The Presidential Center of Gravity
September 25, 2008
Zach Sheinberg
Senator John McCain (R-Az.), the 2008 Republican nominee for President, cannot win the White House.
Now some of you are thinking, of course John McCain cannot win the election after eight years of Republican rule under President George W. Bush. America will never elect him President. And the rest of you are thinking, of course he can (and will) win the Presidency. He was right on the troop surge in Iraq, he will defend America’s borders and he will cut our taxes. America understands what it needs over the next four years and John McCain is the man who will deliver it.
Well, as much as I would like to debate the differences in policy and leadership styles of John McCain and Barack Obama, my opening statement is not premised upon the will of the electorate. My argument that John McCain cannot with the Presidency is based upon history.
The Theory
I developed my own theory on Presidential Elections called “The Presidential Center of Gravity Theory.” My theory is this. Whichever Presidential ticket has the lower geographical center of gravity wins the election. To be more precise, whichever Presidential ticket has, between the home states of the Presidential nominee and Vice Presidential nominee, the lower average latitude, wins the White House.
This sounds crazy. But not since 1928 has a ticket with a higher center of gravity occupied the Oval Office. I am including the evidence at the end of the article for your reference. Feel free to check yourself.
Some Qualifications
My theory is not based on precise science. I did not map out all the arcs on a globe and incorporate GPS to find the exact midpoint. There is room for error. Although in most of the Elections since 1932, the midpoints between the two Presidential tickets have not been that close. One can also choose to measure from different points within each state (eg. I chose to measure from Southern California, as that was where each of Earl Warren, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan were from), which may also vary the results.
But what struck me was the idea that tickets with a Southern weight seem to have an advantage in Presidential Elections.
Analysis
If this theory holds any weight, then some connection must exist between the lower center of gravity and the way the electorate votes. There are several possible explanations.
The South Votes for the South
First, southern states vote for southern candidates. The evidence does link the center of gravity with historical southern voting patterns, but this connection is likely coincidental and not causal. Especially in light of the fact that Vice Presidential nominees rarely affect electoral outcomes (or so conventional wisdom holds).
Here is the evidence. Since 1932, only one Presidential candidate has won the White House without winning at least 4 of the 8 southern border states (from east to west, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California). That lone victor was Bill Clinton in 1992. He won 3 (Louisiana, New Mexico and California). However, in 1992, remember the Perot factor. Ross Perot is one of only four non-major party candidates to break 10% in the popular vote since Reconstruction. He won almost 19% of the popular vote in 1992. The others were former President, and Bull Moose Party Nominee, Theodore Roosevelt in 1912 (27.4%), Progressive Party Nominee Robert LaFollette in 1924 (16.6%) and American Independent Party Nominee George Wallace in 1968 (13.5%).
Another piece of evidence is that since 1932, no candidate has won the White House without carrying the electoral votes of less than five of the thirteen states of the Old South (Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma and Texas). And all winners won at least half except for Dwight Eisenhower in 1952 and Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996. They won 5.
The evidence makes clear that electoral votes in the South are pivotal. But it does not make clear whether the relationship between the center of gravity and southern voting patters are causal or merely casual.
Personality of the Presidential Candidate
A second explanation is that the center of gravity reflects the personality and values of the Presidential candidate. For a lower center of gravity, the Presidential candidate is either already geographically southern or selects a running mate who makes his ticket more geographically southern. And not just in the Southern sense of southern. Just southern in geographical sense (as Arizona has just as much claim on “southern” as Mississippi).
Maybe voters are reacting to these non-Northern values in voting for a Presidential ticket. One primary reason that Senator John Kennedy selected Senator Lyndon Johnson (D-Tx.) to be his running mate in 1960 was precisely because the New England Catholic Kennedy needed help appealing to voters in the South.
Since Franklin Roosevelt won his fourth term in 1944, no President except Kennedy has come from a state that sits north of the latitude that runs through the middle of the United States. Maybe there exists a Presidential bias against the North.
And if one does exist, the Republicans have taken advantage of it. Since the time of Roosevelt, the GOP has only nominated one Presidential candidate from above the middle latitude. Gerald Ford, the incumbent President, in 1976. And he lost.
This is clear evidence that electoral votes in the South are important, but does one ticket beat another in the South because its center of gravity is closer to the South? Especially in light of the fact that generally, Vice Presidential candidates do not affect election outcomes?
Just a Coincidence
A third, and the most likely explanation, is that the theory is simply a coincidence. The geographic midpoint does not matter. It is just an interesting tidbit that I discovered because I have too much free time on my hands.
Maybe geography is just one, or none, of a host of determinative factors.
In 1932, America found itself in economic dire straits and decided to switch parties to Franklin Roosevelt. Then America decided to stick with Roosevelt and Truman through the end of World War II. And who could vote against a war hero in Dwight Eisenhower? He was the Supreme Allied Commander. Try coming up with a more intimidating title than Supreme Allied Commander. But then the country just did not trust the shifty Richard Nixon and elected a young, idealist in John Kennedy in 1960. And then Barry Goldwater scared America with his belligerent rhetoric and by implying that he might saw off the eastern seaboard, so we stayed with the incumbent Johnson. And then the country was sick of Vietnam and decided to change parties by electing Richard Nixon to bring the troops home. And then we wanted change again after Watergate and picked Jimmy Carter over the guy who pardoned Nixon. But Carter depressed rather than inspired us and proved ineffective at protecting us, so America voted for the upbeat actor strong on defense. And how could America vote for a clown riding around in a tank who released murderers and rapists from prison and could not clean up his hometown harbor? So we picked George H. W. Bush. But we thought he ruined the economy, so we went with the other guy in 1992 and stayed with him amidst a sex scandal in 1996 because the other guy was just too old and out of touch. In 2000, well, I cannot explain that one. And then 2004. If the guy could not defend himself and his own record, how could he defend his country?
Certainly, each election is not so simple. Each election is a race unto itself, which is determined by literally myriad factors that can truly only be understood by those who experienced the election up close and in person.
Election of 2008
According to “The Presidential Center of Gravity Theory,” Senator John McCain could have selected almost anyone and kept the lower center of gravity. But he chose the most northern running mate he could find in Alaska Governor Sarah Palin (R-Ak.). Where is the center of gravity? Not in the United States.
Therefore, according to my theory, John McCain cannot with the White House. Senator Barack Obama will be the next President of the United States.
Who Wins and Who Loses?
As I alluded to last week in the article, “And the Winner Is…” analyzing any Presidential Election cannot be done correctly on a macro, nationwide level. Because one candidate does not win every vote. And most elections are close.
Only three times in the history of U. S. Presidential Elections has one candidate broken 60% of the popular vote. Lyndon Johnson in 1964 (61.05%), Franklin Roosevelt in 1936 (60.8%), Richard Nixon in 1972 (60.67%) and Warren Harding in 1920 (60.32%). Only Roosevelt’s career did not end in some crushing defeat during the ensuing 4 years.
In 1976, sure, plenty of Americans were frustrated that President Ford pardoned Richard Nixon and punished Ford for doing so at the polls. So pundits then and historians now charge the pardon, at least in part, with the Ford loss. But if Ford won 12,000 more votes in Ohio (about 0.3%) and 15,000 more votes in Mississippi (about 1.9%), Jimmy Carter would have remained Governor of Georgia and would have never occupied the White House. And if Ford did win reelection 1976, the debate about the wisdom of his pardon would have been put to rest.
Presidential Elections are close. Voters are the margins decide the outcome. And what drives them to vote for one candidate or another, only they truly know. So the talking heads can talk and the typing hands can type, but our theories and analyses are mere speculation. Sure, we can cite overwhelming evidence to back up our statements (and some people do not even bother to do that), but in the end, we are simply reading the same polls, the same news and the same data as everyone else. The only thing we really know is that we do not know why one candidate won and the other lost. Even if we think we do.
Did Gore lose because he did not use Clinton enough? Did Kerry lose because Americans did not trust him to defend the United States? Will John McCain lose because people do not want a third Bush term? Or will Barack Obama lose because he is too out of touch with American values?
