History of Third Party Candidates

 

History of Third Party Candidates                                                               

It was 1832, when for the first time in American history, a third party challenged the major two political parties.The Anti-Masonic Party carried 8% of the popular vote and one state. In 1848 former Democratic President Martin Van Buren was the presidential candidate of the anti-slavery Free-Soil Party. He wins 10% of the popular vote and is credited with taking enough votes away from the Democratic candidate to help Whig candidate Zachary Taylor win the election. And in 1856, another former president Milliard Fillmore runs as the presidential candidate of the Know-Nothings and Whig Party remnants (American Party) and wins 22% of the popular vote and 8 electoral votes.

In 1912, former Republican President Theodore Roosevelt formed the Progressive (or Bull-Moose) party. It was the first time in American history that a third-party candidate receives more votes (electoral and popular) than one of the major two parties when Roosevelt received 88 electoral votes and the incumbent Republican President William Taft received just 8 while the Democratic candidate Woodrow Wilson received 435 electoral votes.

In more modern times, three recent presidential elections were probably decided by third-party candidates. In 1968, Richard Nixon, a Republican, narrowly defeated Democrat Hubert Humphrey by less than 1% in the popular vote as many Southern Democrats supported Governor George Wallace of the American Independent Party who won 13+% of the popular vote and 46 electoral votes. In 1992, Democrat Bill Clinton won the presidential election with only 43% of the popular vote over the incumbent President George H.W. Bush because businessman Ross Perot of the Reform Party wins 19% of the popular vote and takes votes from President Bush.

And finally in 2000, George W. Bush, the Republican candidate won a disputed election over Democrat Al Gore who won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote by 4. Green Party candidate, Ralph Nader, took 2.74% of the popular vote that may otherwise have been cast for Gore.

See the next entry for the 2024 election third-party candidates.

Why the Founding Fathers Were Right About the Electoral College

Dec. 16, 1940: New York State electors, part of the Electoral College, cast votes at the state capital in Albany. "All are unidentified," according to The Associated Press.‎

On Tuesday, December 17, 2024, electors from each of the states will meet in their respective States to cast their votes for President and Vice President of the United States.

We can expect after the count of ballots this November that there will be repeated calls to abolish the Electoral College especially if one party wins the popular vote but loses the presidency.

Let's look back at the 2016 Presidential Election when these calls were the loudest.The  popular vote in the chart below shows Mrs. Clinton with a 2.8 million plus vote lead over President-elect Mr. Trump. Because of Mrs Clinton's dramatic popular vote lead, the mainstream media, Democrats, progressives and political pundits from academia were all calling for getting rid of the Electoral College. In their mind Mrs. Clinton's popular vote victory proves who the country and its citizens really selected to be President of these U.S. except for this antiquated Constitutional system we call the the Electoral College.

Presidential Candidate	Political Party	Popular Vote*		Electoral Vote
Donald J. Trump	Republican	62,913,088	46.1%	306	56.9%
Hillary Clinton	Democratic	65,756,948	48.2%	232	43.1%
Others	Others	7,731,591	5.7%	0	0.0%
Total                                          136,401,627				538

But before we get on a bandwagon to repeal or replace the Electoral College, let’s take a closer look at the 2016  presidential election results.

State	Clinton	Trump	Popular Vote Margin
U.S. Total	65,756,948 (48.2%)	62,913,088(46.1%)	Clinton  +2,843,860
California	8,719,198	4,463,932	Clinton  +4,255,266
New York	4,227,211	2,690,285	Clinton  +1,536,926
Illinois	3,090,729	2,146,015	Clinton  +   944,714
U.S. Totals minus California, New York  & Illinois	49,719, 810 (45.3%)	53,612,856 (49.0%)	Trump    +3,893,046

The three blue states in the chart above  gave Hillary Clinton her biggest margin in her popular vote victory: California with a popular vote margin of 4.255 million votes, New York with a margin of victory of 1.537 million votes and Illinois with a margin of victory of ~ 945,000 votes. Altogether, those three states provided Hillary Clinton with a margin of victory of 6.7 million votes. However, if we remove those three very populous states, the U.S. totals of the other 47 states and the District of Columbia give President-elect Trump, a margin of victory of 3.893 million votes.

