Nominering af kandidater ved valget i 1824

Nominering af kandidater ved valget i 1824

Den traditionelle metode til at udpege kandidater før 1824 i Amerika var "King Caucus", uformel kongresmøde. Til valget i 1824 blev William Crawford nomineret af Caucus og fire andre kandidater (hvoraf tre blev i løbet) blev nomineret på andre måder. Med hvilke midler blev de nomineret? Mere generelt, hvordan er proceduren for at afgøre, hvem der er med i præsidentvalget? Er der et kontor, som listen er forelagt eller et udvalg, der sætter deres præg på det, eller hvad?


Bemærk, at den første kongress, der nominerede caucus var i 1796, og kun var at vælge en VP -nomineret. Således fungerede "King Caucus" -systemet egentlig kun for POTUS-kandidater i 6 valgcyklusser (1800-1820).

I USA er præsidentvalget i det væsentlige et sæt separate valg, hvor hver stat samtidig stemmer for sin stats valg af præsidentvalgte. Som sådan er ansvaret for at udarbejde og udskrive en stats stemmeseddel helt op til denne tilstand. En stat kunne i teorien, hvis det havde lyst, nægte at sætte et stort partis kandidat på stemmesedlen. Før borgerkrigen (især før 1836) var det faktisk relativt almindeligt, at staterne udpegede deres vælgere uden nogen som helst folkelig stemme.

I den nuværende praksis delegerer stater denne opgave til deres egne statslige valgbestyrelser, som har specifikke regler, der skal følges (i henhold til statens love). For eksempel i min egen delstat Oklahoma får partierne valgt deres nominerede, men et parti får kun en streg på stemmesedlen, hvis det fik 10% af stemmerne ved det sidste store valg. Dette gør Oklahoma til en af ​​de hårdeste stater i landet for at komme på stemmesedlen.

1836 er en interessant sag, idet Whig -partiet forsøgte at nominere forskellige kandidater i forskellige regioner i landet. Håbet var, at dette ville forpurre en populær demokratisk-republikansk kandidat ved at blokere valgkollegiet og kaste valget ind i huset, hvor de havde et flertal. Det virkede ikke, og har ikke været prøvet siden.


... Valget i 1824 bragte en ende på både den demokratisk-republikansk-dominerede "æra med god følelse" og brugen af ​​et kongresmøde som nominering. Selvom den demokratisk-republikanske forsamling nominerede William Crawford fra Georgien som sin kandidat, tre andre kandidater (John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay og Andrew Jackson) blev også nomineret af rivaliserende fraktioner i partiet. Efter en bitter konkurrence og en dødvande i valgkollegiet blev Adams valgt til præsident af Repræsentanternes Hus. Senatets referencepapir

I dag udpeger de politiske partier kandidater; i de tidlige dage af republikken opstod nomineringer fra caucus '. Valget i 1824, hvor partiet nominerede flere kandidater og som en konsekvens tabte valget, formede det nuværende system.

Jeg kan ikke finde en klar reference, men stemmesedlerne udskrives af statsstyrelsen for valg, generelt under tilsyn af statens udenrigsminister. Kandidater kvalificerer sig ved at indsende et nominationsbegæring.


Der var ingen officiel "procedure for at afgøre, hvem der deltog i præsidentvalget", fordi i løbet af denne periode der var ingen officielle afstemninger.

I de fleste stater skulle vælgerne skrive navnet på deres foretrukne kandidater på papirrester, men det var problematisk, fordi det krævede, at folk huskede en stor liste med navne, og stemmer blev ofte diskvalificeret på grund af stavefejl.

For at hjælpe vælgerne, parterne leverede deres egne afstemninger med kun deres partis kandidater trykt på dem. Du kan kopiere navne fra stemmesedlen til et stykke papir, eller i nogle stater vil du blot placere den udskrevne festbillet i en stemmeboks. Her er et eksempel på en sådan afstemning (kilde):

Hvordan valgte parterne, hvilke navne der gik på deres stemmesedler?

Der var aldrig noget officielt eller bindende ved nomineringer, der stammede fra Congressional Caucus. Stat parterne var altid frie til at ignorere Caucus og udskrive deres egne stemmesedler med deres egen præsidentkandidat.

OP spurgte: "Med præcis hvilke midler blev [de andre kandidater] nomineret?" De andre kandidater blev normalt nomineret på samme måde som Crawford, men i miniature, af stat caucuses.

