|
CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS FOUNDATION
Bill of Right in Action Fall
1992 (8:4) The Electoral Process and Political Leadership This Bill of Rights in Action examines issues related to elections and political leadership. The first article looks at the election of 1824, which had no winner in the electoral college and had to be decided in the House of Representatives. The second article explores how the Roman Republic set up dictators from time to time to solve political problems. The third article examines why so many people don't vote in the United States. U.S. History: The Election of 1824-25: When the House Chose the President World History: Democracy and Dictatorship in Ancient Rome U.S. Government: Why Don't People Vote? The Election of 1824-25: When the House Chose the President Twice in American history, the presidential election resulted in a deadlock, and the House of Representatives has had to choose the president. The close presidential election of 2000 showed that it might happen again. In the 1800 election, Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr were Democratic-Republican candidates for president and vice president. In the electoral process at the time, the candidate with the most votes would become president and second place would become vice president. Unfortunately, they came out exactly tied. The race was thrown into the House, where it took 36 ballots for Jefferson to be chosen our third president. Many legislators deplored this confusion. So in 1804 the 12th Amendment was passed to require separate balloting for president and vice president. In spite of the 12th Amendment, deadlocks can occur. Such was the case in the election of 1824, and the House of Representatives once again was forced to choose. The Election of 1824 Without the 12th Amendment, the election of 1824 might have been a nightmare. There were so many candidates—10—that the election was certain to be deadlocked. And they all belonged to the same party, the Democratic-Republicans. In earlier elections, presidential candidates had been chosen by a small circle of insiders in Congress called a "King Caucus." In reaction to this, state party caucuses started making their own nominations. Many separate caucuses in state legislatures and at state party conventions selected presidential candidates. Only a few were serious contenders. The insiders in the King Caucus nominated Secretary of the Treasury William H. Crawford. He was a slaveholder from Georgia and was the favorite of President James Monroe. Crawford, however, had suffered a stroke. The North's candidate was Secretary of State John Quincy Adams from Massachusetts. The son of former President John Adams, he was strongly backed by commercial interests in New England. He played down his backers because much of the West and South resented New England. Henry Clay was from the West and supported Western needs like roads and canals. A Kentucky slaveholder, he was speaker of the House of Representatives. Clay saw that the election would likely go to the House, where as speaker he would have the inside track. The outsider among the top candidates was Andrew Jackson from Tennessee. He was famous as the general who had beaten the British at New Orleans in 1815. He was a senator from Tennessee, but his political views were largely unformed and unknown. The campaign quickly heated up, becoming America's first great mudslinging contest. Jackson was called a gambler, duelist, adulterer and military tyrant. Clay was called a drunkard and gambler. Adams was ridiculed for his slovenly dress. Crawford was attacked for dishonesty and mismanaging the budget. When the votes of the 24 states were finally tallied, to no one's surprise, there was no majority winner. In popular vote, Jackson came in first with 42 percent, Adams took 32 percent, and Clay and Crawford had 13 percent each. In the crucial electoral vote, Jackson led with 99 electors from 11 states, 32 votes short of a needed majority. Adams had 84 electors from seven states. Crawford had 41, and Clay was last with 37. Following the procedures of the 12th Amendment, the House of Representatives now had to choose the president from the top three: Jackson, Adams, and Crawford. At the time, Inauguration Day was in March, and the first months of 1825 became a frenzy of lobbying and back-room bargaining. Rumors spread that representatives were trading their votes for ambassador posts and cabinet jobs. Henry Clay's fourth place finish shut him out of the presidency. He tried to use his post as speaker of the House to play kingmaker. He called in favors and worked behind the scenes to influence the vote. Jackson was a fellow Westerner, but Clay suspected that he would be a rival in future presidential races. Clay disliked Adams, but the two met privately a month before the House election. Both men denied making any bargains. But rumors said that Adams had promised to make Clay secretary of state. As the vote neared, Clay worked hard for Adams. He won over some Western representatives whose states had voted solidly for Jackson. He even promised the votes of his own Kentucky, which had not cast a single popular vote for the Yankee Adams. The House met to vote on February 9, 1825. After more than a month of arm twisting and bargaining, John Quincy Adams took exactly the 13 states he needed to win, Jackson won seven, and Crawford four. The public galleries in the house broke into such an uproar of booing and hissing that Speaker Clay ordered them cleared. Three days later, the new president nominated Henry Clay as his secretary of state. Charges of making a "corrupt bargain" would dog Henry Clay for the rest of his life. The Jackson supporters were furious. After all, he had won by far the largest share of popular votes with 42 percent. Jackson immediately declared that he would run in 1828. And he became the first major American politician to call for eliminating the Electoral College and electing the president directly by popular vote. For Discussion and Writing
