Pub Date : 2020-01-13DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190060152.003.0005
E. Foley
For most of the twentieth century, including the 80-year period between 1912 and 1992, the existence of third-party or independent candidates did not prevent the Electoral College from producing majoritarian results consistent with the expectations of its Jeffersonian architects for how two-party competition was supposed to work. 1912 was anomalous for its three-way split among two Republican presidents, one incumbent and one former, running against the Democratic nominee; but its outcome was not clearly different from what the Jeffersonian system, operating properly, would have produced. 1992 involved another three-way split—among Bush, Clinton, and Perot—with a result that is uncertain from a Jeffersonian perspective, since it is debatable what the outcome would have been if there had been runoffs in the states to see which candidate was preferred by a majority. The century ended with an election, 2000, in which the system clearly malfunctioned; Nader’s presence masked Gore’s majority.
{"title":"The Jeffersonian Electoral College in the Twentieth Century","authors":"E. Foley","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780190060152.003.0005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190060152.003.0005","url":null,"abstract":"For most of the twentieth century, including the 80-year period between 1912 and 1992, the existence of third-party or independent candidates did not prevent the Electoral College from producing majoritarian results consistent with the expectations of its Jeffersonian architects for how two-party competition was supposed to work. 1912 was anomalous for its three-way split among two Republican presidents, one incumbent and one former, running against the Democratic nominee; but its outcome was not clearly different from what the Jeffersonian system, operating properly, would have produced. 1992 involved another three-way split—among Bush, Clinton, and Perot—with a result that is uncertain from a Jeffersonian perspective, since it is debatable what the outcome would have been if there had been runoffs in the states to see which candidate was preferred by a majority. The century ended with an election, 2000, in which the system clearly malfunctioned; Nader’s presence masked Gore’s majority.","PeriodicalId":371574,"journal":{"name":"Presidential Elections and Majority Rule","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-01-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127517147","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-01-13DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190060152.003.0010
E. Foley
Election College reform should be considered in the context of overall concerns about American democracy. Civic culture is essential, as is strengthening democratic institutions. While the United States must address other institutional weaknesses, including gerrymandering, the power of the presidency requires urgent attention to the current deficiency of the Electoral College. The problem is that plurality winner-take-all permits the kind of accident that occurred in 1844, where the winner is not the candidate preferred by a majority of voters in enough states for an Electoral College majority. Insofar as this kind of accident may have happened again in 2016, recognizing this institutional problem requires a different analysis and solution than if a majority of Americans want to elect a president with anti-democratic tendencies. Currently, there is a mismatch between America’s expectation of two-party competition and the multicandidate reality of contemporary presidential elections. Majority rule is necessary to realign reality and expectations.
{"title":"Conclusion","authors":"E. Foley","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780190060152.003.0010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190060152.003.0010","url":null,"abstract":"Election College reform should be considered in the context of overall concerns about American democracy. Civic culture is essential, as is strengthening democratic institutions. While the United States must address other institutional weaknesses, including gerrymandering, the power of the presidency requires urgent attention to the current deficiency of the Electoral College. The problem is that plurality winner-take-all permits the kind of accident that occurred in 1844, where the winner is not the candidate preferred by a majority of voters in enough states for an Electoral College majority. Insofar as this kind of accident may have happened again in 2016, recognizing this institutional problem requires a different analysis and solution than if a majority of Americans want to elect a president with anti-democratic tendencies. Currently, there is a mismatch between America’s expectation of two-party competition and the multicandidate reality of contemporary presidential elections. Majority rule is necessary to realign reality and expectations.","PeriodicalId":371574,"journal":{"name":"Presidential Elections and Majority Rule","volume":"43 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-01-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127059683","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-01-13DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190060152.003.0006
E. Foley
The 2016 election is, at a minimum, problematic from a Jeffersonian perspective, like 1992, and may have been another systemic malfunction, like 2000. Donald Trump received 107 of his 304 electoral votes in states where he won less than 50 percent of the popular vote—failing to achieve the kind of compound majority-of-majorities consistent with the Jeffersonian vision of how the system should work. 2016 illustrates the system’s inability to handle third-party and independent candidates, like Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, an inability caused by the addition of plurality winner-take-all in the Jacksonian era. It is unknowable whether Trump or Hillary Clinton would have won runoffs in the three pivotal Rust Belt states of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. But if Clinton had won runoffs there (and in the states where she was only a plurality winner), then she would have won the Electoral College with an appropriately Jeffersonian majority-of-majorities.
{"title":"The Jeffersonian Electoral College in the Twenty-First Century","authors":"E. Foley","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780190060152.003.0006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190060152.003.0006","url":null,"abstract":"The 2016 election is, at a minimum, problematic from a Jeffersonian perspective, like 1992, and may have been another systemic malfunction, like 2000. Donald Trump received 107 of his 304 electoral votes in states where he won less than 50 percent of the popular vote—failing to achieve the kind of compound majority-of-majorities consistent with the Jeffersonian vision of how the system should work. 2016 illustrates the system’s inability to handle third-party and independent candidates, like Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, an inability caused by the addition of plurality winner-take-all in the Jacksonian era. It is unknowable whether Trump or Hillary Clinton would have won runoffs in the three pivotal Rust Belt states of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. But if Clinton had won runoffs there (and in the states where she was only a plurality winner), then she would have won the Electoral College with an appropriately Jeffersonian majority-of-majorities.","PeriodicalId":371574,"journal":{"name":"Presidential Elections and Majority Rule","volume":"541 ","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-01-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114097208","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：