Government in the United States, National, State and LocalGarner, James Wilford
History
Government in the United States, National, State and Local
Garner, James Wilford
United States -- Politics and government
[62] It sometimes happens that the electoral vote of a state is
divided, though the instances are rare. This may be due to the
personal unpopularity of one of the electoral candidates of the
majority party, or it may be due to the mistake of many voters in
casting their ballots for the candidate for elector at the head of
the ticket only, believing that they are thereby voting for the whole
ticket. As a result of the former cause, Harrison received one vote in
California in 1892, while Cleveland had the other eight. As a result
chiefly of the latter blunder, Taft received only two electoral votes
in Maryland in 1908, and Bryan received the other six. In 1916 the vote
of West Virginia was divided, Wilson receiving one vote and Hughes the
other seven.
Among the results of the rule which gives the entire electoral vote of
the state to one of the candidates, notwithstanding the size of the vote
polled by the other candidate, is that each party concentrates its
efforts in the large "pivotal" states whose votes are decisive, and
thereby bribery and fraud in such states are powerfully stimulated.
Candidates for the office of elector are nominated usually by the state
conventions of each party. No senator or representative or any person
holding an office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States is
eligible to the office of elector. Congress, under the Constitution, has
power to fix the day on which the electors shall be chosen, and it has
fixed the day as Tuesday after the first Monday in November.
_Electoral and Popular Vote._--Generally the candidate for President
whose electors receive the largest popular vote will also receive the
largest electoral vote; but this has not always happened, and usually
there is only a rough correspondence between the popular vote and the
electoral vote. Thus in 1860 Lincoln received only about forty per cent
of the popular vote, though he received a substantial majority (about
fifty-nine per cent) of the electoral vote. Again, in 1864 he received
only about fifty-five per cent of the popular vote, but ninety-one per
cent of the electoral vote. In 1912 Wilson received forty-two per cent
of the popular vote, and eighty-two per cent of the electoral vote. Such
discrepancies are due to the fact that the entire electoral vote of a
state is usually cast for the candidate who receives a plurality of the
popular vote of the state, however small it may be. A party, therefore,
may carry enough states by small margins to secure a majority of the
electors and yet be in a minority so far as the popular vote of the
entire country is concerned.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account