Wouldn't Wallace be weakened, even among his base, for the same reason as McGovern? Voters will be reminded that if it hadn't been for George's little vanity campaign, McKiethen would be President and We Could Have Avoided All This. I'm a little surprised it didn't come up in his re-election campaign, but I suppose the old bastard has enough dirt on everyone in Alabama to scare off any serious challengers -- but I suspect he's toast in the rest of the country.
Fear, Loathing and Gumbo on the Campaign Trail '72
- Thread starter Drew
- Start date
- Status
Wouldn't Wallace be weakened, even among his base, for the same reason as McGovern? Voters will be reminded that if it hadn't been for George's little vanity campaign, McKiethen would be President and We Could Have Avoided All This. I'm a little surprised it didn't come up in his re-election campaign, but I suppose the old bastard has enough dirt on everyone in Alabama to scare off any serious challengers -- but I suspect he's toast in the rest of the country.
Couldn't the ABA plan be accompanied by revising the Reapportionment Act of 1929 to add more House seats, or just repealing it altogether?
That's what I mean -- that's the only why to fix the problem of the tie w/o additional amendments, but might raise it's own political problems, depending on who's likely to get the extra seat.
As an ode to the TL, and an upcoming look at all the potential candidates for the election, for those of us who like visuals
*****
Independent
President James M. "Jumpin Jim" Gavin (I-NY)
The Democratic Field
Senator Henry M. "Scoop" Jackson (D-WA)
Senator Birch E. Bayh II (D-IN)
Senator Edward M. "Teddy" Kennedy (D-MA)
Senator Hubert H. Humphrey (D-MN)
Congressman Ronald V. "Ron" Dellums (D-CA)
Governor George C. Wallace (D-AL)
The Republican Field
Former Governor Ronald W. Reagan (R-CA)
Congressman Phil Crane (R-IL)
Senator Howard Baker (R-TN)
Secretary of State George H.W Bush (R-TX)
Senator Charles "Chuck" Percy (R-IL)
Former POTUS Spiro T. Agnew
*****
Independent
President James M. "Jumpin Jim" Gavin (I-NY)
The Democratic Field
Senator Henry M. "Scoop" Jackson (D-WA)
Senator Birch E. Bayh II (D-IN)
Senator Edward M. "Teddy" Kennedy (D-MA)
Senator Hubert H. Humphrey (D-MN)
Congressman Ronald V. "Ron" Dellums (D-CA)
Governor George C. Wallace (D-AL)
The Republican Field
Former Governor Ronald W. Reagan (R-CA)
Congressman Phil Crane (R-IL)
Senator Howard Baker (R-TN)
Secretary of State George H.W Bush (R-TX)
Senator Charles "Chuck" Percy (R-IL)
Former POTUS Spiro T. Agnew
John Farson
Banned
Very nice!
About HHH: I don't know when he found out, but in OTL he already knew by 1976 that he had terminal cancer, which most definitely contributed to his refusal to mount a campaign for the nomination from the convention.
I think here too he will be out of the running once he finds out about his medical condition. For 1975 he will still be on the forefront, of course.
About HHH: I don't know when he found out, but in OTL he already knew by 1976 that he had terminal cancer, which most definitely contributed to his refusal to mount a campaign for the nomination from the convention.
I think here too he will be out of the running once he finds out about his medical condition. For 1975 he will still be on the forefront, of course.
I like the update of the various election reform plans and what 1976 holds in store for us.
Like a previous poster stated, the Harvard Plan looks the most cut-and-dried and straightforward plan, and I am certain that this will be the selection made.
As for the nominations, I see Reagan v. [SOMEBODY] as most likely.
Like a previous poster stated, the Harvard Plan looks the most cut-and-dried and straightforward plan, and I am certain that this will be the selection made.
As for the nominations, I see Reagan v. [SOMEBODY] as most likely.
OTL: His condition didn't become apparent until 1976, so at this point in early 1975 he's still in consideration.
wikipedia said:
Maybe yes, maybe no. The Governor who proudly pronounced "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever" won his last two elections with the help of the black vote in Alabama, so who knows. George Wallace was always unpredictable.
