster could keep their parties (Nullifier and perhaps Neo-Federalist) and see them spread to the neighboring region. No party can win in an absolute 4-way election, and so political alliances begin to form.
 
American Political parties ARE electoral alliances of different state-based political organizations. The national party conventions were originally organized so that these different political organizations could hash out their differences and get a common national candidate.

The specific outcome of this POD would probably be similar to the outcome of the last election forced into the House. In 1824 John Quincy Adams became President through political deal-making, not vote total. Andrew Jackson whipped up popular outrage against the 'Corrupt Bargain'- and by 1828 had created the Democratic Party. The men who stole the 1824 election ended up organizing the Whig Party.

If forcing the Presidential election to the House of Representatives ends with a Whig in the White House, then I think Van Buren will be able whip up the same kind of anger that Jackson did after '24. The economic depression that held Van Buren to just one term, combined with the stink of corruption, should bury the Whigs in 1840, resulting in Van Buren winning in '40. If Van Buren plays his foreign affairs (in regards to Mexico-Texas) right then he can probably get re-elected in '44.

The Whigs are going to be in a tough place politically. The Democrats are going to win the '40 presidential election handily, and with a successful foreign war in the '40s that dominance might extend through the whole decade.
 
American Political parties ARE electoral alliances of different state-based political organizations. The national party conventions were originally organized so that these different political organizations could hash out their differences and get a common national candidate.

To a very limited degree. I think with a Harrison win in '36, it'd be much more divisible and interchangeable, with parties changing alliances on a dime.
 
Didn't the Democrats also control Congress in those days? In that case, I'd expect a Van Buren win there anyway. No change.
 
Didn't the Democrats also control Congress in those days? In that case, I'd expect a Van Buren win there anyway. No change.

Looking at the Whig strategy of splitting the vote, I have to believe that their plan was that if they could force the election to the House, then they would try to strike another 'Corrupt Bargain', and peal enough Democrats away from Van Buren to put their compromise candidate in the White House.
 
Looking at the Whig strategy of splitting the vote, I have to believe that their plan was that if they could force the election to the House, then they would try to strike another 'Corrupt Bargain', and peal enough Democrats away from Van Buren to put their compromise candidate in the White House.

I doubt they'd be able to in 1836 as the country was fresh from two terms of Andrew Jackson who was still very much alive and kicking not to mention controling the democrat party with an iron fist. Van Buren and Johnson would be nominated POTUS and VPOTUS respectively by the Democratic controlled congress (The held majorities in both the House and the Senate by fair margins).

All in all given the fact that a defeat in the electoral college changes does not change the overall result, I don't see this changing history much.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/24th_United_States_Congress_-_State_Delegations

Remember that if the House chooses the President, the voting is by state, with each state getting one vote. This bizarre provision is the only way that Quincy Adams won the election (in 1824, the last time the House ever picked the President, by the way).

Let's assume all the National Republican congressmen go with one candidate, let's say William Henry Harrisson. Let's also assume that everyone votes the party line.

The make up of the US House of Representatives in 1836:

Alabama: 3 Dem, 1 Nullifier, 1 NR: Van Buren 1
Arkansas: 1 Dem: Van Buren 2
Connecticut: 6 Dem: Van Buren 3
Delaware: 1 NR: Van Buren 3, Harrison 1
Georgia: 7 Dem, 1 NR, 1 vacant: Van Buren 4, Harrison 1
Illinois: 3 Dem: Van Buren 5, Harrison 1
Indiana: 5 Dem, 1 NR, 1 vacant: Van Buren 6, Harrison 1
Kentucky: 4 Dem, 9 NR: Van Buren 6, Harrison 2
Louisiana: 1 Dem, 2 NR: Van Buren 6, Harrison 3
Maine: 6 Dem, 2 NR: Van Buren 7, Harrison 3
Maryland: 4 Dem, 4 NR: Van Buren 7, Harrison 3, Tossup 1
Massachusetts: 1 Dem, 8 NR, 3 Anti-Masonic: Van Buren 7, Harrison 4, Tossup 1
Mississippi: 2 Dem: Van Buren 8, Harrison 4, Tossup 1
Missouri: 1 Dem, 1 NR: Van Buren 8, Harrison 4, Tossup 2
New Hampshire: 5 Dem: Van Buren 9, Harrison 4, Tossup 2
New Jersey: 5 Dem, 1 NR: Van Buren 10, Harrison 4, Tossup 2
New York: 31 Dem, 9 NR: Van Buren 11, Harrison 4, Tossup 2
North Carolina: 6 Dem, 7 NR: Van Buren 11, Harrison 5, Tossup 2
Ohio: 9 Dem, 9 NR, 1 Anti-Masonic. Anti-Masons tended to sympathize with NRs, so Van Buren 11, Harrison 6, Tossup 2
Pennsylvania: 16 Dem, 4 NR, 8 Anti-Masonic: Van Buren 12, Harrison 6, Tossup 2
Rhode Island: 2 Anti-Masonic: Van Buren 12, Harrison 7, Tossup 2
South Carolina: 2 Dem, 1 NR, 6 Nullifier. Nullifiers would logically be more Democratic than NR in their sympathies, so Van Buren 13, Harrison 7, Tossup 2
Tennessee: 4 Dem, 9 NR: Van Buren 13, Harrison 8, Tossup 2
Vermont: 3 NR, 2 Anti-Mason: Van Buren 13, Harrison 9, Tossup 2
Virginia: 16 (or 15) Dem, 5 NR, possibly 1 vacant (depending on if the election were held before or after the resignation of John Mason); regardless, Van Buren 14, Harrison 9, Tossup 2