Only that middle voter knows the answer. That one voter that takes the candidate from 50% of the popular vote in a state to 50.00000000001%. Find that voter and you’ll find the answer. Well, at least that one answer.
The Evidence
ELECTION OF 1932
Republican Presidential Candidate: Herbert Hoover (Iowa)
Republican Vice Presidential Candidate: Charles Curtis (Kansas)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere on the northern border of Kansas
Democratic Presidential Candidate: Franklin Roosevelt (New York)
Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate: John Garner (Texas)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in western Tennessee
Winner: Roosevelt-Garner
ELECTION OF 1936
Republican Presidential Candidate: Alf Landon (Kansas)
Republican Vice Presidential Candidate: Frank Knox (Illinois)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in northeastern Kansas
Democratic Presidential Candidate: Franklin Roosevelt (New York)
Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate: John Garner (Texas)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in western Tennessee
Winner: Roosevelt-Garner
ELECTION OF 1940
Republican Presidential Candidate: Wendell Willkie (New York)
Republican Vice Presidential Candidate: Charles McNary (Oregon)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in southern South Dakota
Democratic Presidential Candidate: Franklin Roosevelt (New York)
Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate: Henry Wallace (Iowa)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in northern Indiana/Ohio
Winner: Roosevelt-Wallace
ELECTION OF 1944
Republican Presidential Candidate: Thomas Dewey (New York)
Republican Vice Presidential Candidate: John Bricker (Ohio)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in southwestern Pennsylvania
Democratic Presidential Candidate: Franklin Roosevelt (New York)
Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate: Harry Truman (Missouri)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in northern Kentucky
Winner: Roosevelt-Truman
ELECTION OF 1948
Republican Presidential Candidate: Thomas Dewey (New York)
Republican Vice Presidential Candidate: Earl Warren (California)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in northeastern Kansas
Democratic Presidential Candidate: Harry Truman (Missouri)
Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate: Alben Barkley (Kentucky)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in southern Illinois/western Kentucky
Winner: Truman-Barkley
ELECTION OF 1952
Republican Presidential Candidate: Dwight Eisenhower (Kansas)
Republican Vice Presidential Candidate: Richard Nixon (California)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in northern New Mexico
Democratic Presidential Candidate: Adlai Stevenson (Illinois)
Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate: John Sparkman (Alabama)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in western Kentucky
Winner: Eisenhower-Nixon
ELECTION OF 1956
Republican Presidential Candidate: Dwight Eisenhower (Kansas)
Republican Vice Presidential Candidate: Richard Nixon (California)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in northern New Mexico
Democratic Presidential Candidate: Adlai Stevenson (Illinois)
Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate: Estes Kefauver (Tennessee)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in western Indiana
Winner: Eisenhower-Nixon
ELECTION OF 1960
Republican Presidential Candidate: Richard Nixon (California)
Republican Vice Presidential Candidate: Henry Cabot-Lodge (Massachusetts)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in northeastern Kansas
Democratic Presidential Candidate: John Kennedy (Massachusetts)
Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate: Lyndon Johnson (Texas)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in northern Tennessee
Winner: Kennedy-Johnson
ELECTION OF 1964
Republican Presidential Candidate: Barry Goldwater (Arizona)
Republican Vice Presidential Candidate: William Miller (New York)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in eastern Kansas
Democratic Presidential Candidate: Lyndon Johnson (Texas)
Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate: Hubert Humphrey (Minnesota)
Center of Gravity: A little farther south in eastern Kansas
Winner: Johnson-Humphrey
ELECTION OF 1968
Republican Presidential Candidate: Richard Nixon (California)
Republican Vice Presidential Candidate: Spiro Agnew (Maryland)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in southern Kansas
Democratic Presidential Candidate: Hubert Humphrey (Minnesota)
Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate: Ed Muskie (Maine)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in Canada
Winner: Nixon-Agnew
ELECTION OF 1972
Republican Presidential Candidate: Richard Nixon (California)
Republican Vice Presidential Candidate: Spiro Agnew (Maryland)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in southern Kansas
Democratic Presidential Candidate: George McGovern (South Dakota)
Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate: Sargent Shriver (Maryland)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in southern Wisconsin
Winner: Nixon-Agnew
ELECTION OF 1976
Republican Presidential Candidate: Gerald Ford (Michigan)
Republican Vice Presidential Candidate: Bob Dole (Kansas)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in northern Missouri/southern Iowa
Democratic Presidential Candidate: Jimmy Carter (Georgia)
Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate: Ernest Mondale (Minnesota)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in central Illinois (just south of the GOP ticket)
Winner: Carter-Mondale
ELECTION OF 1980
Republican Presidential Candidate: Ronald Reagan (California)
Republican Vice Presidential Candidate: George H. W. Bush (Texas)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in western Texas
Democratic Presidential Candidate: Jimmy Carter (Georgia)
Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate: Ernest Mondale (Minnesota)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in central Illinois
Winner: Reagan-Bush
ELECTION OF 1984
Republican Presidential Candidate: Ronald Reagan (California)
Republican Vice Presidential Candidate: George H. W. Bush (Texas)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in western Texas
Democratic Presidential Candidate: Ernest Mondale (Minnesota)
Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate: Geraldine Ferraro (New York)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in Lake Michigan
Winner: Reagan-Bush
ELECTION OF 1988
Republican Presidential Candidate: George H. W. Bush (Texas)
Republican Vice Presidential Candidate: Dan Quayle (Indiana)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in central Arkansas
Democratic Presidential Candidate: Michael Dukakis (Massachusetts)
Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate: Lloyd Bentsen (Texas)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in western Tennessee
Winner: Bush-Quayle
ELECTION OF 1988
Republican Presidential Candidate: George H. W. Bush (Texas)
Republican Vice Presidential Candidate: Dan Quayle (Indiana)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in central Arkansas
Democratic Presidential Candidate: Bill Clinton (Arkansas)
Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate: Al Gore (Tennessee)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in southern Tennessee (just south of the GOP ticket)
Winner: Clinton-Gore
ELECTION OF 1996
Republican Presidential Candidate: Bob Dole (Kansas)
Republican Vice Presidential Candidate: Jack Kemp (New York)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in eastern Illinois
Democratic Presidential Candidate: Bill Clinton (Arkansas)
Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate: Al Gore (Tennessee)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in southern Tennessee (just south of the GOP ticket)
Winner: Clinton-Gore
ELECTION OF 2000
Republican Presidential Candidate: George W. Bush (Texas)
Republican Vice Presidential Candidate: Richard Cheney (Wyoming)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in on the New Mexico/Oklahoma/Texas border
Democratic Presidential Candidate: Al Gore (Tennessee)
Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate: Joseph Lieberman (Connecticut)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in West Virginia
Winner: Bush-Cheney
ELECTION OF 2004
Republican Presidential Candidate: George W. Bush (Texas)
Republican Vice Presidential Candidate: Richard Cheney (Wyoming)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in on the New Mexico/Oklahoma/Texas border
Democratic Presidential Candidate: John Kerry (Massachusetts)
Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate: John Edwards (North Carolina)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in northern Virginia
Winner: Bush-Cheney
ELECTION OF 2008
Republican Presidential Candidate: John McCain (Arizona)
Republican Vice Presidential Candidate: Sarah Palin (Alaska)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere not in the continental United States
Democratic Presidential Candidate: Barack Obama (Illinois)
Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate: Joseph Biden (Delaware)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in the continental United States
Winner: ?
-------------------------
Sources
Wikipedia: www.wikipedia.com
Dave Leip’s Atlas of U. S. Presidential Elections: www.uselectionatlas.org
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Thursday, September 18, 2008
And the Winner Is...
And the Winner Is…
September 18, 2008
Zach Sheinberg
To win the American Presidency, a candidate must win 270 electoral votes, just over half of the total number of 538 electoral votes in the Electoral College. Electoral votes are allocated to each state based on a simple formula. Number of United States Senators plus the number of Members of the House of Representatives in that state. Each state has 2 United States Senators. Each state has a specific number of Representatives based on population, which the decennial census determines.