Igen, på grund af nomineringernes uofficielle karakter, enhver gruppe, der var utilfreds med statspartiets nominerede, kunne simpelthen udskrive deres egne stemmesedler. Dette er hvad der skete i 1828: Jacksonianerne behøvede ikke at bekymre sig om at "komme på stemmesedlen", fordi de kunne distribuere stemmesedler med Jacksons navn til potentielle tilhængere.

(Opdatering: Forkortet betydeligt fra originalen. Se redigeringslog hvis du vil vide mere.)


John Quincy Adams: Kampagner og valg

Selvom John Quincy Adams burde have været arving til præsidentposten som James Monroes udenrigsminister, var året 1824 et politisk vendepunkt, hvor ingen af ​​de gamle regler gjaldt. Fire andre mænd ønskede også at være præsident, hver med betydelig regional opbakning. John C. Calhoun fra South Carolina havde tjent som krigsekretær i Monroe -administrationen og havde støtte fra slaveejere i Syd, men han havde brug for støtte udefra for at være en levedygtig kandidat. Den politisk ambitiøse og dygtige William H. Crawford fra Georgien nød støtte fra partiets faste i kongressen - især senator Martin Van Buren fra New York - samt betydelig fodfæste i Georgien. Crawford havde tjent som krigsekretær og statskasse i de to tidligere administrationer. Hans største ulempe stammede fra hans eksplosive temperament, som havde fremmedgjort en række andre politiske ledere, herunder præsident Monroe. De to mænd havde næsten engageret sig i en knytnæve i et kabinetsmøde, før Crawford samlede sin forstand nok til at undskylde. Derefter talte de to mænd sjældent til hinanden.

Den mest synlige kandidat var House Speaker Henry Clay. Clay, der var en førende War Hawk under krigen i 1812, havde en magtbase i Kentucky, var en begavet taler og havde støtte til sit såkaldte amerikanske system med beskyttende takster og føderalt sponsorerede interne forbedringer. Hans højt profilerede fortaler for disse spørgsmål gjorde ham til et kendt navn i store dele af landet. Selvom han var velkendt, svækkede hans klare identifikation med krigen og nationalismen hans rødder i Syd, hvilket begyndte at frygte at støtte nogen til præsident, der ikke var slaveejer eller tilhænger af staters rettigheder.

Så var der general Andrew Jackson fra Tennessee, helten i slaget ved New Orleans. Jacksons ry som en indisk fighter og vestlig ekspansionist på grund af hans militære eskapader i spanske Florida (se Jackson -biografi, Life Before the Presidency -sektionen), gav ham national status frem for alle andre kandidater. Det hjalp også, at Jackson kunne deltage i løbet som en outsider, en forsvarer af Republikken, der havde risikeret sit liv i tjeneste for sin nation. Faktisk talte hans tilhængere om ham som en anden George Washington. Få erfarne politikere forventede dog, at Jackson ville vinde, hvis nogen af ​​de modsatte kandidater kunne mægle en tværregional koalition, der ville forene enten Vesten eller Syd med New England eller de midtatlantiske stater.

En sådan koalition var ikke let at opnå. Valget i 1824 skete trods alt på en dag og en alder, hvor et nyt politisk vælgerskab bestående af regionalt fokuserede vælgere først for nylig var blevet bemyndiget til franchisen. Siden 1820 var den gamle politiske forsamlingsmetode, hvormed kongressens ledere nominerede præsidentkandidater, forfaldet. Dette skyldtes hovedsageligt, at det gamle forsamlingssystem ikke formåede at forbinde de nye vælgeres ønsker, titusinder af mænd, der var blevet enfranchised ved fjernelse af ejendomsretten som et kriterium for hvid mandlig stemmeret. Dette nye klima kiggede på regionale godkendelser af kandidater ved statslige konventioner eller statsforsamlinger, hvilket betød, at regional popularitet frem for kongresintriger ville drive nomineringsprocessen.

Selv om Adams var en slags centristisk politiker-en Jeffersonian-Federalist for at mønte et nyt begreb-identificerede mange amerikanere ham stadig som en New Englander og som søn af den gamle federalistiske leder John Adams. Derudover bebrejdede mange trofaste demokratiske-republikanere Adams og hans tilhængere for at have forvandlet Jefferson-partiet til en forklædt form for federalisme under rubrikken "Nationale republikanere". Sydboere protesterede desuden mod Adams på grund af hans moralske modstand mod slaveri. De huskede hans kritik af Missouri -kompromiset fra 1820 som en proslaveri -sammensværgelse, og de mindede mistænkeligt Adams bestræbelser på at inkludere sprog, der var imod den internationale slavehandel, i Gent -traktaten, der sluttede krigen i 1812.

