AH Challenge: Six-Way Race for the Presidency - Before 1900!

Coming from the After-1900 forum thread (link)... Your challenge is, with a POD no earlier than Jan. 1, 1788, to have six or more major presidential candidates running simultaneously for President of the United States in a presidential election anytime between 1788 and 1896. Other than that, your options are pretty open; you could have a POD in 1788 that accomplishes this challenge in 1896. Also, you get a cookie for every time you have more than six major candidates; for example, if you have seven candidates in 1888, then you would get one cookie. Have eight, you get two cookies, and so on.;) Good luck!
 
I'm not really a fan of multi-party legislatures as I feel that the way governments work have a tendency to make two or three of the parties far more popular than the others. I had one very tentative idea though.

My idea was that with a POD around the ARW, you could have a USA where the states are far, far more entrenched in their belief in the power of the individual states. Thus you could end up with a situation where essentially every state is sovereign but they agree to have an elected President serving with a minimal government under him, purely for representing the unified state in international functions and for handling specific executive functions - a bit like the Holy Roman Emperor or if the UN was considered a state and the Secretary General had the right to embody the state, but no real legal power.

Under such a system, the idea of parties would become a bit silly. Rather you would likely get a system where each state submits one - maybe two, with an opposition candidate - candidate for the position of US President, under the unwritten understanding that states will do a bit of wheely-dealing, with a few states in every geographical area getting together in a coalition to support a single candidate in exchange for a combined manifesto and an agreement to work together and share Presidential functions. Then you could have a system with, say, two candidates from New England, one representing Virginia and Kentucky, one representing Georgia and the Carolinas, a few for the Midwest, one for California, etc etc etc.

I guess this system would encourage a kind of setup where each region has its own interests and policies, and thus it's rare for anyone to vote for a candidate from further away than a nearby state, even if they object to their state's candidate. Thus, the coalition negotiations and changing state alliances and such are all-important in outvoting the big states across the other side of the country. Thus you could see a system like the UK electoral map, where the different regions will vote for totally different candidates. The difference here is that for a start, the different regions won't be totally unbalanced as in the UK, where England can essentially outvote the rest of the UK (hence the other home countries have their own devolved legislature) and of course, the UK's Parliament has far, far more power than this system.

Does that work for you?
 
I'm not really a fan of multi-party legislatures as I feel that the way governments work have a tendency to make two or three of the parties far more popular than the others. I had one very tentative idea though.

My idea was that with a POD around the ARW, you could have a USA where the states are far, far more entrenched in their belief in the power of the individual states. Thus you could end up with a situation where essentially every state is sovereign but they agree to have an elected President serving with a minimal government under him, purely for representing the unified state in international functions and for handling specific executive functions - a bit like the Holy Roman Emperor or if the UN was considered a state and the Secretary General had the right to embody the state, but no real legal power.

Under such a system, the idea of parties would become a bit silly. Rather you would likely get a system where each state submits one - maybe two, with an opposition candidate - candidate for the position of US President, under the unwritten understanding that states will do a bit of wheely-dealing, with a few states in every geographical area getting together in a coalition to support a single candidate in exchange for a combined manifesto and an agreement to work together and share Presidential functions. Then you could have a system with, say, two candidates from New England, one representing Virginia and Kentucky, one representing Georgia and the Carolinas, a few for the Midwest, one for California, etc etc etc.

I guess this system would encourage a kind of setup where each region has its own interests and policies, and thus it's rare for anyone to vote for a candidate from further away than a nearby state, even if they object to their state's candidate. Thus, the coalition negotiations and changing state alliances and such are all-important in outvoting the big states across the other side of the country. Thus you could see a system like the UK electoral map, where the different regions will vote for totally different candidates. The difference here is that for a start, the different regions won't be totally unbalanced as in the UK, where England can essentially outvote the rest of the UK (hence the other home countries have their own devolved legislature) and of course, the UK's Parliament has far, far more power than this system.

Does that work for you?

Yes, that works well, and would be quite interesting.;)
 
Ok Dude I will give this the first go round. This the election of 1789:

New England Party

John Adams - Oliver Ellsworth

Atlantic Party

John Jay- Benjamin Franklin

Southern Party

George Washington-Charles C. Pinckney


The election was chaotic the regional balloting system was akward and unconventional. Eventually the regions came together and formed parties to represent their regional interests at the national level. The New Englanders nominated two of the shining lights of American liberty; John Adams who as minister to Britain and the Netherlands had diplomatic connections and a knowledge of foreign affairs matched by almost no one. The Atlantic Party (consisting of New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland and Delaware) nominate John Jay and Ben Franklin. Jay heartly accepts the offer while Franklin is older and feels the weight of his long life and his Gout, turns down the top spot and gives it to John Jay. Jay an experienced politician and diplomat like Adams is capable and confident. Finally the South nominates two war heroes George Washington (enough said) and Charles Cotesworth Pinckney a Maj. General and hero of Charleston. The election goes well, fears of sectional difference are absurd as the election presents a unity government.