For example, the State of New Jersey has 13 seats in Congress. Adding its 2 United States Senate seats gives New Jersey 15 electoral votes. The Senate has a total of 100 Senators, the House a total of 435 voting Representatives (see Note 1 below). Adding the 3 electoral votes allocated to the District of Columbia (which has zero voting members in Congress) produces a total of 538 electoral votes. A majority is 270.
Constitutional Underpinnings
The Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution (ratified on June 15, 1804) amended Article II, Section 1, in which the Framers set forth the procedures for selecting the President and Vice President.
The Twelfth Amendment states, “The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed.” Therefore, to win the Presidency, a candidate must with the majority of electoral votes.
The number of electoral votes in the Electoral College has varied over time based on the number of Members of the U. S. House of Representatives. Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution provides that the “Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand.”
However, as the population of the United States expanded, one Representative per 30,000 citizens would have become unmanageable (today, we would have over 10,000 Members of the House). Therefore, Congress intermittently increased the number of Members to keep pace with the population until 1911, when Congress fixed membership at 435. Subsequently, the constituency for each Representative would increase rather than the number of Representatives. Except for a brief period after Alaska and Hawaii were admitted to the Union in 1959, the number of Representatives has remained constant at 435 since 1911 (after admission, the total temporarily increased to 437 with the addition of one Representative for each state).
Practical Implications
The Electoral College makes irrelevant the overall popular vote in a Presidential Election. Because a candidate must win the electoral vote to win the Presidency, not the popular vote. And the electoral vote is determined state-by-state. Even if a candidate wins the popular vote, that candidate can still lose the electoral vote.
In the history of the American Presidency, there are 4 examples of this.
- In 1824, Andrew Jackson won the popular vote, but he lost the Presidency to John Quincy Adams.
- In 1876, Samuel Tilden won the popular vote, but he lost the Presidency to Rutherford B. Hayes.
- In 1888, President Grover Cleveland won the popular vote, but he lost his reelection to Benjamin Harrison. Four years later in 1892, Cleveland defeated Harrison to return to the White House.
- In 2000, Al Gore won the popular vote, but he lost the Presidency to George W. Bush.
In extension, the Electoral College also makes irrelevant national polls that the media trumpet at every opportunity. What matters are the state polls. Because the winner of the popular vote in each state wins that state’s electoral votes. In 48 states and the District of Columbia, the winner of the popular vote wins all of the electoral votes. In Maine and Nebraska, the allocation is different. In these two states, two electoral votes are allotted to the candidate that wins the popular vote. The remaining electoral votes (2 in Maine and 3 in Nebraska) are divided by Congressional Districts. Whichever candidate wins the popular vote in the Congressional District wins the one electoral vote allotted to that district.
How the Electoral College Works
Here’s how the Electoral College works. In most cases, each state political party nominates a slate of electors equal in number to the state’s electoral votes. For example, the State of New Jersey has 15 electoral votes. So the New Jersey Republican and Democratic parties choose 15 individuals to populate their slates of Electors.
When voters cast ballots on Election Day, they are not actually voting for a Presidential candidate even though the names of Senator John McCain (R-Az.) and Senator Barack Obama (D-Il.) appear on the ballot. Voters vote for the slate of electors selected by each state party. Whichever candidate wins the popular vote in a state earns the right to have the slate of Electors chosen by his political party travel to the state capital and cast their votes for President and Vice President. You and I vote for the people who vote for President.
Presumably, the Electors will vote for the candidate of the party that selected them as Electors. But keep in mind that Electors may vote for whomever they wish.
And sometimes one does. In 2000, one Elector from the District of Columbia, part of the Democratic slate of Electors, abstained in protest over DC’s lack of voting representation in Congress. So Al Gore only won 266 electoral votes instead of 267. In 2004, one Elector from Minnesota, part of the Democratic slate of Electors, voted for Senator John Edwards (D-N.C.) rather than John Kerry. Although it is very likely that each elector would have voted for the Democratic nominee if that vote was needed to win the Presidency.
Once the Electors cast their ballots, the ballots are sent to the President of the Senate (who is the Vice President of the United States), who unseals and then counts the ballots in the presence of the Senate and House. This process is set forth in the United States Constitution.
Some Interesting Facts
The 2000 Presidential Election was close. 271 electoral votes for Governor George W. Bush (R-Tx.) and 266 for Vice President Al Gore (D-Tn.). But the race in 1876 was even closer.
Samuel Tilden, the Democratic nominee, won the popular vote and 184 electoral votes. But he lost the election to Republican Rutherford B. Hayes, who won 185 electoral votes. Had Tilden won 890 more votes in South Carolina, he would have won the popular vote in the Palmetto State, its 7 electoral votes and the White House.
The biggest blowouts were 1792, when President George Washington won 132 of 134 electoral votes, and 1936, when President Franklin Roosevelt won 523 electoral votes. Governor Alf Landon (R-Ks.) won 8 electoral votes; 5 in Maine and 3 in New Hampshire.
No candidate has ever won 100% of the electoral votes.
The Majority Rule
As I mentioned, a candidate must win a majority of the electoral votes to win the Presidency. A plurality is insufficient. The Twelfth Amendment provides guidance in a case where no candidate wins such majority.
“If no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice.”
Only twice in the history of the United States has one candidate not won a majority of the electoral votes. This occurred in 1800 and 1824, which Presidential Elections were decided by the House of Representatives.
The Election of 1800 predated the Twelfth Amendment, so Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution still governed the Presidential selection process. Pursuant to the Constitution, each Elector cast two ballots. The idea was to cast one ballot for President and one ballot for Vice President. But the Constitution did not differentiate between electoral votes cast for President and Vice President. The Election of 1800 displayed clearly why that system was impractical.
Thomas Jefferson, the Democratic-Republican Presidential candidate, and Aaron Burr, the Democratic-Republican Vice Presidential candidate, each received 71 electoral votes. The Democratic-Republican Party planned for one of its Electors to abstain from voting for Burr, leaving Jefferson with 71 electoral votes and Burr with 70. But the plan did not pan out. Since both had a majority (of a total of 138 electors), only their two names were sent to the House for a vote. At the time, the House of Representatives was controlled by the opposing party, the Federalists. After a week of deadlock, the state delegations in the House voted for Jefferson (with a push from Federalist Alexander Hamilton, who hated Jefferson just a little less than he hated Burr). Hamilton’s actions in part may have led to his duel with Aaron Burr in 1804, where Burr killed Hamilton.
In the Election of 1824, Andrew Jackson, a Democratic-Republican, won the popular vote and a plurality of the electoral vote. However, the candidacies of two other Presidential-hopefuls, Henry Clay of Kentucky, a Democratic-Republican and Speaker of the House, and William Crawford of Georgia, also a Democratic-Republican and then the Treasury Secretary, stopped Jackson short of a majority. In the House of Representatives, John Quincy Adams of Massachusetts, also a Democratic-Republican, prevailed.
Modern Trend in the Electoral College
In the era of modern elections, only two candidates compete for electoral votes. Elections where a multi-candidate field truly competed for electoral votes ended in 1836. That year, five candidates won more than 10 electoral votes (Martin Van Buren, a Democrat, William Henry Harrison, Hugh White and Daniel Webster, each Whigs, and W. P. Magnum, an Independent).
In the Election of 1856, former President Millard Fillmore, then of the Whig-American Party, won 8 electoral votes against Democrat James Buchanan (who won) and Republican James Fremont. In the Election of 1860, Democrat Stephen Douglas won 12 electoral votes, John Bell, of the Constitutional Union Party, won 39 electoral votes and Southern Democrat John Breckenridge won 72 electoral votes. Republican Abraham Lincoln won the election with 180 electoral votes.
Since then, only 6 Presidential Elections have had more than two candidates win electoral votes.
Election of 1892: James Weaver of Iowa, nominee of the Populist Party, won 22 electoral votes. Democrat Grover Cleveland won the election with 277 votes; Republican Benjamin Harrison took 145.
Election of 1912: Former President Theodore Roosevelt decided to challenge his Vice President turned President, William Howard Taft, for the Republican nomination. When Roosevelt lost, he formed the Progressive Party, nicknamed the Bull Moose Party, and ran for President. Taft and Roosevelt split the Republican vote and handed the White House to New Jersey Governor, and Democrat, Woodrow Wilson. Wilson won 435 electoral votes, Roosevelt 88 and Taft 8. Although Woodrow Wilson only exceeded 50% of the popular vote in 11 states. Interestingly enough, those states were 11 of the 13 Southern States, now reliable Republican territory.