OTL he used Nixon's opposition to him in 1970 as part of his 1974 re-election campaign. ITTL he waved around some of the not forgotten literature about Nixon and desegregation and claimed his stance in 1972 was in support of Alabama's rights as a "sovereign state." He could also make the case that McKeithen was swallowed by the Party machine (when he asked Bayh to be his running mate) whereas he, George Corley Wallace, remained the champion of the little guy - and look what he suffered because of it.
He could fizzle ITTL 1976, or he could be a populist success again feeding off blue collar fears. Weinberger is looking at if from the worst case scenario.
Fleetlord Hart said:
Sorry, poor wording on my part. Each legislator has one vote within his legislative house. Each legislative house has one vote for President and one vote for Vice President, as decided by a majority of its members. The Ninety-nine legislative houses between them cast a total of 99 votes in this contingent election. In the event of a tie in either of the two houses in one state (or both), the Governor* would cast the tie breaking vote.
It has flaws, but it does present an alternative to Congress doing it (getting it the contingent election outside the beltway and into the nation) while ensuring that those voting are themselves elected officials who will be accountable to the people for their votes.
*=Giving this role to the Governor ensures that this very significant decision is made by an elected official directly accountable to the widest number of electors.
Last edited:
Ahh...so it retains the "unit rule", in a sense, but in a manner that's much harder to deadlock than the current 12th. (Not only is it unlikely that more than one or two state houses happen to be split down the middle, but state legislators are much less beholden to the national party than federal congresscritters .. so a repeat of the trench warfare of 1972 is unlikely.)
I'm finding this plan more and more likely -- no dissolution of state's rights, and it sounds like the Congress, by and large, won't object to relinquishing its' role in the process.
EDIT: Ah, so each separate house gets a vote, they don't combine to give each state one vote. In that case, I think Nebraska would want some clause giving a unicameral house two votes, so that it's even with the other states. Not that their approval is strictly needed, but it's a simple enough tweak.
That's a good point, and I see the logic behind it.
However, politically, the quickest way to derail this thing is to make it into a fight about re-apportionment. That not only gets into party divisions, but also stirs-up sectional disputes and big state v. little state concerns, until that hijacks the committee from its job of writing-up a revision to the twelfth amendment. As much as possible, you want to keep that kind of win-lose politics out of it.
With a limit of 435 House members, you are more likely to have an odd number of electors (barring vacancies or absences) which minimizes your chances of a tie, especially if you have to go to a second ballot with only two candidates.
Tie breaking could be done by any number of methods. You could have the 535 electors draw lots, which exclude one or two by random chance from the third tie breaking ballot.
You could give the tie breaking vote to the Chief Justice - although any Chief Justice might be loath to exercise that vote since it would undercut his credibility with at least one significant part of the country for the rest of his/her tenure.
One way around that is to assign every judge actively serving on the federal bench a number, and randomly draw a number before the joint Congressional session begins (obviously several days ahead as you are talking a pool of judges from across the nation) Like the draft, the judge whose number is drawn randomly will come to Washington to preside over the joint session balloting - and will cast the deciding vote if required. Whether it is a Democratic or Republican appointee remains a matter of random chance (or you could pick a three, five or seven judge panel to stand by and whose sole purpose would be to cast the tie-breaking vote by majority if you want more than one judge to do it).
Actually, 435 House members produces an even number of electors: 435+100+3 for D.C. = 538. Of course, you could avoid reapportionment by shaving a vote off of D.C., but given that D.C. is the closest thing to a gerrymandered Democratic district the electoral college has, I'd expect Dems to balk. Then again, they did defect to McGovern in '72, so maybe they'll be punished for it...
You could have both options appear as choices within the plan. In one you have 99 contingent Electoral Votes decided by 99 Legislative Houses.
In the other you have 50 contingent Electoral Votes, where a combined vote of a state's two legislative houses (except Nebraska) is required to determine a State's one contingent EV. This would also resolve the Nebraska issue by setting it equal to all the others all having just one vote.
The problem with the 50 CEV option is you could still end-up with a tie, in which case you would need a tie breaking mechanism.
The three/five/seven judge panel might be one option for that.
