Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

24

This is because the USA uses the first-past-the-post principle in all its elections rather than proportional representation like Russia uses. The effect of first-past-the-post is that only a party with a good chance of winning the most votes can ever have a shot at any representation whatsoever. Since there mathematically can be no more than two such ...


12

There is an effort underway now called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. These reform efforts wax and wane as demographics meet the various political parties interests. Right now, "progressives" are really excited about the popular vote, because they can successfully get key voting blocks to vote their way with mass media. In earlier times, ...


11

It actually happens fairly often. The last was in 2004, where a Minnesota elector (who would not own up to it) voted for Edwards (the VP candidate) instead of John Kerry. The assumption has been that this was done out of incompetence rather than malice. The cycle before that, the DC elector refused to vote, in protest to DC having no congressional ...


10

In that time (the quote comes from 1872), brown-bread was just recently introduced as having any benefits for health. Edward Smith started to promote brown-bread in his book "Practical dietary for families, schools, and the laboring classes", released in 1865 in London. Earlier it was treated as worse (because of ingredients) and commonly used as a meal for ...


10

First of all, I don't really buy the premise that elections were often limited to city states mainly because of logistical problems. I would rather argue that it was because the polis was the primary societal identification for most freemen in the Mediterranean lands, and therefore it was natural for the people of each city-state to want to govern their own ...


9

As per your original question: The Wikipedia section does not claim that Joseph P Kennedy bought John F Kennedy's victory. Such claims would be rather outlandish as it would mean that he was the only or the major contributor to the primary election campaign. As JFK would not have been able to win the democratic primary election unless he had widespread ...


8

Depending on exactly what you mean by a "serious effort" the answer would seem to be no. I am assuming that you would consider a proposed constitutional amendment that got to the states and did not receive enough votes in the states as serious. There have however been numerous efforts to reform or abolish the electoral college. According to archives.gov ...


8

My understanding, as confirmed by your intuition and this article in the New Yorker exploration into presidential biographies starting with John Eaton's 1817 work "Life of Jackson" was that it wasn't until 1824 that attitudes on running a presidential campaign substantially changed. From said article, The election of 1824 brought the first campaign ...


7

Presumably this would be ancient Rome during the early Empire. The best numbers available come, I think, from Augustus' official autobiography. The English text can be found here. In paragraph 8 he says that in the Empire-wide census of 14CE "were counted 4,937,000 of the heads of Roman citizens". Now, it seems to be a vexing questions for historians what ...


6

Well, technically the states don't have to do anything at all for the parties. So, if the parties would like their primaries to show up on state ballots counted at state expense by state-funded officials, then they have to follow the rules (laws) the state sets for such activity. There's nothing stopping you from starting your own party and selecting your ...


6

In the United States, most voters vote "strategically." That is, they may favor a third party candidate during the campaign, but when election day rolls around, they will vote for one of the major parties in order to not "waste" their vote. For instance, in 2000, Ralph Nader ended up with 2% of the vote. Most of his "natural" supporters ended up voting for ...


5

I heard an interesting answer to this question a while back, and while it's probably not the whole answer (it could go hand in hand with some of the others to this question), I think it puts an interesting perspective on things. It goes something like this… In other countries without a two-party system, a parliamentary election happens and four, five, six ...


5

If your question is specifically about the candidate hitting the campaign trail and personally campaigning then the answer is the election of 1880. According to the Miller Center at the University of Virginia during the election of 1828 "neither candidate personally campaigned in 1828, but their political followers organized rallies, parades, and ...


5

Most states choose Presidential electors based on the candidate who got the most votes in the November election, but not all do. In particular, Nebraska (which has 3 congressional districts and therefore 5 electoral votes) allocates 2 electors to the state-wide winner, and each of the other 3 to the winner in each congressional district. In the 2008 ...


5

Yes In 158 instances, electors have cast their votes for President or Vice President in a manner different from that prescribed by the legislature of the state they represented. faithless elector Hat tip to @Keith Thompson, but I wanted to provide a more specific answer.