Election of 1924: Progressive Party nominee Robert La Follette, Senator from Wisconsin, won the 7 electoral votes in his home state. Republican Calvin Coolidge won 382 electoral votes to defeat Democrat of West Virginia John Davis, who won 136.
Election of 1948: On the Dixiecrat ticket, South Carolina Governor Strom Thurmond ran for President and won 39 electoral votes. President Harry Truman won 303 and Republican challenger Thomas Dewey won 189.
Election of 1968: Running on a platform against ending desegregation, George Wallace, then the former Governor of Alabama, ran for President on the American Independent Party ticket. Wallace won 46 electoral votes. Former Vice President Richard Nixon won 301 electoral votes, enough to defeat Wallace and Democrat Hubert Humphrey, Senator from Minnesota, who won 191.
Election of 1972: Libertarian John Hospers won 1 electoral vote in the 1972 Presidential Election. Not enough to overcome the 520 electoral votes won by incumbent President Richard Nixon. Although Hospers fell only 16 electoral votes short of the Democratic nominee, and Senator from South Dakota, George McGovern, who won a paltry 17 electoral votes.
Election of 2008
According to the most recent polls, Senator Obama leads in each state that either Senator John Kerry (D-Ma.) won in 2004 or former Vice President Al Gore (D-Tn.) won in 2000. Those states combine for a total of 264 electoral votes, just 6 shy of the magic number 270. Due to the 2000 Census, the states that Gore won lost a total of 7 electoral votes. So in 2008, Gore plus New Hampshire (which has 4 electoral votes) only equals 264.
If the Presidential Election were held today, Senator Obama would win 273 electoral votes. Senator Obama would be the 44th President of the United States. The 273 electoral votes would include all the states won by Al Gore plus New Hampshire (which John Kerry won in 2004) and Colorado.
In New Hampshire, Obama currently leads. By about 2%. The state is a toss-up. In Colorado, Obama leads by about 3%. Also a toss-up.
If McCain takes New Hampshire and Obama takes Colorado… McCain 269, Obama 269.
How likely is this scenario? Hard to say. But the scenario is well within the realm of possibilities. And this is politics, so anything can happen.
If each candidate wins 269 electoral votes, or more precisely, if no candidate wins 270 electoral votes (a majority), then the House of Representatives will choose the next President.
Again, quoting from the Twelfth Amendment, “If no person have such majority… the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice.”
What this means is that the House of Representatives delegation from each state will meet and vote for President. The Presidential candidate for whom the majority of the members of the House delegation votes wins the vote of that state.
For example, the State of New Jersey has 13 members in its House delegation. 7 Democrats and 6 Republicans. If each member votes along party lines, the State of New Jersey will vote for Senator Obama to be the next President of the United States.
The candidate that wins the votes of 26 of the state delegations, a simple majority, wins the White House.
The current make-up of the House of Representatives favors the Democratic candidate. Of the 50 state delegations, Democrats have a majority in 27 of them; Republicans control 21. Two states, Arizona (4 Democrats, 4 Republicans) and Kansas (2 Democrats, 2 Republicans), are evenly split.
Therefore, in the event that neither Senator McCain nor Senator Obama reach 270 electoral votes, whether the result of a tie or the result of a third party candidate, for example Libertarian Bob Barr (L-Ga.) or Independent Ralph Nader (I-Ct.), winning one or more electoral votes (so unlikely that I will confidently predict that no third party candidate will win any electoral votes in 2008), the U. S. House of Representatives will elect Senator Barack Obama the next President of the United States.
Unless some Democratic members of the House decide instead to vote for Senator McCain. Then anything can happen. It took over a week for the House to elect Thomas Jefferson in 1800. This is politics. Predicting politics is like predicting where the ball will land on a Roulette wheel. Although in 2008, we are unlikely to see anything on the level of a duel between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr.
-------------------------
Notes
Note 1: Each of American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico and the U. S. Virgin Islands have one Delegate in the United States House of Representatives, but none of them can vote. The District of Columbia elects one Representative to the House, but she cannot vote either.
-------------------------
Sources:
Infoplease: www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781450.html
Wikipedia: www.wikipedia.com
US Constitution: www.usconstitution.net
US House of Representatives: www.house.gov
Dave Leip’s Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections: www.uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS
Real Clear Politics: www.realclearpolitics.com
National Archives: www.archives.gov
September 18, 2008
Zach Sheinberg
To win the American Presidency, a candidate must win 270 electoral votes, just over half of the total number of 538 electoral votes in the Electoral College. Electoral votes are allocated to each state based on a simple formula. Number of United States Senators plus the number of Members of the House of Representatives in that state. Each state has 2 United States Senators. Each state has a specific number of Representatives based on population, which the decennial census determines.
For example, the State of New Jersey has 13 seats in Congress. Adding its 2 United States Senate seats gives New Jersey 15 electoral votes. The Senate has a total of 100 Senators, the House a total of 435 voting Representatives (see Note 1 below). Adding the 3 electoral votes allocated to the District of Columbia (which has zero voting members in Congress) produces a total of 538 electoral votes. A majority is 270.
Constitutional Underpinnings
The Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution (ratified on June 15, 1804) amended Article II, Section 1, in which the Framers set forth the procedures for selecting the President and Vice President.
The Twelfth Amendment states, “The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed.” Therefore, to win the Presidency, a candidate must with the majority of electoral votes.
The number of electoral votes in the Electoral College has varied over time based on the number of Members of the U. S. House of Representatives. Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution provides that the “Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand.”
However, as the population of the United States expanded, one Representative per 30,000 citizens would have become unmanageable (today, we would have over 10,000 Members of the House). Therefore, Congress intermittently increased the number of Members to keep pace with the population until 1911, when Congress fixed membership at 435. Subsequently, the constituency for each Representative would increase rather than the number of Representatives. Except for a brief period after Alaska and Hawaii were admitted to the Union in 1959, the number of Representatives has remained constant at 435 since 1911 (after admission, the total temporarily increased to 437 with the addition of one Representative for each state).
Practical Implications
The Electoral College makes irrelevant the overall popular vote in a Presidential Election. Because a candidate must win the electoral vote to win the Presidency, not the popular vote. And the electoral vote is determined state-by-state. Even if a candidate wins the popular vote, that candidate can still lose the electoral vote.
In the history of the American Presidency, there are 4 examples of this.
- In 1824, Andrew Jackson won the popular vote, but he lost the Presidency to John Quincy Adams.
- In 1876, Samuel Tilden won the popular vote, but he lost the Presidency to Rutherford B. Hayes.
- In 1888, President Grover Cleveland won the popular vote, but he lost his reelection to Benjamin Harrison. Four years later in 1892, Cleveland defeated Harrison to return to the White House.
- In 2000, Al Gore won the popular vote, but he lost the Presidency to George W. Bush.
In extension, the Electoral College also makes irrelevant national polls that the media trumpet at every opportunity. What matters are the state polls. Because the winner of the popular vote in each state wins that state’s electoral votes. In 48 states and the District of Columbia, the winner of the popular vote wins all of the electoral votes. In Maine and Nebraska, the allocation is different. In these two states, two electoral votes are allotted to the candidate that wins the popular vote. The remaining electoral votes (2 in Maine and 3 in Nebraska) are divided by Congressional Districts. Whichever candidate wins the popular vote in the Congressional District wins the one electoral vote allotted to that district.
How the Electoral College Works
Here’s how the Electoral College works. In most cases, each state political party nominates a slate of electors equal in number to the state’s electoral votes. For example, the State of New Jersey has 15 electoral votes. So the New Jersey Republican and Democratic parties choose 15 individuals to populate their slates of Electors.