Getting the State legislators involved not only gets it away from the national parties and the concentration of power in Washington, but in this way you get a more diversified pool of electors deciding it who are closer to the local interests. This helps with State's rights, but also makes sure you get independents and third party legislators involved as well, since you are more likely to find at least some of the these at the State level than in Congress.
The 23rd amendment gives DC 3 Electors as if it had a Representative and Two Senators (the smallest Congressional delegation allowable under the Constitution). But in fact DC does not have these. It has one non-voting delegate in the House of Representatives and no representation in the Senate. The voting members of both houses casting ballots would be 100 + 435 = 535 as things stand.
In the contingent process under the twelfth amendment DC had no vote.
Under a reform you could give DC's one non-voting delegate a vote for the occasion, but then you would either have to allow the ones from Puerto Rico, Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands to vote as well, or come with a rationale why they couldn't. (All of these but the Puerto Rico delegate are Democrats in the 94th Congress; the Puerto Rico delegate belongs to a home grown PR Party that identifies with the Democratic Party on national issues).
In any case you will get stiff opposition to this from Republicans, because they will see allowing the DC non-voting delegate a vote in this instance as the thin edge of a wedge that will lead to DC getting that Representative and Two Senators (the latter being the real issue at stake).
See also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)#The_Bayh-Celler_Amendment
Wait, are we still talking about the ABA plan? I thought that that created a runoff election that went to the electoral college, not the Congress.
The rationale is simple. If a citizen of the United States has been granted the right to vote for President, as residents of DC have, they have a right to have that vote represented in the Electoral College. In turn, they have a right to have that vote represented in whatever body substitutes for the Electoral College in the future. It would be, if not unconstitutional, certainly unacceptable to say "you have the right to vote for President, except if it really matters, in which case we'll kind of ignore you." Edit: The response to this, most likely, would be to point out DC's non-voting delegate to the House, to which I would say that's also constitutional but unacceptable. Just a fact of life that needs changing.
Citizens of PR, Guam, etc. have not been granted the right to vote for President. They therefore do not have the right to have their vote represented in either the Electoral College or the Conditional College (for lack of a better term.)
The method of handling this would be either to give the DC City Council voting rights as the supreme legislative body of the district, or include in the plan the requirement that, in the event the Conditional College comes into play, DC's vote shall be granted to the winner of the popular vote in the district.
The proper method, in my estimation, is either 51 or 101 Conditional College votes: one for every state, plus DC (to be expanded if the DC voting rights situation gets extended to other locales in the future), or one for every legislative body, a second for Nebraska so they remain on an even footing with every other state, plus DC (with DC only getting one vote, instead of two, to indicate their citizens' special status as voters without statehood.)
Last edited:
Actually I thought of that, then I thought nah, John would never go for that.
I'm flattered!
I see your point.
Still, I think Mitterrand would have tried to put together a Socialist/Communist minority government, hoping that a couple of social Gaullists would either abstain or support at the Assembly. He might even have tried a National Unity government, invoking the spirit of post-war France, when socialists, communists and gaullists did govern together.
Excluding the communists from any left wing government would have been a devastating signal to their electorate, and also a renegation of the Programme Commun. Of course the Assembly might have voted the censure, but at least Mitterrand would have been consistant with his pre-election promises.
Somebody to consider to lead a National Unity government: former National Assembly President Edgar Faure, a very interesting character if ever! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_Faure
Last edited:
Fleetlord Hart said:
We seem to be wandering across both. The Harvard Plan has the individual members voting in Washington (100+435=535).
The ABA plan involves a second round using the Electoral College in a second round of voting and that would include DC’s three Electors. (100+435+3=538)
One of the interesting things of the Fifth Republic set-up is that, if well managed, the President is set-up to collect the roses while the PM gets the ..well, let's just say mud. Unless the President really screws-up in an obvious way, he can always lay-off bad policy decisions on the PM.
It's a surprise American Presidents haven't caught on to this. ("Wow, I can appoint a guy to run the policy and if it succeeds I take the credit for appointing him, but if it fails I blame him and get another guy to take over.") I imagine President Obama wouldn't mind making a Prime Minister Pelosi the fall person right now.
I know its never that simple; just a thought really.