Looking even closer below at the largest cities in those three states, Los Angeles County, Chicago Cook County and New York City, those cities together delivered a margin of victory for Mrs. Clinton of 3.871 million votes. And once again if we remove those three cities from the U.S. totals, President Trump wins the popular vote by 1.027 million votes.

City	Clinton	Trump	Popular Vote Margin
U.S. Total	65,756,948 (48.2%)	62,913,088(46.1%)	Clinton  +2,843,860
Los Angeles County	1,893,770	620,285	Clinton + 1,273,485
Chicago (Cook) County	1,528,582	440,213	Clinton + 1,088,369
New York City	1,969,920	461,174	Clinton + 1,508,746
City Total	5,392,272	1,521,672	Clinton  +3,870,600
U.S..Totals minus  Los Angeles, New York City & Chicago	60,364,676	61,391,416	Trump   + 1,026,740

Some may look at this and conclude that the strength of Mrs. Clinton and the Democratic party is in key states which have concentrated blocs of liberal and progressive voters in large cities which will always contribute significantly to the popular vote for a Democrat candidate. But as the Electoral College results show in this election, the votes from these three key states and cities should never override the wishes and votes from the other 47 individual states both large and small in our Union. Switching to the popular vote only in future Presidential elections  will guarantee that these three cities and states may most likely determine a long line of future liberal and progressive Presidents.What do you think? As for me and my house, long live our Electoral College.

RIGGED VOTES, ELECTIONS & OTHER MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES

American voters and news media like to believe that this 2024 election is far worse than other past elections with charges and counter-charges flying back and forth between both candidates. However, disputed Presidential elections go all the way back to the 1800 Presidential election which resulted in an Electoral College tie with one presidential candidate's supporters threatening armed rebellion.

    In preparation for next week's class on Election Day, November 5,in which we will study and examine the Electoral College system and break down the current election season and how the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives races are shaping up around the country, examine Ohio and West Virginia state, local elections and issues on the ballot and finally see what the pundits are predicting for the Presidential race and the those so-called important "battleground states".  Before we delve into that cauldron of emotions and opinions, students will be expected to read the article "Disputed Presidential Elections Are Nearly as Old as the U.S. Presidency" as part of their homework assignment. The article can be clicked on here.

    

2024 President: Consensus Electoral Map

As of October 26, 2024

This map tracks the consensus forecast for the 2024 presidential election. It is a composite of ratings by several forecasters. 

Only seats rated safe by a large majority of forecasters are shown in the darkest shade of red or blue. 

As a result of Census apportionment, some states have a different number of electoral votes in 2024. Use the buttons above the map to see what has changed.

The map is interactive; use it as a starting point to create and share your own 2024 presidential election forecast.

October 26: No changes

To compare this map to a map based just on polling, go here >

Source:  https://www.270towin.com/

Mr. Smith Goes To Washington-the Original Whistleblower?

 In week 6, we discussed in class, the role of the President and his interaction with Congress. We first examined the eleaborate system of "checks and balances" that the Founding Fathers used to divide the sources of political power into three separate and distinct branches of the government: Executive Branch, Legislative Branch and Judicial Branch. We also determined how that same system exists within the State and Local governments. Next we looked at Congress which is the legislative branch of our government and includes the House of Representatives and the Senate. We discovered how members are elected and identified the names and functions of the key officers of the House and Senate. A number of terms were explained such as caucus, the party whip, cloture, filibuster and other related terms. We studied the United States Legislative Process and how a bill becomes law. To illustrate this we viewed certain parts of the film "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington"  a 1939 film directed by Frank Capra whose Catholic faith was an integral part of his work. The movie starred Jimmy Stewart and Jean Arthur. The last section of the film often referred to as the Filibuster part was viewed during Class 7. This movie has been called "one of the quintessential whistleblower films in American history".                                                                     

However, due to problems with our computer, the evening class last week was unable to view the climax of the movie. Thus, you will find posted the  three part Filibuster ending of the movie. 

Part 1 can be found  at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nqr5umxoer4&ab_channel=MarkStrand. 

Part 2 can be found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUbqMDpZMZs&t=59s&ab_channel=MarkStrand and 

Part 3 can be found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9MOv0_TIrA&t=96s&ab_channel=MarkStrand.