When voters cast ballots on Election Day, they are not actually voting for a Presidential candidate even though the names of Senator John McCain (R-Az.) and Senator Barack Obama (D-Il.) appear on the ballot. Voters vote for the slate of electors selected by each state party. Whichever candidate wins the popular vote in a state earns the right to have the slate of Electors chosen by his political party travel to the state capital and cast their votes for President and Vice President. You and I vote for the people who vote for President.
Presumably, the Electors will vote for the candidate of the party that selected them as Electors. But keep in mind that Electors may vote for whomever they wish.
And sometimes one does. In 2000, one Elector from the District of Columbia, part of the Democratic slate of Electors, abstained in protest over DC’s lack of voting representation in Congress. So Al Gore only won 266 electoral votes instead of 267. In 2004, one Elector from Minnesota, part of the Democratic slate of Electors, voted for Senator John Edwards (D-N.C.) rather than John Kerry. Although it is very likely that each elector would have voted for the Democratic nominee if that vote was needed to win the Presidency.
Once the Electors cast their ballots, the ballots are sent to the President of the Senate (who is the Vice President of the United States), who unseals and then counts the ballots in the presence of the Senate and House. This process is set forth in the United States Constitution.
Some Interesting Facts
The 2000 Presidential Election was close. 271 electoral votes for Governor George W. Bush (R-Tx.) and 266 for Vice President Al Gore (D-Tn.). But the race in 1876 was even closer.
Samuel Tilden, the Democratic nominee, won the popular vote and 184 electoral votes. But he lost the election to Republican Rutherford B. Hayes, who won 185 electoral votes. Had Tilden won 890 more votes in South Carolina, he would have won the popular vote in the Palmetto State, its 7 electoral votes and the White House.
The biggest blowouts were 1792, when President George Washington won 132 of 134 electoral votes, and 1936, when President Franklin Roosevelt won 523 electoral votes. Governor Alf Landon (R-Ks.) won 8 electoral votes; 5 in Maine and 3 in New Hampshire.
No candidate has ever won 100% of the electoral votes.
The Majority Rule
As I mentioned, a candidate must win a majority of the electoral votes to win the Presidency. A plurality is insufficient. The Twelfth Amendment provides guidance in a case where no candidate wins such majority.
“If no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice.”
Only twice in the history of the United States has one candidate not won a majority of the electoral votes. This occurred in 1800 and 1824, which Presidential Elections were decided by the House of Representatives.
The Election of 1800 predated the Twelfth Amendment, so Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution still governed the Presidential selection process. Pursuant to the Constitution, each Elector cast two ballots. The idea was to cast one ballot for President and one ballot for Vice President. But the Constitution did not differentiate between electoral votes cast for President and Vice President. The Election of 1800 displayed clearly why that system was impractical.
Thomas Jefferson, the Democratic-Republican Presidential candidate, and Aaron Burr, the Democratic-Republican Vice Presidential candidate, each received 71 electoral votes. The Democratic-Republican Party planned for one of its Electors to abstain from voting for Burr, leaving Jefferson with 71 electoral votes and Burr with 70. But the plan did not pan out. Since both had a majority (of a total of 138 electors), only their two names were sent to the House for a vote. At the time, the House of Representatives was controlled by the opposing party, the Federalists. After a week of deadlock, the state delegations in the House voted for Jefferson (with a push from Federalist Alexander Hamilton, who hated Jefferson just a little less than he hated Burr). Hamilton’s actions in part may have led to his duel with Aaron Burr in 1804, where Burr killed Hamilton.
In the Election of 1824, Andrew Jackson, a Democratic-Republican, won the popular vote and a plurality of the electoral vote. However, the candidacies of two other Presidential-hopefuls, Henry Clay of Kentucky, a Democratic-Republican and Speaker of the House, and William Crawford of Georgia, also a Democratic-Republican and then the Treasury Secretary, stopped Jackson short of a majority. In the House of Representatives, John Quincy Adams of Massachusetts, also a Democratic-Republican, prevailed.
Modern Trend in the Electoral College
In the era of modern elections, only two candidates compete for electoral votes. Elections where a multi-candidate field truly competed for electoral votes ended in 1836. That year, five candidates won more than 10 electoral votes (Martin Van Buren, a Democrat, William Henry Harrison, Hugh White and Daniel Webster, each Whigs, and W. P. Magnum, an Independent).
In the Election of 1856, former President Millard Fillmore, then of the Whig-American Party, won 8 electoral votes against Democrat James Buchanan (who won) and Republican James Fremont. In the Election of 1860, Democrat Stephen Douglas won 12 electoral votes, John Bell, of the Constitutional Union Party, won 39 electoral votes and Southern Democrat John Breckenridge won 72 electoral votes. Republican Abraham Lincoln won the election with 180 electoral votes.
Since then, only 6 Presidential Elections have had more than two candidates win electoral votes.
Election of 1892: James Weaver of Iowa, nominee of the Populist Party, won 22 electoral votes. Democrat Grover Cleveland won the election with 277 votes; Republican Benjamin Harrison took 145.
Election of 1912: Former President Theodore Roosevelt decided to challenge his Vice President turned President, William Howard Taft, for the Republican nomination. When Roosevelt lost, he formed the Progressive Party, nicknamed the Bull Moose Party, and ran for President. Taft and Roosevelt split the Republican vote and handed the White House to New Jersey Governor, and Democrat, Woodrow Wilson. Wilson won 435 electoral votes, Roosevelt 88 and Taft 8. Although Woodrow Wilson only exceeded 50% of the popular vote in 11 states. Interestingly enough, those states were 11 of the 13 Southern States, now reliable Republican territory.
Election of 1924: Progressive Party nominee Robert La Follette, Senator from Wisconsin, won the 7 electoral votes in his home state. Republican Calvin Coolidge won 382 electoral votes to defeat Democrat of West Virginia John Davis, who won 136.
Election of 1948: On the Dixiecrat ticket, South Carolina Governor Strom Thurmond ran for President and won 39 electoral votes. President Harry Truman won 303 and Republican challenger Thomas Dewey won 189.
Election of 1968: Running on a platform against ending desegregation, George Wallace, then the former Governor of Alabama, ran for President on the American Independent Party ticket. Wallace won 46 electoral votes. Former Vice President Richard Nixon won 301 electoral votes, enough to defeat Wallace and Democrat Hubert Humphrey, Senator from Minnesota, who won 191.
Election of 1972: Libertarian John Hospers won 1 electoral vote in the 1972 Presidential Election. Not enough to overcome the 520 electoral votes won by incumbent President Richard Nixon. Although Hospers fell only 16 electoral votes short of the Democratic nominee, and Senator from South Dakota, George McGovern, who won a paltry 17 electoral votes.
Election of 2008
According to the most recent polls, Senator Obama leads in each state that either Senator John Kerry (D-Ma.) won in 2004 or former Vice President Al Gore (D-Tn.) won in 2000. Those states combine for a total of 264 electoral votes, just 6 shy of the magic number 270. Due to the 2000 Census, the states that Gore won lost a total of 7 electoral votes. So in 2008, Gore plus New Hampshire (which has 4 electoral votes) only equals 264.
If the Presidential Election were held today, Senator Obama would win 273 electoral votes. Senator Obama would be the 44th President of the United States. The 273 electoral votes would include all the states won by Al Gore plus New Hampshire (which John Kerry won in 2004) and Colorado.
In New Hampshire, Obama currently leads. By about 2%. The state is a toss-up. In Colorado, Obama leads by about 3%. Also a toss-up.
If McCain takes New Hampshire and Obama takes Colorado… McCain 269, Obama 269.
How likely is this scenario? Hard to say. But the scenario is well within the realm of possibilities. And this is politics, so anything can happen.
If each candidate wins 269 electoral votes, or more precisely, if no candidate wins 270 electoral votes (a majority), then the House of Representatives will choose the next President.
Again, quoting from the Twelfth Amendment, “If no person have such majority… the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice.”
What this means is that the House of Representatives delegation from each state will meet and vote for President. The Presidential candidate for whom the majority of the members of the House delegation votes wins the vote of that state.
For example, the State of New Jersey has 13 members in its House delegation. 7 Democrats and 6 Republicans. If each member votes along party lines, the State of New Jersey will vote for Senator Obama to be the next President of the United States.