Focusing on your point, I suppose a national unity government would be an idea too to address the Grand Gachis. I've been reading a study of the 1974 French Presidential election and I note in there how divided the UDR were, not just Chirac going to Giscard, but a real quagmire of conflicting ambitions and ideologies. In the U.S. or Canadian system if an MP (or Rep. or Senator) crossed over to support the Presidential candidate/leader of another party, and it didn't work out, he'd be political toast.
I also noted that despite how close Mitterrand actually came in 1974, fear of the Communists seems to be what held back that 1% that OTL made Giscard President. Mitterrand seems even to have contemplated the possibility of some sort of cohabitation (although that's not the world used in the 1975 study published in the US - the English word they use for it is collaboration) with the UDR if the Socialists and PCF didn't win the legislative election outright.
Following-up on your suggestion (and I agree Faure is an interesting character) let's say Mitterrand puts together a government of national unity with Faure as PM, and involving Jean Lecanuet (and maybe Jean-Jacques Servan-Schreiber) and Gaston Defferre as the senior Socialist in the group, how would such a government take shape? I imagine that under those circumstances he could ask Faure to invite in one or two PCF deputies in as junior ministers because there would be more than just Socialists to "control" them.
I still think Giscard, while wanting to appear an important partner in the settlement, would want to remain aloof by not actually accepting a Cabinet portfolio, that way keeping his options open. Taking on the Prime Ministership, or even a senior portfolio might diminish his man of the future image by getting him to closely involved in what would probably be a contentious administration with some tough policy choices to make. If he wants to be President in 1981, then he still has to have something new to offer the electorate, or at least he would wait for a legislative election which might improve his party's standing before he accepted the call to become PM.
Challenged on this point Wallace might well retort that he was chosen as a candidate by a plurality (if not a majority) of Alabama voters, and that his Electors stood-up for the sovereign rights of the State of Alabama against those who would force the power of the federal government down their throat.
That would be his campaign theme inside Alabama in 1974, and I don't think he would have any serious challengers who could knock him off the in the Democratic primaries (still the real Alabama election at this time) - certainly not like his close contest with Albert Brewer in 1970.
Outside Alabama, when challenged, he Wallace could argue that he stood-up for the principles of his State and the ones he had run on; he wouldn't be captured by the "Washington deal making machine." He stood fast for his beliefs, and it was because the others wouldn't compromise with him that the election went to the Congress.
ITTL: Wallace might say:
"George Wallace didn't hang-up the 1972 general election, and don't you listen to jimmer-jammer that says otherwise. No sir. I stood for the solid values and principles which I gave to you through my whole campaign, and the one before that. I spoke for those who have no other voice. I took nine Electoral Votes to Washington so that those unheard voices could at last be heard in the highest forum of our land.
"Make a deal with President Nixon, they said. Give your votes to Governor McKeithen they said. Why? So we could have an easy election? And what would we elect? Tweedle-dee or tweedle dum? Cause I guarantee you, if I had given my vote to either Nixon or McKeithen that's we'd have got. President Tweedle-dee in bed with the fat cats and profiteers; or President Tweedle-dum ready to expand big government to take over more of your life?
"If I had allowed that, then you could have said to me, George, why'd you sell us out? Why'd you let the country down? 'Cause then I would surely have been a lowly skunk - a sell out!
"When I went to school I read about some very brave men who said no to that kind of chicken-hearted, mealy mouthed, oatmeal flavored get-along-to-go-along kind of bull. They were our founding fathers, who made a nation where that should never happen. A free nation. A nation that believes in things and calls on all its citizens to defend that.
"Well, my friends, I defended that in a war, and I have stood for liberty and freedom all my life. So when you ask me, why didn't you sell out in 1972 just to make the problem go away, I'll say back - George Wallace doesn't sell out! George Wallace believes in the Constitutions and our freedoms guaranteed by that sacred piece of paper. George Wallace will fight to the end for what he believes - and that is freedom and the rights of our people to enjoy that freedom.
"If you don't like that, go to ...well, somewhere hot. George Wallace ain't gonna sell himself for your vote; I ain't for sale! But if you believe with me that our Constitution, or country is sacred, and our values are worth fighting for, then you know I will fight for that until the last breath leaves my body. So help me God!"
George C. Wallace - March 11, 1975
- Status