Fire demokratiske-republikanske kandidater

I sommeren 1824 nominerede en uofficiel generalforsamling på mindre end en tredjedel af kongresmedlemmerne Crawford til præsident. Tilhængere af Adams fordømte caucus-bud, og Massachusetts-lovgiver nominerede Adams som deres yndlings-sønskandidat. Kentucky -lovgiver gjorde det samme for Clay. Begge nomineringer fulgte det mønster, der blev fastsat af Tennessee -lovgiveren, som havde nomineret Andrew Jackson i 1822. John C. Calhoun fra South Carolina droppede ud af præsidentløbet ved at annoncere sit bud på vicepræsidentskabet, et skridt, som både Adams og Crawford støttede. Fordi alle fire kandidater var nominelle demokratiske-republikanere-Federalistpartiet var gået i opløsning på dette tidspunkt-ville valget blive afgjort uden henvisning til partitilknytning.

Efterhånden som kampagnen skred frem, fremkom Jackson som manden, han skulle slå. Størrelsen på hans stævner i vigtige svingstater - Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, New York og New Jersey - overgik eller rivaliserede langt dem, der var for Clay og Adams. Ved dette første valg i amerikansk historie, hvor folkeafstemningen havde betydning - fordi atten stater valgte præsidentvalgte ved folkeafstemning i 1824 (seks stater overlod stadig valget til deres statslovgivere) - forudsagde Jacksons popularitet en ny æra undervejs. Da de sidste stemmer blev optalt i de atten stater, indhentede Jackson 152.901 populære stemmer til Adams 114.023 Clay vandt 47.217, og Crawford vandt 46.979. Valgkollegiet vender imidlertid tilbage til Jackson kun 99 stemmer, 32 færre end han havde brug for til et flertal af de samlede afgivne stemmer. Adams vandt 84 valgstemmer efterfulgt af 41 for Crawford og 37 for Clay.

Jackson var den eneste kandidat til at tiltrække betydelig støtte ud over sin regionale base. Han havde størstedelen af ​​valgstemmer i elleve stater: Alabama, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina og Tennessee. Adams vandt alle seks New England -stater plus New York. Crawford og Clay havde kun tre stater hver - Delaware, Georgia og Virginia for Crawford og Kentucky, Missouri og Ohio for Clay.

I henhold til den tolvte ændring af forfatningen mødtes Repræsentanternes Hus for at vælge præsidenten blandt de tre bedste kandidater. Henry Clay blev som kandidat med færrest valgstemmer elimineret fra forhandlingen. Som formand for huset var Clay dog ​​stadig den vigtigste spiller til at bestemme valgresultatet. Valget i Parlamentet fandt sted i februar 1825. Med hver stat, der havde én stemme, som bestemt af flertallet af hver stats kongresrepræsentanter, ønskede Adams sig som vinder med en sejrsmargin på én stemme. De fleste af Clays tilhængere, sammen med flere gamle federalister, skiftede deres stemmer til Adams i nok stater til at give ham valget. Kort efter sin indsættelse som præsident udpegede Adams Henry Clay til sin udenrigsminister.

En "korrupt handel"?

Jackson kunne næsten ikke dæmme sin raseri over at have tabt valget i det, han påstod var en "korrupt aftale" mellem Adams og Clay om at vælte folkets vilje. For de fleste tilhængere af Jackson så det ud som om kongresledere havde sammensvoret for at genoplive valgsystemet, hvor kongressen i høj grad påvirkede - hvis ikke fastlagt - valget af præsident. Jackson lagde skylden på Clay og fortalte alle, der ville lytte, at taleren havde henvendt sig til ham med tilbud om en aftale: Clay ville støtte Jackson til gengæld for Jacksons udnævnelse af Clay som udenrigsminister. Da Jackson nægtede, indgik Clay angiveligt aftalen med Adams i stedet. I Jacksons ord havde Clay solgt sin indflydelse i en "korrupt handel".