For Further Information Grolier Online: The American Presidency, Presidential Elections This in-depth description of American presidential elections discusses and places in historical context the issues of the qualifications for candidacy, the development of presidential campaigning, past election outcomes, debates, campaign financing, and presidential succession. Election of 1800 Great collection of links on this election. Election of 1824 Summary of the election. From U-S-History.com. Election of 1824 By Brian Whitmer. Elections Affected by the Electoral College Summaries of the elections of 1800, 1824, 1876, and1888. 1824: Jackson Invents the Popular Will A defense of the electoral college and its role in the 1824 election. From the U.S. Electoral College Web Zine. Prospects for the Electoral College After Election 2000 Overview of the electoral-college debate and disputed elections in U.S. history with links to sites on the electoral collection. From Social Education. Map of the Presidential Election of 1824 The Congressional Caucus System and the Election of 1824 A senior paper at Yale. John Quincy Adams A biography from the Internet Public Library. Andrew Jackson: Campaigns and Elections From the American President. Andrew Jackson Biography including the story of the 1824 election. From the State Library of North Carolina. Andrew Jackson Slide presentation. By Mr. Willett. Jacksonian Democracy Another slide show. Election of 1824: Electoral College Details Information on each candidate and state in the electoral college. From the Political Graveyard. Election of John Quincy Adams Photos and captions of a political cartoon and the Electoral College Tally Sheet. From the House of Representatives. Tally of the Electoral Votes Photo of the tally sheet from the Electoral College of 1824. From the National Archives. Major Election Laws The laws that covered the 1824 election. A C T I V I T Y Choosing a President in the House This simulation is based on a hypothetical presidential election in which none of three candidates wins a majority of electoral votes. The U.S. House of Representatives would choose the president. National Election Results
Simulation Instructions 1. When the House chooses a president, each state has only one vote. (Amazingly enough, California, with 11 percent of the U.S. population, would have one vote, and Wyoming with 2/10 of one percent would also have one vote.) The House would cast a total of 50 votes for president. For the purposes of this simulation, three states will cast the deciding votes in the House election.
2. Form three groups to make up the three state delegations shown above. These groups do not necessarily have to be equal in number. 3. Form three additional groups of 2-3 students each who will play the role of partisan House members arguing for the election of X, Y, or Z. 4. One student should be selected to play the role of the speaker of the House. He or she is a Democrat from State A and should participate in all that state's deliberations. 5. All participants should read the 12th Amendment to understand when and how the House elects the president. 6. The partisans for each candidate should prepare oral arguments explaining why the House should elect their candidate. 7. Members of the three state delegations should discuss the significance of the national election results and also the results in their particular states. However, members should keep in mind that, according to the Constitution, each state may cast its vote for any one of the three candidates, without regard to the election results, party loyalty, or partisan arguments. 8. The speaker will call the House to order and allot the partisans of X, Y, and Z up to five minutes each to make their arguments. After each group of partisans has finished, members of the state delegations may be recognized by the speaker to ask questions or make statements. 9. The three state delegations should then meet separately to discuss how to cast their state vote. This should be decided by a majority of the members in each state delegation. 10. Two states must vote for one of the candidates to elect a president. Deliberations should continue until this has been achieved. Democracy and Dictatorship in Ancient Rome