The candidate that wins the votes of 26 of the state delegations, a simple majority, wins the White House.
The current make-up of the House of Representatives favors the Democratic candidate. Of the 50 state delegations, Democrats have a majority in 27 of them; Republicans control 21. Two states, Arizona (4 Democrats, 4 Republicans) and Kansas (2 Democrats, 2 Republicans), are evenly split.
Therefore, in the event that neither Senator McCain nor Senator Obama reach 270 electoral votes, whether the result of a tie or the result of a third party candidate, for example Libertarian Bob Barr (L-Ga.) or Independent Ralph Nader (I-Ct.), winning one or more electoral votes (so unlikely that I will confidently predict that no third party candidate will win any electoral votes in 2008), the U. S. House of Representatives will elect Senator Barack Obama the next President of the United States.
Unless some Democratic members of the House decide instead to vote for Senator McCain. Then anything can happen. It took over a week for the House to elect Thomas Jefferson in 1800. This is politics. Predicting politics is like predicting where the ball will land on a Roulette wheel. Although in 2008, we are unlikely to see anything on the level of a duel between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr.
-------------------------
Notes
Note 1: Each of American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico and the U. S. Virgin Islands have one Delegate in the United States House of Representatives, but none of them can vote. The District of Columbia elects one Representative to the House, but she cannot vote either.
-------------------------
Sources:
Infoplease: www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781450.html
Wikipedia: www.wikipedia.com
US Constitution: www.usconstitution.net
US House of Representatives: www.house.gov
Dave Leip’s Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections: www.uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS
Real Clear Politics: www.realclearpolitics.com
National Archives: www.archives.gov
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Qualifying Qualification
Qualifying Qualification
September 11, 2008
Zach Sheinberg
I skipped posting an article last week in order to take the time to digest the selection of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin (R-Ak.) as the running mate of Republican Presidential nominee, Senator John McCain (R-Az.). And because I got caught up making 700 bags of popcorn in order for Shucked Popcorn to sponsor Fashion Week. The choice of Palin fully contradicted my thoughts about McCain's VP selection process discussed in the August 21 piece, "VP a VIP?"
Palin caught me by surprise.
I followed with interest the 2006 gubernatorial race in Alaska when Palin defeated former Governor, and also former Senator, Frank Murkowski (R-Ak.) in the Republican primary and then went on to defeat former Governor Tony Knowles (D-Ak.) in the general election. With her opponent mired in allegations of ethical violations (highlighted by the appointment of his daughter, then State Representative Lisa Murkowski (R-Ak.), to the U. S. Senate seat he vacated to become Governor), Palin campaigned against Murkowski and the Alaska Republican establishment on a platform of reform. And won.
Why Governor Sarah Palin?
In Governor Palin, Senator McCain saw three attractive traits. Anti-establishment, and anti-Washington, reformer. Social conservative. And female.
Anti-Establishment Reformer
Senator McCain loves Governor Palin’s image as an anti-establishment reformer. In that regard, Palin helps reinforce Senator McCain's desired message of change and maverick image.
Palin seems to be the lone beacon of hope in the Alaska Republican Party. Senator Ted Stevens is facing felony charges. Representative Don Young is being investigated. Although the recent revelation of Palin's potential involvement in the firing of her ex-brother-in-law from his position as an Alaska state trooper may impugn her reformer credentials. Or voters may simply forget about it.
Social Conservative
Social conservatives love the strongly pro-life, lifetime NRA member Palin. In picking a social conservative or moderate running mate, Senator McCain faced a dilemma. Pick a social conservative and alienate the moderate center of the electorate who will decide the election. Or pick a moderate who will disaffect the social conservatives and keep them at home on Election Day. McCain opted for the former, likely on the grounds that energizing the conservative base was a precondition to making the race competitive in November.
In addition, McCain probably calculated that he could cultivate his own maverick image to win moderate votes on Election Day, even with a socially conservative running mate. But if he picked a moderate like former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge (R-Pa.), a pro-choice moderate, or Senator Joe Lieberman (I-Ct.), a pro-choice Iraq hawk, or Governor Tim Pawlenty (R-Mn.), the conservative right would have abandoned him en masse and permanently.
And a Female
After Senator Obama clinched the Democratic nomination, polls showed Hillary Clinton supporters uncertain about supporting the Democratic nominee. The McCain campaign saw an opportunity, more than likely a mirage, to steal these female voters.
Senator McCain's choice of a woman reeked of opportunism. And false opportunism at that. Unquestionably, some Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) supporters are aggrieved about Senator Clinton losing the Democratic nomination. They feel that the time for a woman to win the Presidency appeared and then was wrongfully snatched away. But not for just any woman. For Hillary Clinton.
Some Senator Clinton supporters will vote for Senator McCain in November. That is a certainty. Some because of ideology. Others because of a dislike for Senator Obama. But only a very small minority, if any at all, because Senator McCain picked a woman as his running mate. It is insulting even to consider the idea that Hillary Clinton supporters are so one-dimensional.
Also bear in mind that the vast majority of voters who vote in a primary are strong party loyalists. Sure, they may have been strong supporters of a female candidate, but they were strong supporters of a female Democratic candidate. How many women want a woman Vice President or President so badly that they are willing to vote for a female candidate that is pro-life? This is not to pigeonhole women as always pro-choice, but they overwhelming are so.
Palin’s Experience
Since announcement of the Palin pick, the media has thoroughly discussed the Alaska Governor's lack of experience, namely her mere twenty-one months as Alaska's Governor and her previous experience as Mayor of tiny Wasilla, Alaska, a town of less than 10,000 people.
Let me provide some background on Alaska. Alaska is the largest state by land area in the United States. Yet less than 700,000 people live there. Alaska would rank as the 17th largest city in the United States. Approximately 70% of Alaska residents are white and another 16% are Native American (all from Wikipedia). Alaska does not have a state sales or income tax to pay for state government expenditures. State revenues come from taxation of the oil and gas industries and from the federal government.
Defining "Qualified"
Given the media hype about Palin’s lack of experience, is Governor Sarah Palin qualified to be the Vice President of the United States (and in extension the President of the United States)? Or more pragmatically, are you as a voter comfortable with the idea of Sarah Palin being the President of the United States?
What qualifies a person for the Presidency? Can any person really ever be qualified to serve as President of the United States? To make decisions that affect people's lives every single day? To send young soldiers into battle knowing some will die? To know how far to push a nation seeking nuclear weapons like Iran in order to protect the United States? To cut one social program and its beneficiaries in favor of another and its beneficiaries?
The American Presidency is a tremendous responsibility that wears on its officeholders. Just look at pictures of Bill Clinton running for President in 1992 next to those of the former President upon leaving office. Same for George W. Bush. Can you imagine calling parents of a dead soldier? Especially one killed in a war you know is unpopular? Or ordering a missile attack in Afghanistan that you are certain will kill innocent civilians? Or cutting health benefits for veterans to trim the budget? Or by reading about your personal and professional indiscretions in the paper every single day? Getting embarrassed on television constantly? Probably working 18-hour days for 4 years, including weekends?
On a related note, this often makes me wonder how much additional stress and wear a 72-year-old President can take.
Experience of Previous Presidential Candidates
Aside from actually serving as President, what experiences could possibly prepare an individual for the office? Below are highlights of the resumes of recent Presidential candidates. As you peruse them, ask yourself if any of these professional experiences qualify these men to sit in the Oval Office.
2008
Barack Obama: Member of US Senate from Illinois (2005 – Present); Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Homeland Security and Senate Administration Committee, Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, Veterans Affairs Committee; Illinois State Senator; community organizer in Chicago; University of Chicago Law School professor; unsuccessful candidate for US House of Representatives (2000); lawyer.
John McCain: Member of US Senate from Arizona (1987 – Present); Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee (former Chairman), Armed Services Committee, Indian Affairs Committee; Member of US House of Representatives; Captain, US Navy; Vietnam POW.
2004
John Kerry: Member of US Senate from Massachusetts (1985 – Present); Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, Foreign Relations Committee, Finance Committee, Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe; Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts; Massachusetts District Attorney; unsuccessful candidate for US House of Representatives (1972); Lieutenant, US Navy; lawyer.