A final note, this "Filibuster ending" has been largely edited and you may note that the  ongoing back stories during Senator Smith's filibuster have been cut due to time restraints. This is recommended as a good family movie with many themes reflecting the director's Catholic faith that parallel the ills in our society today, 85 years later. There is a color enhanced version available and the movie runs 2 hr 9 min long. Available on Amazon Prime and other venues.

Nativist Riots in Philadelphia

 

Nativist Riots in Philadelphia

                                            St. Augustine's Church on fire
The "know nothings" or the Know Nothing Party was a nativist American political movement from 1852-1860. It was a secret society whose members professed ignorance about it and whose aim was to keep control of the government in the hands of native citizens. The movement was empowered by popular fears that the country was being overwhelmed by Irish Catholic immigrants, who were often regarded as hostile to US values and controlled by the Pope in Rome. The largely middle-class and entirely Protestant membership fragmented over the issue of slavery. Most ended up joining the Republican Party by the time of the 1860 Presidential election. Originating in New York in 1843 as the American Republican Party, the movement spread to other states as the Native American Party and became a national party in 1845. In 1855 it renamed itself the American Party. The origin of the "Know Nothing" term was in the semi-secret organization of the party. When a member was asked about its activities, he was supposed to reply, "I know nothing." The party was very anti-immigrant and especially anti-Catholic which led to the violent Nativist Riots in New York, Philadelphia and other cities and states where there was a sizable Irish-Catholic presence. To read about the Nativist Riots in Philadelphia and to answer your homework questions, go to the "Philadelphia Nativist Riots" found under U.S. Presidents Useful Links.

WEEK 4: Alexander Hamilton's Defense of the Presidency in the Federalist Papers No. 69

Alexander Hamilton, Author of Federalist No. 69

In week 4 of classes, we studied the formal constitutional powers of the presidency found in Article II of our Constitution. We especially looked at how the concept of a president's ability to issue Executive orders has developed over time. We also considered in both Class 3  and Class 4 the debates and concerns our Founding Fathers had about potential Presidential powers  which are found in the Federalist Papers, a collection of 85 articles and essays written (under the pseudonym Publius), by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay promoting the ratification of the United States Constitution.

Alexander Hamilton traced the real character of the Executive power of the President as contrasted with the powers of the King of England in The Federalist No. 69 and summarized his thoughts in the final paragraphs below.

"Hence it appears that, except as to the concurrent authority of the President in the article of treaties, it would be difficult to determine whether that magistrate would, in the aggregate, possess more or less power than the Governor of New York. And it appears yet more unequivocally, that there is no pretense for the parallel which has been attempted between him and the king of Great Britain. But to render the contrast in this respect still more striking, it may be of use to throw the principal circumstances of dissimilitude into a closer group.

The President of the United States would be an officer elected by the people for FOUR years; the king of Great Britain is a perpetual and HEREDITARY prince. The one would be amenable to personal punishment and disgrace; the person of the other is sacred and inviolable. The one would have a QUALIFIED negative upon the acts of the legislative body; the other has an ABSOLUTE negative. The one would have a right to command the military and naval forces of the nation; the other, in addition to this right, possesses that of DECLARING war, and of RAISING and REGULATING fleets and armies by his own authority. The one would have a concurrent power with a branch of the legislature in the formation of treaties; the other is the SOLE POSSESSOR of the power of making treaties. The one would have a like concurrent authority in appointing to offices; the other is the sole author of all appointments. The one can confer no privileges whatever; the other can make denizens of aliens, noblemen of commoners; can erect corporations with all the rights incident to corporate bodies. The one can prescribe no rules concerning the commerce or currency of the nation; the other is in several respects the arbiter of commerce, and in this capacity can establish markets and fairs, can regulate weights and measures, can lay embargoes for a limited time, can coin money, can authorize or prohibit the circulation of foreign coin. The one has no particle of spiritual jurisdiction; the other is the supreme head and governor of the national church! What answer shall we give to those who would persuade us that things so unlike resemble each other? The same that ought to be given to those who tell us that a government, the whole power of which would be in the hands of the elective and periodical servants of the people, is an aristocracy, a monarchy, and a despotism."