In 509 B.C., the Romans threw out their king. At the time, Rome already had a citizen assembly. To replace the king, the assembly elected two men called consuls who would govern together for one year. Both consuls had to cooperate in order for the government to act. It was mainly the patricians, the wealthy landowning nobles, who got to vote. As a result, the consuls in the early years of the Republic were always patricians. Later, however, at least one consul had to come from the plebeian class, the commoners. Before the Republic, the king had been advised by a Senate. Once the monarchy was gone, the Senate took on more power and ruled Rome alongside the two consuls. On the surface, the consuls seemed to hold more power than senators, but they held office for only a year while the senators served for life. Dictatorship The founders of the Roman Republic, like the American founding fathers, placed checks and balances on the power of their leaders. The Romans, however, came up with a way to sidestep these checks and balances when strong leadership was needed, such as a time of crisis. The Senate could vote to grant absolute power to one man, called a dictator, for a temporary period. During the first 300 years of the Republic, dictators were often called on when Rome faced an invasion or some internal danger. Unlike the dictators of the 20th century—such as Adolf Hitler in Germany or Augusto Pinochet in Chile—the dictatorship was limited to six months or even less if the crisis passed. If a dictator refused to step down, he could be forcibly removed. The Roman dictator's power was absolute. He could rule by decree. He could even order executions without a trial. For centuries, Roman dictators served when duty called and gave up power when their terms ended. But in 82 B.C., a general named Cornelius Sulla seized control of Rome. Sulla's dictatorship was not like those of the past. He bypassed the Senate, which was filled with his enemies, and convinced the citizens' assembly to make him a permanent dictator. Sulla then banished or killed hundreds of his opponents. Sulla became what the ancient Greeks called a tyrant, a man who seizes personal control with military power. When he traveled in public, Sulla was always preceded by 24 guards. Each guard carried an ax bound by a bundle of rods called fasces. This is the origin of the word fascism—the word the Italian dictator Benito Mussolini used to describe his political movement in the early 20th century. After more than three years of tyranny, Sulla suddenly resigned. For the next 30 years, the Roman Republic stumbled along, sometimes in near anarchy. Spartacus led a massive slave revolt that almost brought down the Republic. During all this turmoil, new feuds and factions emerged. This would be the last generation of the Roman Republic. The Dictatorship of Julius Caesar By 53 B.C., factions in the Senate had paralyzed the Roman government. The annual consul election degenerated into a contest of who could bribe the most voters. Street riots erupted. In a desperate move to restore order, the assembly elected General Gnaeus Pompey to serve as sole consul for a year. Informally, Pompey shared power with two other powerful generals—Julius Caesar and Marcus Crassus. Crassus was the general who had defeated Spartacus. And Caesar was the governor and military conqueror of Gaul. This military committee became known as the First Triumvirate. Caesar used his money and influence to put supporters like Mark Antony into key positions. Caesar's many enemies in Rome spread rumors that he planned to take power. In 49 B.C.E., Caesar did mass his legions at the border between Gaul and Italy. Foes of Caesar spread the word that Caesar was about to invade Italy with his army. The consul Marcellus declared Pompey the defender of the city. The Senate demanded that Caesar give up his provincial command. Caesar answered by leading his army across the Rubicon River into Italy. This "crossing of the Rubicon" was an act of war, since a Roman general was forbidden to lead an army outside the province he governed. Pompey and most of the senators fled the country. Unlike Sulla, Caesar did not butcher his opponents. He attempted to form alliances with them, and he had himself elected consul. Caesar then took his army in pursuit of Pompey and defeated him in Africa. After staying for some time with Cleopatra in Egypt, Caesar returned to Rome. By 45 B.C., Caesar had defeated all the troops loyal to Pompey. The Senate acclaimed him "Liberator" and made him dictator for 10 years. Caesar distributed bonuses to his troops, gave money to every citizen, and pardoned his enemies. During the five years of his rule, Caesar decreed many reforms such as a new calendar and relief for debtors. In return, the Roman people heaped honors on him. One of the Roman months was renamed Julius, our July. Statues of Caesar were raised in different parts of the city. His image appeared on coins. Then, in February 44 B.C., Caesar was made dictator for life. According to tradition, Mark Antony publicly offered a king's crown to Caesar, who refused it three times. As king, Caesar would no longer need the Senate or even the Roman citizens to stay in power. It is difficult to know if his refusal was sincere because he was assassinated only a few days later. Caesar's death plunged Rome into 17 years of civil war. The warfare finally ended when Octavian, Caesar's adopted son, became the sole ruler of the Roman Empire. Although the forms of the Republic such as the Senate and the election of the consuls continued, the emperor held all power. Democracy in Rome was dead and dictatorship had won. For Discussion and Writing
For Further Information Rome Project Huge collection of links. Excellent site. From the Dalton School. Frank E. Smitha's The Ancient World An online book.