2000
Al Gore: Vice President of the United States; Member of US Senate from Tennessee (1985 – 1993); Senate Government Affairs Committee, Rules and Administration Committee, Armed Services Committee; Member of US House of Representatives; House Energy and Commerce Committee, Science and Technology Committee, Intelligence Committee; candidate for Democratic Nomination for President, 1988; journalist in Vietnam; son of former Senator Al Gore, Sr. of Tennessee.
George W. Bush: Governor of Texas (1995 – 2001); part owner of Texas Rangers; oil industry executive; unsuccessful candidate for US House of Representatives (1978).
1996
Bob Dole: Member of US Senate (1969 – 1996); Senate Majority Leader; Senate Minority Leader; Senate Finance Committee, Agriculture Committee; Chairman of Republican National Committee; Republican Nominee for Vice President (1976); Member of US House of Representatives (1961 – 1969); Russell County, Kansas Attorney; Member of Kansas House of Representatives; Second Lieutenant, US Army; lawyer.
1992
Bill Clinton: Governor of Arkansas (1979 – 1981, 1983 – 1993); Arkansas Attorney General; unsuccessful candidate for US House of Representatives (1974); lawyer.
1988
Michael Dukakis: Governor of Massachusetts (1975 – 1979, 1983 – 1991); Member of Massachusetts House of Representatives; lawyer.
George H. W. Bush: Vice President (1981 – 1989); Candidate for President (1980); Director of Central Intelligence Agency; US Ambassador to United Nations; Chief of US Liaison Office to China; Member of US House of Representatives; unsuccessful candidate for US Senate (1964, 1970); oil industry executive; Lieutenant, US Navy.
All of the candidates for President listed above have political experience, some state office, others federal office. But is the experience of previous political service valuable for the Oval Office? Or necessary?
Experience Threshold
I would argue that an experience threshold exists for qualification to be the President of the United States. And I propose that any thoughtful, intelligent, diligent, strong and seasoned professional can meet that threshold. These are obviously very ambiguous terms. They are purposely ambiguous.
Former President Dwight Eisenhower led the US Armed Forces in World War II (and later NATO forces). He had no experience in traditional politics, but was he qualified to be President?
Before the 1952 elections, both the Democratic and Republicans Parties attempted to woo Eisenhower to their party’s nomination (he ultimately sought and won the Republican nomination). But without traditional elective office experience, I wonder whether in the 1952 Presidential Election, Adlai Stevenson (D-Il.), then the Governor of Illinois and the 1952 Democratic Presidential nominee, tried the “unqualified” argument against the former NATO Supreme Allied Commander. If he did, would the American voters have agreed? Could General Eisenhower have successfully led the battle in World War II to defeat the Japanese, Italians and the Nazis, but not manage the United States Government? The question is not meant to be leading.
This analysis seems to make judgment and other qualitative characteristics more important to qualification that experience, whether previous elected office or otherwise. Although I do believe that serving in elective office provides experience in dealing with government bureaucracy, certainly an important skill for a President to have.
I believe that no definite formula exists to determine whether an individual is qualified to be President of the United States. Not the 21-month Governor of Alaska or the first term Senator from Illinois. Abraham Lincoln was a lawyer who served one term in the US House of Representatives from 1847 – 1849, more than 10 years before winning the White House. I would be surprised if Lincoln’s opponents in the 1860 Presidential Election, Democratic Senator Stephen Douglas of Illinois, Southern Democrat, and then Vice President, John Breckenridge and Constitutional Union Party Nominee, and former House of Representatives Speaker, John Bell, did not use the “unqualified” card against Lincoln. Despite his lack of qualification, Lincoln proved himself quite capable and worthy of the Presidency.
With respect to defining obscenity, former Justice Potter Stewart remarked, “I know it when I see it.” I think voters know when they see a candidate who is qualified. As President, the candidate may turn out to be an utter disaster, but not for lack of qualification. Maybe qualification is not even directly related to quality of performance once in office.
Is Sarah Palin Qualified?
Based on my above narrative, I am unsure whether Sarah Palin is qualified. I would not say outright that she is qualified to be President of the United States. But neither would I immediately declare her unqualified. I do not want to demur on the issue, so I will say that given my knowledge of the Alaska Governor and her career, and what I have read and seen on TV, I believe that she is more unqualified than qualified. But I would have said the same of Abraham Lincoln in 1860 (this comparison is not at all meant to equate the two).
We can speculate endlessly about whether Palin is qualified. Yet as I mentioned, her qualification may be irrelevant. Sure, she may be unqualified. Or underqualified. But if there is really no experience that can qualify an individual for the job of President of the United States, maybe even including the Presidency itself, the only way to know whether someone is fit for the office is to give that person the keys to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
So until Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska, or Senator John McCain of Arizona or Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, sets a hand down on the Holy Bible held by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and swears to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and will to the best of his or her ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, we will not know whether that person is qualified to hold the highest office in the land.
September 11, 2008
Zach Sheinberg
I skipped posting an article last week in order to take the time to digest the selection of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin (R-Ak.) as the running mate of Republican Presidential nominee, Senator John McCain (R-Az.). And because I got caught up making 700 bags of popcorn in order for Shucked Popcorn to sponsor Fashion Week. The choice of Palin fully contradicted my thoughts about McCain's VP selection process discussed in the August 21 piece, "VP a VIP?"
Palin caught me by surprise.
I followed with interest the 2006 gubernatorial race in Alaska when Palin defeated former Governor, and also former Senator, Frank Murkowski (R-Ak.) in the Republican primary and then went on to defeat former Governor Tony Knowles (D-Ak.) in the general election. With her opponent mired in allegations of ethical violations (highlighted by the appointment of his daughter, then State Representative Lisa Murkowski (R-Ak.), to the U. S. Senate seat he vacated to become Governor), Palin campaigned against Murkowski and the Alaska Republican establishment on a platform of reform. And won.
Why Governor Sarah Palin?
In Governor Palin, Senator McCain saw three attractive traits. Anti-establishment, and anti-Washington, reformer. Social conservative. And female.
Anti-Establishment Reformer
Senator McCain loves Governor Palin’s image as an anti-establishment reformer. In that regard, Palin helps reinforce Senator McCain's desired message of change and maverick image.
Palin seems to be the lone beacon of hope in the Alaska Republican Party. Senator Ted Stevens is facing felony charges. Representative Don Young is being investigated. Although the recent revelation of Palin's potential involvement in the firing of her ex-brother-in-law from his position as an Alaska state trooper may impugn her reformer credentials. Or voters may simply forget about it.
Social Conservative
Social conservatives love the strongly pro-life, lifetime NRA member Palin. In picking a social conservative or moderate running mate, Senator McCain faced a dilemma. Pick a social conservative and alienate the moderate center of the electorate who will decide the election. Or pick a moderate who will disaffect the social conservatives and keep them at home on Election Day. McCain opted for the former, likely on the grounds that energizing the conservative base was a precondition to making the race competitive in November.
In addition, McCain probably calculated that he could cultivate his own maverick image to win moderate votes on Election Day, even with a socially conservative running mate. But if he picked a moderate like former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge (R-Pa.), a pro-choice moderate, or Senator Joe Lieberman (I-Ct.), a pro-choice Iraq hawk, or Governor Tim Pawlenty (R-Mn.), the conservative right would have abandoned him en masse and permanently.
And a Female
After Senator Obama clinched the Democratic nomination, polls showed Hillary Clinton supporters uncertain about supporting the Democratic nominee. The McCain campaign saw an opportunity, more than likely a mirage, to steal these female voters.
Senator McCain's choice of a woman reeked of opportunism. And false opportunism at that. Unquestionably, some Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) supporters are aggrieved about Senator Clinton losing the Democratic nomination. They feel that the time for a woman to win the Presidency appeared and then was wrongfully snatched away. But not for just any woman. For Hillary Clinton.
Some Senator Clinton supporters will vote for Senator McCain in November. That is a certainty. Some because of ideology. Others because of a dislike for Senator Obama. But only a very small minority, if any at all, because Senator McCain picked a woman as his running mate. It is insulting even to consider the idea that Hillary Clinton supporters are so one-dimensional.