Final vote: Van Buren 14, Harrison 9, Tossup 2

Now, Harrison still has a chance. There are two state delegations that are evenly matched between Democrats and the likely National Republican/Anti-Mason coalition. They are Maryland and Missouri.

If the National Republicans were to sway both tossup states, then Van Buren still wins 14-11. Their other option might be to persuade members of the Nullifier Party to side with them, but Van Buren still squeaks ahead, 13-12.

Honestly, it seems unlikely that the Nullifiers would have sided with the Whigs or National Republicans. They stood on opposite sides of the political spectrum of the day. Even if there was a tie vote, I'd guess that the Democrats would ultimately win enough Nullifiers back to their side to win on a subsequent ballot.

In 1836, the Senate did pick the Vice President, so I don't have to do any more counting to find out who he would be: Richard Mentor Johnson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Mentor_Johnson).

Bottom line: Van Buren would probably win an election in the House. But it would be close.
 
Last edited:
If I recall correctly the House chooses between the 3 top candidates. Might the guy who came 3rd in the scenario be acceptable to anyone?
 
Hugh White, the southern candidate would have given all his votes to Harrison who was the more popular of the two.

It would set a trend though.

Politics today would probably be very different.

Hence, a multi-party system more along the lines of a European nation.
 
It would set a trend though.

Politics today would probably be very different.

I don't think a multiparty system is the logical outcome. Look at the results. The Whigs successfully forced a House election, but they still could not win. The practice of multiple candidates probably still failed in this timeline.

For Van Buren to lose in the House, a number of House Democrats in key states would have to vote against him. They would need a good reason to do so.

If he does go ahead and lose, it is true that a stable 2-party system remains elusive, at least for a few more years. I think that US electoral laws still favor the emergence of 2 strong parties, but at least for a time in TTL, 2 strong parties are not to be found.
 
The question then is, why did the Whigs try this strategy? Presumably, they could read a congressional roster just as well as we can.
 
The question then is, why did the Whigs try this strategy? Presumably, they could read a congressional roster just as well as we can.

So now with the knowledge that it was basically impossible for this strategy to result in a Whig Presidential victory in '36 I'm changing my mind about why the Whigs did this.

Jackson's Presidency (and thus the Democratic Party that supported him) had been VERY successful, and a formal opposition party was not organized until '33-'34. This was the Whig Party. Being a new party, they needed to establish themselves. In order to do this they ran regional candidates who would be able to build up the party in their respective regions, and thereby provide a home for any anti-Jackson (which would be anti- Van Buren) voters. The Whigs must have decided there was no way to win in '36, so party-building was the next best thing. In '40, when the party was more established, they would run a single candidate.

By running regional candidates they also didn't need to have any ugly splits over what the party platform was actually going to be. As demonstrated by the Whigs' ticket in '40 the party was still pretty split (Taylor being only anti-Jackson, not pro-Whig) over how to proceed forward.

The question for the '36 election is who was the Speaker in '37. The newly seated House of Representatives would selected the President.
 
The question for the '36 election is who was the Speaker in '37. The newly seated House of Representatives would selected the President.

In 1825, the House elected John Quincy Adams in February. In those days the new Congress was not seated until March. So if they followed the same timetable, it would in fact be the old, lame duck Congress to vote for Van Buren or Harrison or whoever, not the newly elected one.
 
The question then is, why did the Whigs try this strategy? Presumably, they could read a congressional roster just as well as we can.

According to Wikipedia (I know), the Whigs hoped to edge out Van Buren entirely with their 4 candidates. They hoped that each would have enough local support to beat Van in their regions, and the House wuold have to choose the Prez from among three Whig candidates. In that, then, they failed miserably - Van was supposed to finish fourth, but he finished first by a wide margin, earning more electoral votes than the four Whigs put together.

As I see it, the Whig strategy depended on Van finishing fourth or worse. Even if he finished third, he still would probably win in the House.

But again, this TL could have subtle effects on US politics, even if Van does still end up winning.
 
Top