What I didn't realize about founding father elections

This article just comes right and uses the o-word.


There is also no question that the Founding Fathers created an oligarchy, not a republic or a democracy.

https://thoughtcatalog.com/avery-bissett/2014/07/there-is-more-to-american-than-just-the-founding-fathers/

Quote: Pacomartin

This article just comes right and uses the o-word.

A bit too simplistic. And it glosses over important points, like who elected the state legislatures.

It takes terms out of historical context, too. Republics and democracy were far from common or the norm in the XVIII century. Britain had a form of representative democracy (and lack of representation of the colonies was the central issue in American independence). Venice was a republic of sorts, and parts of Holland and Belgium formed the Dutch Republic. They did no more resemble the modern notion of a democratic republic any more than the early US did.

As I've said previously, the US founding fathers fell short of their convictions. There are many reasons for this, and it's not worth getting into them just now. But the success of the American revolution inspired a host of other revolutions which extended their principles farther, and faster, than the US founders ever did (though it's worth noting the others had greater stumbles, including outright atrocities, along the way). Consider the French revolution, Haitian Independence, Mexican Independence, Bolivar's campaigns of liberation in South America, the revolutions of 1848, etc.

I would recommend "The Skeptic's Guide to american History" by Prof. Mark A. Stoler available from Audible (also from the Great Courses, but audible has it cheaper) for a start. though it doesn't address specifically this issue.

I wouldn't mind learning more about the details of government from 1787 to 1913. I'll let you know what i turn up (But that has to wait my current reading list)

Quote: Nareed

A bit too simplistic. And it glosses over important points, like who elected the state legislatures.

Well maybe. In the first census of 1790 out of almost 4 million people only 21% were white males over the age of 16. The total for white males under the age of 16 was 20%. The median age was very young.

At least 18% of the total population were slaves.

Still the count was 807,094 free white males over the age of 16.

Popular votes were:
43,782 voted 1788 election
28,579 voted 1792 election
66,841 \voted 1796 election

In the 1788 election popular votes were only held in 6 states Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.

By 1824 there were still six states that had no popular vote, and the most popular candidate, Andrew Jackson was not on the ballot in another 5 states. Andrew Jackson was only on the ballot for thirteen states.

Still seems a little oligarchist to me.

Quote: Pacomartin

Still seems a little oligarchist to me.

Oh, it was an oligarchy. There's no doubt about that.

But not all oligarchies are the same.

Consider the oligarchy in the early Roman Republic. The Patricians and Equestrians had most of the power, and the Plebes had little. The law wasn't published or even disclosed. It took repeated strikes and other actions by the Plebes to get representation through offices, or even the chance to stand for an office. Eventually, too, the law was published, the famous 12 Tables.

Compare this to the American Oligarchy. The law was known and published, be it the Articles fo Confederation or the Constitution. There were no prohibitions on class lines in order to run for an office, even though the higher classes dominated (and still do to a large extent). And things such as the Bill of Rights applied to everyone.

I would have suspected low turnouts in the first several elections but didn't know it was that low. I'm also skeptical how fair the elections were back then, which were all based on paper votes covering a huge area.

Quote: Wizard

I would have suspected low turnouts in the first several elections but didn't know it was that low. I'm also skeptical how fair the elections were back then, which were all based on paper votes covering a huge area.

It was based on only landowners could vote, and there were so many fewer back then.

For example, the county I am now working had filled just 100 deed books from the mid 1700s to about 1900. Since 1900 they have filled 800 more. This is not an exact science. Deeds are longer now, but they were handwritten then which took up more space. But even 1918 maps (for some reason many counties drew "farm maps" about then, show far fewer owners than a modern map.

We had NYC, Boston, and Philly as cities back then. Most of the rest was small, rural, and agricultural.

Quote: Wizard

I would have suspected low turnouts in the first several elections but didn't know it was that low.

Well you have to figure the 20% of the population that was slaves can't vote.
Then you figure the 40% of the population that was free white women can't vote
Then you figure the 20% of the population that was underage white men can't vote.
So out of the remaining 20% you take out felons, non property owners, states that didn't support popular vote, people who lived in remote areas, the cynics, etc.

You would think you would end up with 8%-12%, but in reality it was closer to 1% of the population that voted.

Voter turnout didn't go up by much even when their was an actual competition (Washington was unopposed), war of 1812, or any other big event in the first 50 years.

Quote: Wizard

I'm also skeptical how fair the elections were back then, which were all based on paper votes covering a huge area.

There was very little hint of scandal, and the first 9 elections seemed almost parceled out, in the sense that an oligarchy would quietly take turns as President. The candidates themselves did not even campaign. Only John Adams was not elected for his second term.

Only the tenth election in 1824 had strong charges of scandal and collusion with the "corrupt bargain" . It was the first election to be decided in a three way contingent election in the House of Representatives. John Quincy Adams had strong support only in New England but won the election.

Andrew Jackson (age 57) was probably the first candidate feared as a demagogue ( "leader of the mob") . He began to campaign again for re-election only a year after he lost, and he created the Democratic party and pushed to increase suffrage so that almost three times as many people voted in 1828 as in 1824.

After Jackson was elected a mob stormed the White House and began breaking things. They were lured out with free booze.

Jackson was famous for being deeply opposed to paper currency, which is why it seems funny that in 1928 the portrait on the $20 was switched from Grover Cleveland to Andrew Jackson.

Interesting deeper dive of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/09/05/electoral-college-national-popular-vote-compact-215541

We've discussed this here before. The article adds a great dela of nuance and obstacles. And raises some tactical questions:

1) Could this be passed in a state initiative at the polls?

2) Shouldn't the backers of the Compact publicize it more to get popular support?

The article misses one point. There is no Electoral College in the US, but rather an Electoral Vote System. I mean, electors do not cast votes based on anything other than their individual state's means for apportioning Electoral Votes. It's not, properly speaking, a college making a decision or even casting a vote. If a real College existed, then electors would vote as they wanted and the popular vote would be meaningless.

Yes, there are such people as "faithless electors." But 1) they're few and far between, 2) the very term denotes they can't faithfully choose their vote, and 3) as far as I know, none have ever changed the end result of any election.

If the Compact goes into effect, there will indeed be mess of legalisms, court actions and Congressional meddling. But it ma succeed, or at the least shake things up.

It often gets glossed over, but many states have had at least one vote on the subject and failed to pass it.
It could be, at this point, just about every state has already decided whether or not they are going to join.

Quote: Dalex64

It often gets glossed over, but many states have had at least one vote on the subject and failed to pass it.
It could be, at this point, just about every state has already decided whether or not they are going to join.

I just read today that such an agreement might not even pass constitutional muster which prevents such arrangements between the states.