Also bear in mind that the vast majority of voters who vote in a primary are strong party loyalists. Sure, they may have been strong supporters of a female candidate, but they were strong supporters of a female Democratic candidate. How many women want a woman Vice President or President so badly that they are willing to vote for a female candidate that is pro-life? This is not to pigeonhole women as always pro-choice, but they overwhelming are so.
Palin’s Experience
Since announcement of the Palin pick, the media has thoroughly discussed the Alaska Governor's lack of experience, namely her mere twenty-one months as Alaska's Governor and her previous experience as Mayor of tiny Wasilla, Alaska, a town of less than 10,000 people.
Let me provide some background on Alaska. Alaska is the largest state by land area in the United States. Yet less than 700,000 people live there. Alaska would rank as the 17th largest city in the United States. Approximately 70% of Alaska residents are white and another 16% are Native American (all from Wikipedia). Alaska does not have a state sales or income tax to pay for state government expenditures. State revenues come from taxation of the oil and gas industries and from the federal government.
Defining "Qualified"
Given the media hype about Palin’s lack of experience, is Governor Sarah Palin qualified to be the Vice President of the United States (and in extension the President of the United States)? Or more pragmatically, are you as a voter comfortable with the idea of Sarah Palin being the President of the United States?
What qualifies a person for the Presidency? Can any person really ever be qualified to serve as President of the United States? To make decisions that affect people's lives every single day? To send young soldiers into battle knowing some will die? To know how far to push a nation seeking nuclear weapons like Iran in order to protect the United States? To cut one social program and its beneficiaries in favor of another and its beneficiaries?
The American Presidency is a tremendous responsibility that wears on its officeholders. Just look at pictures of Bill Clinton running for President in 1992 next to those of the former President upon leaving office. Same for George W. Bush. Can you imagine calling parents of a dead soldier? Especially one killed in a war you know is unpopular? Or ordering a missile attack in Afghanistan that you are certain will kill innocent civilians? Or cutting health benefits for veterans to trim the budget? Or by reading about your personal and professional indiscretions in the paper every single day? Getting embarrassed on television constantly? Probably working 18-hour days for 4 years, including weekends?
On a related note, this often makes me wonder how much additional stress and wear a 72-year-old President can take.
Experience of Previous Presidential Candidates
Aside from actually serving as President, what experiences could possibly prepare an individual for the office? Below are highlights of the resumes of recent Presidential candidates. As you peruse them, ask yourself if any of these professional experiences qualify these men to sit in the Oval Office.
2008
Barack Obama: Member of US Senate from Illinois (2005 – Present); Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Homeland Security and Senate Administration Committee, Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, Veterans Affairs Committee; Illinois State Senator; community organizer in Chicago; University of Chicago Law School professor; unsuccessful candidate for US House of Representatives (2000); lawyer.
John McCain: Member of US Senate from Arizona (1987 – Present); Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee (former Chairman), Armed Services Committee, Indian Affairs Committee; Member of US House of Representatives; Captain, US Navy; Vietnam POW.
2004
John Kerry: Member of US Senate from Massachusetts (1985 – Present); Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, Foreign Relations Committee, Finance Committee, Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe; Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts; Massachusetts District Attorney; unsuccessful candidate for US House of Representatives (1972); Lieutenant, US Navy; lawyer.
2000
Al Gore: Vice President of the United States; Member of US Senate from Tennessee (1985 – 1993); Senate Government Affairs Committee, Rules and Administration Committee, Armed Services Committee; Member of US House of Representatives; House Energy and Commerce Committee, Science and Technology Committee, Intelligence Committee; candidate for Democratic Nomination for President, 1988; journalist in Vietnam; son of former Senator Al Gore, Sr. of Tennessee.
George W. Bush: Governor of Texas (1995 – 2001); part owner of Texas Rangers; oil industry executive; unsuccessful candidate for US House of Representatives (1978).
1996
Bob Dole: Member of US Senate (1969 – 1996); Senate Majority Leader; Senate Minority Leader; Senate Finance Committee, Agriculture Committee; Chairman of Republican National Committee; Republican Nominee for Vice President (1976); Member of US House of Representatives (1961 – 1969); Russell County, Kansas Attorney; Member of Kansas House of Representatives; Second Lieutenant, US Army; lawyer.
1992
Bill Clinton: Governor of Arkansas (1979 – 1981, 1983 – 1993); Arkansas Attorney General; unsuccessful candidate for US House of Representatives (1974); lawyer.
1988
Michael Dukakis: Governor of Massachusetts (1975 – 1979, 1983 – 1991); Member of Massachusetts House of Representatives; lawyer.
George H. W. Bush: Vice President (1981 – 1989); Candidate for President (1980); Director of Central Intelligence Agency; US Ambassador to United Nations; Chief of US Liaison Office to China; Member of US House of Representatives; unsuccessful candidate for US Senate (1964, 1970); oil industry executive; Lieutenant, US Navy.
All of the candidates for President listed above have political experience, some state office, others federal office. But is the experience of previous political service valuable for the Oval Office? Or necessary?
Experience Threshold
I would argue that an experience threshold exists for qualification to be the President of the United States. And I propose that any thoughtful, intelligent, diligent, strong and seasoned professional can meet that threshold. These are obviously very ambiguous terms. They are purposely ambiguous.
Former President Dwight Eisenhower led the US Armed Forces in World War II (and later NATO forces). He had no experience in traditional politics, but was he qualified to be President?
Before the 1952 elections, both the Democratic and Republicans Parties attempted to woo Eisenhower to their party’s nomination (he ultimately sought and won the Republican nomination). But without traditional elective office experience, I wonder whether in the 1952 Presidential Election, Adlai Stevenson (D-Il.), then the Governor of Illinois and the 1952 Democratic Presidential nominee, tried the “unqualified” argument against the former NATO Supreme Allied Commander. If he did, would the American voters have agreed? Could General Eisenhower have successfully led the battle in World War II to defeat the Japanese, Italians and the Nazis, but not manage the United States Government? The question is not meant to be leading.
This analysis seems to make judgment and other qualitative characteristics more important to qualification that experience, whether previous elected office or otherwise. Although I do believe that serving in elective office provides experience in dealing with government bureaucracy, certainly an important skill for a President to have.
I believe that no definite formula exists to determine whether an individual is qualified to be President of the United States. Not the 21-month Governor of Alaska or the first term Senator from Illinois. Abraham Lincoln was a lawyer who served one term in the US House of Representatives from 1847 – 1849, more than 10 years before winning the White House. I would be surprised if Lincoln’s opponents in the 1860 Presidential Election, Democratic Senator Stephen Douglas of Illinois, Southern Democrat, and then Vice President, John Breckenridge and Constitutional Union Party Nominee, and former House of Representatives Speaker, John Bell, did not use the “unqualified” card against Lincoln. Despite his lack of qualification, Lincoln proved himself quite capable and worthy of the Presidency.
With respect to defining obscenity, former Justice Potter Stewart remarked, “I know it when I see it.” I think voters know when they see a candidate who is qualified. As President, the candidate may turn out to be an utter disaster, but not for lack of qualification. Maybe qualification is not even directly related to quality of performance once in office.
Is Sarah Palin Qualified?
Based on my above narrative, I am unsure whether Sarah Palin is qualified. I would not say outright that she is qualified to be President of the United States. But neither would I immediately declare her unqualified. I do not want to demur on the issue, so I will say that given my knowledge of the Alaska Governor and her career, and what I have read and seen on TV, I believe that she is more unqualified than qualified. But I would have said the same of Abraham Lincoln in 1860 (this comparison is not at all meant to equate the two).
We can speculate endlessly about whether Palin is qualified. Yet as I mentioned, her qualification may be irrelevant. Sure, she may be unqualified. Or underqualified. But if there is really no experience that can qualify an individual for the job of President of the United States, maybe even including the Presidency itself, the only way to know whether someone is fit for the office is to give that person the keys to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
So until Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska, or Senator John McCain of Arizona or Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, sets a hand down on the Holy Bible held by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and swears to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and will to the best of his or her ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, we will not know whether that person is qualified to hold the highest office in the land.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)