Internet Ancient History Sourcebook: Rome Huge collection of primary source material. Maps of the Roman Republic and Empire The Roman Republic From 509 B.C. to the Elevation of Augustus The Roman Republic Lecture notes. Notes on Roman Politics By Barbara McManus, College of New Rochelle. The Roman Republic Constitution An explanation of the government of the Republic. A Roman History Timeline Timelines of the major periods in Roman history. Julius Caesar: The Last Dictator A biography of Caesar and Rome. By Suzanne Cross. Rome History, culture, philosophy, and resources. By Richard Hooker. Illustrated History of the Roman Empire Extensive information. The Romans The history of Rome. By the BBC. Rome: Republic to Empire Web page originally developed for a course titled "Ancient Rome in Film, Fiction, and Fact. Roma: Political System Briefly reviews three eras: Kings, Republic, and Empire. Ordinary Consuls of the Roman Republic and Empire, 300 B.C.-68 A.D A list of the consuls. The Roman Empire in the First Century From PBS. The Roman Empire A history of Rome. Forum Romanum A helpful starting point for anyone interested in the civilization of ancient Rome. By David Camden. Resources for Augustan Studies Links to sites on Octavian. From Octavian to Augustus: Timeline and Images When Roman Law Ruled the Western World Reading and lesson from Constitutional Rights Foundation, which includes extensive links on Roman law. A C T I V I T Y Should We Do As the Romans Did? In this activity, students discuss the merits of a constitutional amendment that applies the Roman concept of the short-term problem-solving dictator to contemporary America. Background: America today faces many serious problems. We have been attacked on our soil and are engaged in a war on terrorism. The times are difficult and the problem of terrorism seems intractable. No one has proposed a solution as extreme as the following, but similar things have happened in other countries. Imagine that a group of senators has offered a constitutional amendment to give the president total power for a period of one year. He can rule by decree and do whatever he or she thinks necessary to solve our problems. This is the wording of the crucial part of the amendment: Upon the consent of no less than three-fourths of each branch of Congress, the President shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States or any of its citizens when it becomes necessary to counteract the repercussions of unresolved national crises. Such Powers shall be operative for no more than 12 months from the date that the exercise of such power is decreed.
Suggested Debriefing Questions If you approved the amendment:
If you disapproved:
In Russia, people have fought and died in recent years to vote in multiparty elections. In many South American countries, people have thrown out military dictators so they could vote for the first time in decades. Yet in the United States, almost half those eligible don't bother to vote. American women have been able to vote for 80 years. African-Americans have had the constitutional right to vote for 130 years. Eighteen-year-olds were granted the right to vote more than three decades ago. Today, almost every American 18 and older is eligible to vote. But many Americans don't seem to want to take the trouble. Who Votes? Who Doesn't? Some groups of Americans are more likely to vote than others. The most likely of all are those over 45 with a college education who earn at least $25,000 a year. The poor are less likely to vote, as are non-union blue collar workers and ethnic minorities. Women are slightly more likely to vote in federal elections than men. In the 1996 presidential election, only 28 percent of eligible Hispanics voted, compared to 52 percent of blacks and 59 percent of non-Hispanic whites. Some of the least likely voters are the young. In the 1996 presidential election, less than 35 percent of the 18- to 24-year-olds went to the polls. In 1999, the Project Vote Smart General Population and Youth Survey on Civic Engagement reported that only 45 percent of 18- to 25-year-olds in contrast to 64 percent of older respondents indicated that they "definitely" would vote in the 2000 elections. This decline has disturbed and puzzled many political scientists. Throughout the 1800s, about 80 percent of those qualified actually voted. Toward the end of the century, many states set up obstacles to voting such as poll taxes, literacy tests, residency requirements, and annual registration. These obstacles were often directed against Southern blacks, but they also discouraged many Northern white workers who were recent immigrants and spoke little English. Voting levels went down from 79 percent in 1896 to 49 percent in 1920. This decline was understandable, but later changes in voting patterns have been more puzzling. Voting has gone up and down by small amounts in different eras. It has sunk to 49 percent in the 1996 presidential election and rose slightly to 51 percent in 2000. There are two competing theories for this behavior—one that looks for the causes in the voters themselves and another that looks to the political institutions. Looking at the Voters Some political scientists have noted that people who are most likely to vote tend to be rooted in their communities. They feel they can influence the government and they find out about the candidates and issues. Sociologist Ruy