Clay nægtede anklagerne, og selvom der helt sikkert havde været nogle bag-kulisserne manøvreret af Clay for at skubbe afstemningen til Adams, afspejlede det højst sandsynligt Clays ægte tvivl om Jacksons kvalifikationer til kontoret. Ved vurderingen af ​​oddsene for med succes at videresende sin egen politiske dagsorden satte Clay spørgsmålstegn ved Jacksons engagement i det "amerikanske system" af interne forbedringer. På den anden side vidste Clay, at Adams havde støttet det konsekvent gennem årene. Også tabet af tre stater, som Jackson havde vundet ved den populære afstemning - Illinois, Maryland og Louisiana - på grund af kongresmedlemmernes tilbagetog, der støttede Adams, tyder på, at mere var involveret i resultatet end politisk manøvrering af en mand. Vred blev Jackson fratrådt sin plads i Senatet og lovede at vinde præsidentposten i 1828 som en outsider til politikken i Washington.

Kampagnen og valget i 1828

Inden for måneder efter Adams indvielse i 1825 nominerede Tennessee -lovgiver Andrew Jackson til præsident. I løbet af de næste tre år sammensatte Jackson en meget disciplineret græsrodskampagne med ét mål: at besejre John Quincy Adams i en omkamp, ​​der ville stille "folket" mod Adams. Jackson udsendte såkaldte memorandums (en misbrug af ordet, der elskede ham til hans voksende vestlige valgkreds), hvor han skitserede erosionen af ​​repræsentativ magt i løbet af de sidste årtier i hænderne på "gamesters" som Clay og Adams. I Jacksons sind var den "korrupte handel" bare en af ​​en række sådanne ordninger. Jackson hævdede, at panikken fra 1819, et ødelæggende økonomisk sammenbrud, var et resultat af (1) en sammensværgelse af kritisable kreditorer og Bank of the United States, (2) den ubetalte nationale gæld, (3) de politiske svindlere i embede fra Madison gennem Adams - planmænd, der ville blive vist med en Jackson -sejr - og (4) "King Caucus" -handlerne bagved for at vælge en præsident i modstrid med folkelig mening.

Mens Jackson udsendte sine erklæringer og rejste rundt i landet for at afslutte støtte, overtog hans mest strålende løjtnant, Martin Van Buren fra New York, pligterne som en kampagneleder. Van Buren havde skiftet troskab fra Crawford til Jackson kort efter valget i 1824. Hans indsats derefter var fokuseret på at sikre en sejr til Jackson ved den populære afstemning. Van Burens strategi var at fremstille Jackson som leder af et disciplineret og problemorienteret parti, der var forpligtet til staters rettigheder og de gamle Jeffersonian-republikaneres ideologi med begrænset regering.

I året før valget i 1828 begyndte Van Burens organisatoriske bestræbelser at skabe en ny politisk enhed, der ville blive til virkelighed i 1830'erne. Ved valget i 1828 fokuserede Van Buren på at forbinde modstanderne af federalisme i nord og syd til en koalition, som han forestillede sig som arving til det gamle Jeffersonian Republican Party. Efter hans mening ville sejr for denne nye bevægelse beskytte slaveriet i syd, sikre legitimiteten af ​​flertalsstyre baseret på direkte afstemning på kandidater fra vælgerne og garantere bevarelse af Unionen med staters rettigheder som det grundlæggende grundlag for amerikansk frihed . Da han vandt støtte fra vicepræsident John C. Calhoun og magtfulde politiske ledere i Virginia, lagde Van Buren effektivt grundlaget for et partisystem, der ville bestå indtil borgerkrigen. (Calhoun var på vej væk fra sin efterkrigstidens ideologi om nationalisme til en stats rettighedskonservatisme, der mere afspejlede hans regions frygt for afskaffelse, dyre interne forbedringer og høje beskyttelsestold.)

Mens Jackson og Van Buren organiserede, udførte Adams flittigt formandskabets opgaver og nægtede at forberede sig selv eller sine tilhængere til den kommende konkurrence. Adams fjernede ikke engang sine mest højlydte modstandere fra det ansættende embede og hævdede den gammeldags opfattelse, at en kandidat skulle "stå" for kontoret, ikke "stille op". Da valgkampen officielt begyndte, vedtog Adams tilhængere formelt navnet Nationalrepublikanere i modsætning til demokraterne og forsøgte derved at identificere sig nøjagtigt med koblingen mellem gammeldags federalisme og en ny nationalistisk republikanisme. Jacksonians derimod argumenterede for en ny revolutionær bevægelse, der hvilede på en fast tro på majoritært demokrati og staters rettigheder - ideer, der ikke altid var forenelige.