The Unity Party
President: George Washington
Vice President John Adams
 
Coming from the After-1900 forum thread (link)... Your challenge is, with a POD no earlier than Jan. 1, 1788, to have six or more major presidential candidates running simultaneously for President of the United States in a presidential election anytime between 1788 and 1896. Other than that, your options are pretty open; you could have a POD in 1788 that accomplishes this challenge in 1896. Also, you get a cookie for every time you have more than six major candidates; for example, if you have seven candidates in 1888, then you would get one cookie. Have eight, you get two cookies, and so on.;) Good luck!

For the OP check out: the elections of 1792,1796, 1800 went to the House; I think I get a cookie :p. Define Major btw?
 
For the OP check out: the elections of 1792,1796, 1800 went to the House; I think I get a cookie :p. Define Major btw?

Yes, you get three cookies.;)

By major, I mean a candidate that will do better than Ralph Nader or any third parties today; a candidate that does about as well as Ross Perot, take or give less momentum. Basically, a candidate that at some point has a chance of actually winning. Though I don't necessarily mean that there has to be four third parties that poll exactly as well as the two major parties.
 
Here is my last one, and then I will let the thread die. It seems as though I am the only Early Republic political Geek on the board:D. Here it is:

Election of 1828:

Andrew Jackson having dealt with the alleged corrupt bargain between Henry Clay and John Quincy Adams vows to not be swept aside again. He forms his own party and stands for the Presidency. He forms the Frontier Party which stands for among other things: A sensible Indian policy, abolition of the Bank, and territorial expansion. Jackson is strong in both the West (Tennessee, Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois) as well as the South, where his anti-bank policies make him a logical candidate. He runs a campaign of being on the outside as opposed to from a political establishment that supports the same candidates "and sons of Presidents" according to Jackson. He stands against John Quincy Adams and William Crawford. John Q. is from the Republican while Crawford is from the Democratic. The election is thrown into the house where Jackson's support among delegations gives him the edge. He is President and the Vice President is Richard Rush.

Election of 1828
EC Votes
Frontier Party: Jackson-Ritchie: 99
Democratic: Crawford-Macon: 78
Republican: Adams-Rush: 84

After the House:

States
Jackson: 13
Adams: 7
Crawford: 4

Jackson would win re-election in 1832. The Frontier Party would remain a force in American Politics until the Civil War (the 2nd Revolution according to the South) ended in 1870.
 
The TL I'm working on may have a six-way presidential race at some point. The Federalists split in 1799, followed by the Republicans a few years later. Then you might have the Socialist Party and American Party, but by then I'd think the moderate Federalists may have merged into the moderate Republican Party. Some other parties may rise up - I'm not sure. The breakup of the two parties in the early Republic leads to the adoption of runoff voting (either IRV or a two-round system) for Congressional races, making it a lot easier for breakaway parties to form, with the threat of vote-splitting eliminated.
 
Edit: Sorry about the weird browser, it won't let me separate paragraphs. Anyway, It seems this topic flowed toward discussion of how elections were handled before 1804.I'll try one from after 1800, anyway, and see if anyone has any others, as I think that was the intent.1872: President Grant, having not learned his lesson about speeding before, dies in a buggy accident in early 1872. his V.P., Schuyler Colfax, is deemed his right successor by some. However, as scandal increases, the Republicans meet to choose someone, and choose Henry Wilson (Grant's OTL 2nd V.P..) Colfax is unhappy, and announces he's runing himself. Meanwhile, Horace Greeley is chosen by the Liberal Republicans, and by the Democrats, the latter of whom are desperate for someone.However, Greeley - who died befor eth election in OTL - feels so sure of a win, it gives him addedstress, and in late August, *he* dies. Suddenly, the liberal Republicans need someone to turn to, and the Democrats slpinter, with several names being chosen.Honestly, I don't know who all could run, but I know you'd have the potential for 6, if not more. Say Colfax, Wikson, b. Gratz (sp?) Brown, Hendricks, maybe Hancock, Seymour might be drafted again but not run, this could be a really wide-open race.1860 already had 4, but I'm not sure if it could splinter any more than it did. Maybe 1852, if Whigs nominate Webster and then he dies before the election. It does seem like 3-4 are possible a few times, but not 6, except for 1872, but that's a really wild one.Hey, thinking back to the Joshua Chamberlain thread, maybe this is how we get him as President then.</p>
 
Top