Electoral voting patterns and campaign strategies: Some of you might try checkin

Question

Electoral voting patterns and campaign strategies:

Some of you might try checking out www.archive.gov (Links to an external site.) (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.

Review the history of the Electoral College and voting patterns.

In 2004, what were the voting patterns for the Presidential election? Which states were very competitive, and how does this affect the campaign strategies of Obama and McCain in 2008? Note the states that supported Democrat vs. Republican candidates in 2004 or other years.

Maybe relate this to what seemed to be happening just before the 2008 elections. Where were the candidates campaigning, and what states did they seem to ignore (and why)? Perhaps discuss the 2012 elections? OR THE 2016 elections? please cite everything you write.

Explanation / Answer

As americans look forward to the quadrennial walking of the presidential concern direction now known as the Electoral institution, its valued at remembering why we have now this ordinary political contraption within the first position. In the end, state governors in all 50 states are elected via general vote; why no longer do the equal for the governor of all states, a.K.A. The president? The quirks of the Electoral tuition method had been uncovered this week when Donald Trump secured the presidency with an Electoral university majority, whilst Hillary Clinton took a slim lead in the widespread vote.

Some declare that the founding fathers selected the Electoral university over direct election in order to steadiness the interests of high-populace and low-population states. However the deepest political divisions in the usa have continuously run now not between gigantic and small states, however between the north and the south, and between the coasts and the interior.

One Founding-era argument for the Electoral university stemmed from the fact that usual americans throughout a massive continent would lack enough know-how to decide upon directly and intelligently amongst main presidential candidates.

This objection rang actual within the 1780s, when lifestyles used to be a long way more regional. However the early emergence of countrywide presidential parties rendered the objection out of date via linking presidential candidates to slates of nearby candidates and country wide platforms, which explained to voters who stood for what.

Even though the Philadelphia framers didn't count on the upward push of a procedure of national presidential events, the twelfth modificationâproposed in 1803 and ratified a year laterâ used to be framed with such a party procedure in mind, in the aftermath of the election of 1800-01. In that election, two rudimentary presidential eventsâFederalists led by way of John Adams and Republicans led by means of Thomas Jeffersonâtook shape and squared off. Jefferson ultimately prevailed, however most effective after an increased problem precipitated by way of several system faults within the Framers electoral equipment. In specific, Republican electors had no formal option to designate that they desired Jefferson for president and Aaron Burr for vice president alternatively than vice versa. Some politicians then tried to milk the resulting confusion.

Enter the twelfth modification, which allowed each and every social gathering to designate one candidate for president and a separate candidate for vice president. The amendment changes of the electoral process modified the Framers framework, enabling future presidential elections to be overtly populist and partisan affairs featuring two competing tickets. It is the 12th amendments Electoral tuition process, now not the Philadelphia Framers, that stays in situation at present. If the general citizenrys lack of abilities had been the actual intent for the Electoral school, this predicament was once mostly solved by way of 1800. So why wasn't the whole Electoral college contraption scrapped at that point?

Typical civics-type debts of the Electoral institution hardly ever mention the actual demon dooming direct countrywide election in 1787 and 1803: slavery.

At the Philadelphia convention, the visionary Pennsylvanian James Wilson proposed direct country wide election of the president. But the savvy Virginian James Madison replied that one of these system would show unacceptable to the South: The correct of suffrage was once far more diffusive [i.E., extensive] within the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter would haven't any influence within the election on the rating of Negroes. In other words, in a direct election procedure, the North would outnumber the South, whose many slaves (greater than half one million in all) of path could no longer vote. However the Electoral university a prototype of which Madison proposed on this identical speech as an alternative let every southern state count its slaves, albeit with a two-fifths reduction, in computing its share of the overall depend.

Get your history repair in a single situation: sign up for the weekly TIME history newsletter

Virginia emerged as the big winner the California of the Founding generation with 12 out of a complete of ninety one electoral votes allocated by using the Philadelphia structure, greater than a quarter of the 46 wanted to win an election in the first round. After the 1800 census, Wilson's free state of Pennsylvania had 10% extra free persons than Virginia, however got 20% fewer electoral votes. Perversely, the more slaves Virginia (or another slave state) bought or bred, the more electoral votes it will obtain. Had been a slave state to free any blacks who then moved North, the state could sincerely lose electoral votes.

If the procedure's professional-slavery tilt used to be now not overwhelmingly obvious when the constitution was ratified, it rapidly grew to be so. For 32 of the structure's first 36 years, a white slaveholding Virginian occupied the presidency.

Southerner Thomas Jefferson, for example, gained the election of 1800-01 in opposition to Northerner John Adams in a race the place the slavery-skew of the electoral university was once the decisive margin of victory: with out the additional electoral university votes generated by way of slavery, the in general southern states that supported Jefferson would not have sufficed to provide him a majority. As pointed observers remarked on the time, Thomas Jefferson metaphorically rode into the executive mansion on the backs of slaves.

The 1796 contest between Adams and Jefferson had featured an excellent sharper division between northern states and southern states. For that reason, on the time the Twelfth modification tinkered with the Electoral school system as a substitute than tossing it, the approach's professional-slavery bias was once infrequently a secret. Certainly, in the flooring debate over the modification in late 1803, Massachusetts Congressman Samuel Thatcher complained that The representation of slaves provides thirteen individuals to this house within the gift Congress, and eighteen Electors of President and vp on the subsequent election. but Thatcher's criticism went unredressed. As soon as once more, the North caved to the South with the aid of refusing to insist on direct country wide election.

In mild of this more complete (if less flattering) account of the electoral institution in the late 18th and early nineteenth century, americans must ask themselves whether or not we need to hold this extraordinary dare I say bizarre? institution in the 21st century.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse E
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.