4

States Electors aren't really bound to the popular vote, there have been cases where the popular vote did not decide the winner-take-all voting system we have; I note this because Main and Nebraska do have a different system as Keith notes. That system divides up the votes, and while this typically matches the Popular vote it has not always been so. I'm ...


4

Another reason that minor political parties receive so few votes in the United States is the strength of party identification. The reality is that most people take on the political party of their family, and once they are a "member" of a political party they are very unlikely to change that membership for a minor political party. The book Partisan Hearts ...


4

Your question seems focused on just federal elections, so that is where I will direct my attention. The reality is that the states, and the federal government, have always had an implicit power to dictate the terms of party elections, so the parties never really gave up this power. The mechanics of elections have always been out of the hands of the parties, ...


4

Reagan's weakness was that he was not a member of the "Eastern Establishment." Ford was, as well as the incumbent President. That fact led many "established" Republicans to support him "automatically. Reagan needed a "breakthrough." He came close in New Hampshire, with something like 49.5% of the two-candidate vote. Topping Ford there would have been huge. ...


4

Historical Circumstances for Violence in 2007: 1. Tribal Conflict: There are two main and conflicting tribes in Kenya, Kikuyu and Kalenjin, Kikuyu being the majority. But they constitute only 22 percent and 12 percent of the total population respectively. There are many other tribes too, but their population is less as compared to these two tribes. The ...


4

This question is difficult because it is not clear what monarchy is absolute and whether such elected office should be called monarchy rather than something else (i.e., dictatorship). One of the basic features of monarchy is inheritance of the office. As such, all elected monarchs are quite borderline cases. That said, I can name the following cases upon ...


4

. . . . The election of 1824 brought an end to both the Democratic-Republican-dominated “era of good feeling” and the use of a congressional caucus as a nominating device. Although the Democratic- Republican caucus nominated William Crawford of Georgia as its candidate, three other candidates (John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay, and Andrew Jackson) ...


4

Note that the first Congressional nominating caucus was in 1796, and was only to select a VP nominee. Thus the "King Caucus" system really only operated for POTUS candidates for 6 election cycles (1800-1820). In the USA, the presidential election is essentially a set of separate elections where every state simultaneously votes for its state's choice of ...


3

Presumably he is referring to the Burr conspiracy: The Burr conspiracy in the beginning of the 19th century was a suspected treasonous cabal of planters, politicians, and army officers allegedly led by former U.S. Vice President Aaron Burr. According to the accusations against him, Burr’s goal was to create an independent nation in the center of ...


3

The Campaign of 1800 is earlier, and nastier than 1824. From Wiki... The 1800 election was a re-match of the 1796 election. The campaign was bitter and characterized by slander and personal attacks on both sides. Federalists spread rumors that the Democratic-Republicans were radicals who would ruin the country (based on the Democratic-Republican ...


3

I believe that the first "smear campaign" in U.S. Presidential politics was against Andrew Jackson in 1824. http://www.omg-facts.com/History/The-reason-Democrats-are-associated-with/50955?id=50955&c_val=1 George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and James Monroe were all "Founding Fathers" of the United States. No one of any ...


3

In this context it almost certainly means "health nut." It also has connotations of offensive puritanism in terms of dictating diets to others. Orwell's Road to Wigan Pier on the dietary choices of the 1930s British working class should be illustrative here.


3

Regarding the delegates Since about 1980, all states use the "unit system." When a candidate wins a primary or caucus, they are not awarded all the delegates, but only the proportion of the delegates of their popular vote total, which is awarded at each precinct level. My personal experience is that small vote totals are not always reported to the mainstream ...


2

The Australian Settlement was cemented in early Federal parliaments (Stokes in AJPS; Wikipedia). These measures in the early parliament cemented a system of tarifs and wages that satisfied the central impulse behind the protectionist party. Correspondingly, the two anti-Labor parties reformed themselves around anti-labor politics, rather than differentials ...


2

It depends what you mean by serious. Has there been any attempt that actually had the slightest chance of succeeding? No. Yes, there have been attempts to force states to split their electoral votes, but the strategy has been to do it where it hurts the other party. Republicans have tried in the last eight years to get California to split their electors by ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible