Originally posted by
Nicomacheus:
Strictly speaking the Federal Government lacks the power to set the standard by which the states should apportion the electoral votes. [...] Far better IMO to have a Constitutional Amendment to grant Congress the ability to make federal election laws regulating the matter
The Johnson administration decides not to proceed with such a constitutional amendment because it knows it does not have enough support for it. They intend to make it an issue in the 1924 election. However the Act mandating the Alternative Vote for congressional elections is passed in 1922.
By the winter of 1920/1921 the campaign for Prohibition has widespread
support in the Progressive Party. It appeals to the social paternalist wing of the party. However leading members of the administration who drink moderately don't want to deny the rest of the nation what they enjoy themselves. The Republican Party is broadly in favour of Prohibition and the Democratic Party divided on the issue.
The cause of Prohibition is badly damaged when on one cold February night a leading campaigner for the cause is found dead drunk in a notorious bar in Chicago frequented by gangsters and prostitutes. Few people believe his vehement protestations that he had been drugged and brought there by his enemies, and his credibility is further damaged when one of the women says that he is a regular client of hers. The bar staff affirm that they often see him there. He says that they and the woman have been bribed or intimidated.
There is not enough support in Congress for a Prohibitionist amendment to the Constitution.
In 1921 and 1922, like voices in the distance at first faint then growing louder, there is increasing discussion about a union of the Progressive and Republican Parties.
The political spectrum reads from left to right: Socialist, Progressive, Republican, Democrat. Some liberal Republicans have stayed in the party and not defected to the Progressives. In Congress most Republicans vote more often with the Progressives than with the Democrats. Theoretically an alliance of Progressives (153 seats) and Republicans (79 seats) has a majority over the Democrats (203 seats) in the House of Representatives. In the contest for Speaker a moderate Democrat is elected over the Progressive nominee because a substantial number of Republicans abstain or vote for the Democrat, to show their independence of the other two parties. However the Progressives and Republican combine to make the chairmanship of committees proportionate to the party composition in the House.
The two parties are allied on electoral reform and on Civil Rights. They are both opposed to the Bossism in the Democratic Party. They compete for first and second place in much of New England, though with the Democrats fast advancing. In Massachusetts in 1920, Johnson won by only 563 votes over Lodge, who was 1,637 votes ahead of Cox.
Country club Republicans occassionally vote Progressive, but would never vote Democrat. Also the Republican Party is more favourable to woman than the Democrats, though less so than the Progressives. The NACW (National Association of Colored Women) endorsed Johnson in 1920, but in Congressional and state and local contests it supports Progressive and Republican candidates.
Each party has three main strands of opinion regarding union. The two smallest groups are those who are against it "in my lifetime" and those who want it yesterday. Most members of each party believe that union can happen only if the terms are right, and it is widely accepted in both parties. It is an organic process which is far better to take gradually than rush into a botched and hasty union which is resented by many members of each party.
The name of any united party is also a cause of contention. Each party will never agree that its name should be that of the other party. The Progressives don't want to appear as a rebel faction returning repentant to the mother party. The Republicans don't want to be swallowed up by the larger party. However among Progressives who left the Republicans in 1912 or later, and perhaps held office in that party, there is an emotional pull to the party of their younger years. While Republicans console themselves that they have remained true to their principles, they know that they might have been office holders in Progressive administrations, without an entirely unacceptable tweaking of those principles.
Each party continues as independent entities and contests all elections. But there formre unofficial alliances with each other in Congress and at state and local level.
The 1922 midterm elections are contested using the Alternative Vote. The Democrats campaign strongly for an overall majority in the House and to increase their wafer-thin Senate majority. The results are as follows:
House of Representatives: Democrat 228 (+25)
Progressive 115 (-38)
Republican 76 (-3)
Socialist 16 (+16)
Senate: Democrat 51 (+2)
Progressive 30 (-1)
Republican 15 (-1)
The overwhelming majority of Progressives gave their second preference votes to Republican or Socialist candidates. Most Republicans gave their second preference votes to Progressive candidates. The great majority of Democrats voted for their party candidate only. The main effect of the new voting system is that House seats held by the Progressives with a small majority over the Democrats and where the Republicans or Socialists were a poor third place, were gained by the Democrats. But Progressives and Republicans held seats where the other party was a strong third place, even though they had a small majority over the Democrats. The Socialists gained 16 seats from the Democrats because of the second preference votes of third placed Progressives. The Alternative Vote had less effect in Senate elections.
The socialist contingent to the House comprises representatives from the following states: California 3, Illinois 4, Michigan 1, Minnesota 2, Oklahoma 1, Ohio 1, Pennsylvania 2, Texas 1, Wisconsin 1. It includes three women.
The Democrats believe strongly that the Alternative Vote has cheated them of a larger majority in the House and possibly the Senate.
The Disarmament Conference met in Paris from April to July 1922. It is attended by delegations from Austria-Hungary, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United States. There is no delegation from Bolshevik Russia. The Conference's agreement to sweeping arms reductions is opposed by the delegation of the fascist Italian government of Benito Mussolini. Italy is disappointed that it made no territorial gains from the Great War in spite of the promises of Britain and France. In an impassioned speech to the conference Mattias Erzebeger, the Geman Chancellor, declares that Germany will never again wage aggressive war; that the Germany of militarism and Prussianism is no more; that his country desires only to take its rightful place among the nations - not in inferiority or superiority but in equality, peace and brotherhood. He expressed his sincere apologies for atrocities committed by German forces in the Great War, but while individual Germans are guilty of wartime atrocities and a German government has waged aggressive war, he totally repudiates all idea of collective German guilt. His suggestion that a commission is established under League of Nations auspices which will investigate atrocities by the armed forces of all combatant nations in the war, and order the payment of compensation where appropriate, is accepted by the Conference, with the exception of Italy. He is given a standing ovation. The Conference ends with a performance of Mozart's Mass in C Minor and Beethoven's Ninth Symphony. Herbert Hoover the US Secretary of State says that he is extremely pleased with the result of the Conference, as a Quaker peace is very dear to his heart.
fun.