Teixeira, the author of Why Americans Don't Vote, has identified a number of possible reasons for the voting decline. The baby boom generation and the 26th Amendment, which lowered the voting age to 18, have greatly increased the pool of young voters. The young are less rooted in a community and less likely to vote. Teixeira has also argued that people no longer identify themselves strongly with political parties. A full third of registered voters are now independents. And Americans seem less interested in political affairs, as shown by a big drop in newspaper reading. Looking at the Institutions A competing view is offered by sociologists Frances Piven and Richard Cloward, who have written another book with the same title, Why Americans Don't Vote. They link the causes of the decline directly to the bureaucratic obstacles to voting. When Americans are registered to vote, they usually do vote 80 percent of the time. But cumbersome registration requirements stand in the way. Piven and Cloward argue that once the poor and minorities were discouraged from voting, politicians no longer had to address their concerns. It became a vicious circle—once politicians wouldn't speak to their needs, these groups became even less interested in politics. Other industrial democracies, such as Sweden or France, have much higher registration rates and higher voting rates. Piven and Cloward point out that in those countries the government and political parties actively seek out people to register. Is Easier Registration the Answer? In 1989, the House of Representatives began to consider some measures to make voter registration easier. The result was the National Voter Registration Act (H. R. 2190). This law would require all the states—except North Dakota, which does not require any voter registration—to:
Supporters of H.R. 2190, mostly Democrats, argued that the measure would help register 90 percent of all eligible Americans. This could produce up to 70 million new voters. Opponents of the bill, mostly Republicans, objected on the grounds that it would dictate to the states how they must register their citizens. Some predicted that multiple registrations would contribute to fraud, but the bill's sponsors argued that states that have easy registration now have shown no increase in fraud. In February 1990, the National Voter Registration Act passed the House, but was killed in the Senate by a Republican filibuster. The bill was reintroduced in 1991. This time it passed both houses of Congress but was vetoed by President George H.W. Bush on July 2, 1992. Bush criticized the bill as a costly and constitutionally questionable federal regulation that would increase the risk of election fraud. The 103rd Congress, however, passed the national Voter Registration Act of 1993. President Bill Clinton signed the act into law on May 20, 1993. The law, which applies to all federal elections, took effect on January 1, 1995. Although it is impossible to tell whether easier registration will encourage more voting in the future, statistics reveal that only 63 percent of eligible Americans registered to vote in 1996, down from 78 percent in 1992. For Discussion and Writing
For Further Information Voter Turnout Statistics on recent U.S. elections and links to other sites. Voter Turnout Charts of voter turnout for all U.S. presidential elections from 1946 to present. Voter Turnout by Race/Ethnicity The statistics for voter registration and turnout by race/ethnicity for all federal elections from 1972 to 1996. Voter Turnout by Age The statistics for voter registration and turnout by age for all federal elections from 1972 to 1996. Voter Turnout by Gender The statistics for voter registration and turnout by gender for all federal elections from 1972 to 1996. Voting and Registration in the Election of November 2000 A report from the Census Bureau. PDF file. A C T I V I T Y Getting Out the Vote A. The following methods of registering to vote have all been proposed to increase the turnout in American elections. Meet in small groups and rank these methods from 1 to 4 with 1 being most desirable and 4 being least desirable. ___require no registration of voters (now only in North Dakota) ___ same-day registration at the polls on election day (currently in Maine, Minnesota, and Wisconsin) ___the federal government issuing a national voter registration card to every eligible person and keeping track of residency through post office change-of-address forms (similar to the method used in most other democratic nations; some countries even fine citizens for not voting) ___federal grants to the states which would then determine how best to increase voter registration B. Each group should prepare to explain its number 1 and number 4 ranking. Officers: Alan Friedman, President; Harry Usher, Immediate Past President; Publications Committee: Jerome C. Byrne, Chairperson; Peggy Saferstein, Marvin Sears, Eugene Shutler, Lloyd M. Smith, Marjorie Steinberg, Susan Troy, Daniel H Willick; Staff: Todd Clark, Executive Director; Marshall L. Croddy, Director of Program and Materials Development; Lisa Friedman, Program Manager; Carlton Martz, Writer; John Shannon, Editor; Bill Hayes, Cristy Lytal, Web Editors; Andrew Costly, Production Manager; Jerome C. Byrne, CRF Board Reviewer. © 1992, Constitutional Rights Foundation, 601 South Kingsley Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90005, (213) 487-5590 |