AHC: More 1824’s

Starting after the one in the title, which US Presidential Elections might have deadlocked in the Electoral College and gotten thrown to the House of Representatives? (1860 aside - see below.)

Depending on when the next one happens, what would be the effects (aside, possibly, from someone different becoming president)? Would such an outcome, in itself, have fundamentally shaken up US politics again? Could it result in a constitutional amendment changing the rules for presidential elections again; if so, when would be the most opportune time, and what would the changes be? Popular vote, proportional ECVs, runoff elections?

And depending on when the PoD is and what constitutional changes (if any) emerge from them - what are the longer term effects on American Politics? Does the country move away from a Two Party Tradition? Do political parties become institutionally stronger or weaker? And depending on what (again, if any) larger changes do emerge, how are the larger political debates effected in the short to medium term? (For example, if third parties become more competitive, what sort of parties emerge and what effect do they have on the Overton Window of the period and on policy?)

Or alternatively, if none of these larger effects emerge from another 1824, we could just talk about some elections that might have gone to the House. Are there any that would have resulted in the House picking someone else President? Or that might have deadlocked, leaving the Senate to select a Vice President who then becomes (Acting) President?

One example I’m going to rule out here - 1860. Only because it’s been done to death here, and the OTL effect of Lincoln’s election was so important in its own right that changing it completely overshadows the effect of repeating the shenanigans that gave us Jacksonian Democracy.

So all that said - any thoughts?
 
The earlier the better. By 1840, US politics had mostly coalesced around two parties. In order to deadlock the Electoral College, you'd need more regionalism in the US, like a political party that only appeals to people in the Midwest, Southwest, Northwest, etc. Otherwise, split votes only cause the more unified party to carry more states.
 
Let's say Grant finishes his second term and is ready to say "Good riddance." The next two elections turn into three and four candidate stalemates that go to the House. The one-state, one-vote rule becomes so un-democratic that change is necessary. In those years, who is next in line for president after VP, the Secretary of State? By this period, the telegraph makes it practical to tabulate the popular vote across the whole U.S. in a short time. I think you would see a popular vote amendment, plus a change to the way the House chooses a president if no candidate gets a sufficient plurality (say, 40%). It would be one congressman, one vote. The amendment might take parts of the 22nd and 25th, creating an orderly system of succession.
 
1836 is the most obvious possibility. If Harrison defeats Van Buren in PA, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1836_United_States_presidential_election_in_Pennsylvania the race goes into the House (the vice-presidential race did go into the Senate, btw, because Richard Johnson's openly living with an African American woman and having children by her were too much for some southerners). But Van Buren will win there.

It had often been said that there was a "Whig strategy" to throw the race into the House by nominating different presidential candidates for different regions. But it was not so much a strategy as a necessity. The Whig party did not really exist as a national party in 1836, only a coalition of different groups opposed to Van Buren for different reasons. For example, a lot of Hugh White supporters in the Deep and Middle South just didn't like the idea of a non-slaveholder succeeding Jackson...
 
Last edited:
Two issues must be considered. The single election day in November was not established until the 1840's. The east and west coasts had not been connected by telegraph until 1861, and before that time, a popular vote system would be impractical. So, if the change came in the 1830's, it might be little more than changing the one state-one vote system in the House to one seat, one vote. Now, in 1856, you might see a popular vote system, given the increase in literacy and the spread of telegraph connections in the eastern states. Now, if you wait until after 1870, the issue of slavery will not prevent northern and southern states from cooperating.
 
Two issues must be considered. The single election day in November was not established until the 1840's. The east and west coasts had not been connected by telegraph until 1861, and before that time, a popular vote system would be impractical. So, if the change came in the 1830's, it might be little more than changing the one state-one vote system in the House to one seat, one vote. Now, in 1856, you might see a popular vote system, given the increase in literacy and the spread of telegraph connections in the eastern states. Now, if you wait until after 1870, the issue of slavery will not prevent northern and southern states from cooperating.

There is no possibility of moving to popular election before the ACW because it would decrease the electoral power the slave states had under the three-fifths clause. As for changing it after the ACW, it is doubtful the Republicans would want to, because they would remember for example how the Electoral College had let them gain the presidency in 1860 by carrying northern state after northern state (sometimes by small margins) even while getting only 40 percent of the vote nationally--and also how the College had magnified Grant's comparatively narrow popular vote victory in 1868.
 
Is there any way we can get the 1832 presidential election to go into the House? I can see Jackson losing NJ, OH, and NY, all of which were reasonably close, but that still leaves him with 148 electoral votes--four more than necessary for a majority. If he lost ME as well (ME had ten electoral votes in those days...) it would go into the House (Jackson 138, Clay 130, Floyd,11, Wirt, 7). But Jackson's 54.67% in ME looks hard to crack, even if Wirt hadn't taken a few votes from Clay in that state. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1832_United_States_presidential_election
 
Last edited:
@David T How late would it need to happen before a Popular Vote Amendment would be a very seriously possible outcome of a Deadlock Election? Would, for example, 1892 be late enough?

If 1892 is too early, it looks like the next real opportunity would have been 1948; and considering the guy who'd be deadlocking the election that year, this would have some pretty serious consequences beyond future election mechanics...
 
Is there any way we can get the 1832 presidential election to go into the House? I can see Jackson losing NJ, OH, and NY, all of which were reasonably close, but that still leaves him with 148 electoral votes--four more than necessary for a majority. If he lost ME as well (ME had ten electoral votes in those days...) it would go into the House (Jackson 138, Clay 130, Floyd,11, Wirt, 7). But Jackson's 54.67% in ME looks hard to crack, even if Wirt hadn't taken a few votes from Clay in that state. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1832_United_States_presidential_election

Also, one could easily see Jackson getting zero electoral votes in MD, instead of the three he got in OTL. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1832_United_States_presidential_election_in_Maryland But that (combined with his losing NJ, OH, and NY) still only brings him down to 145.
 
Top