Personlige kampagnekampe

Selvom spørgsmålene klart adskilte kandidaterne ad flere linjer end valget siden 1800, var selve kampagnen meget personlig. Det var faktisk den første kampagne i historien, der brugte valgmaterialer som kampagneknapper, slogans, plakater, tokens, kolber, snusbokse, medaljoner, trådkasser, tændstikæsker, krus og stofbilleder så omfattende. Næsten alle disse kampagnedragter skildrede et eller andet aspekt af kandidatens populære image. Jacksons status som krigshelt og grænser spillede langt bedre med offentligheden end Adams stive udseende ældste statsmand.

Ingen af ​​kandidaterne tog personligt kampagne i 1828, men deres politiske tilhængere organiserede stævner, parader og demonstrationer. I den populære presse nåede de retoriske angreb et niveau af grusomhed og vildledelse, der ikke er set siden valget i 1800. Jackson blev anklaget for flere mord, for ekstrem personlig vold og for at have levet i synd med sin kone, Rachel, der selv var angrebet som en bigamist. Adams blev derimod angrebet for sine legalistiske holdninger, for sin udenlandskfødte kone og for angiveligt at have skaffet unge amerikanske jomfruer til den russiske zar som den primære bedrift i hans diplomatiske karriere. Adams kritikere omtalte ham som "Hans excellens", mens Jackson blev angrebet som en dårligt opført, knap civiliseret, træskovsmorder af indianere.

I et mesterslag i populærpolitikken brugte Jacksonianerne godt på generalens kaldenavn, Old Hickory. Han havde tjent navnet, fordi han var kendt for at være så hård som hickory træ. For at offentliggøre hans image satte Jackson -tilhængere hickory -stænger over hele landet, delte hickory -tandstikkere og -stokke og serverede grill, der blev fyret af hickory -chips.

Stemplingen af ​​Jacksons kone som en "amerikansk Jezebel" og dømt utroskab - fordi hun havde giftet sig med Jackson, før hendes skilsmisse fra et tidligere ægteskab var afsluttet - gav overraskende bagslag som en valgstrategi. Det frigjorde en modreaktion mod Adams for at have ydmyget en kvinde, der havde levet i 40 år som general Jacksons hengivne kone, for groft at have krænket generalens privatliv og ære og for at have anvendt snævert legalistiske udtalelser i stedet for sund fornuft. For utallige amerikanere repræsenterede Jacksons dueller, slagsmål, henrettelser og uautoriserede sejre sejren for, hvad der var rigtigt og godt over anvendelsen af ​​stivsindede og snævert fortolkede principper. Angrebene forstærkede ganske enkelt Jacksons image som en autentisk amerikansk helt, der havde tiltrukket sig hans naturlige adel og magtfulde vilje til at sejre mod skrupelløse politiske fjender, uddannede elitister, den britiske hærs stolthed og "hedenske vilde" - ofte på samme tid.

Kampagnen viste sig mere end det dobbelte af antallet af vælgere, der havde afstemt i 1824 - cirka 57 procent af vælgerne. Jackson vandt valget i et jordskred, og med en stor margen på 95 valgstemmer. Adams bar New England, Delaware, en del af Maryland, New Jersey og seksten af ​​New Yorks valgstemmer - i alt ni stater. Jackson bar de resterende femten stater i syd, nordvest, midten af ​​Atlanterhavet og vest. Sittende vicepræsident John C. Calhoun vandt 171 valgstemmer til 83 for Richard Rush fra Pennsylvania, Adams løbekammerat.


Aktivitet 1. Hvordan blev kandidater nomineret i 1824

I 1824 var der stadig ingen nationale partikonventioner, som vi kender dem i dag, de begyndte i 1832. Kandidater blev generelt nomineret af statslovgivere, partiledere eller ved samlinger af partimedlemmer i kongressen, kendt som en "forsamling". Del med klassen afsnittene "The Congressional Nominating Caucus" og "Decline of the Nominating Caucus" fra artiklen Caucus om Groliers The American Presidency, et link fra det EDSITEment-gennemgåede websted Internet Public Library. William Crawford var den kandidat, der blev nomineret af det demokratiske-republikanske møde i 1824. Hans nominering af caucus var et kampagnespørgsmål, ligesom hans helbred.

Hvis det ønskes, kan eleverne se og/eller læse Anti-Caucus/Caucus Broadside fra 1824 på EDSITEment-ressourcen American Memory, hvor der vises en erklæring side om side-underskrevet af 22 lovgivere-der hævder et flertal af republikanske kongresmedlemmer var anti-caucus, og en anden meddelte tid og sted for generalforsamlingen. Redaktionelle kommentarer fra Washington republikaner "lykønsker befolkningen i USA med de forskellige aspekter, som de to udsagn præsenterer."


Hvordan udpeger amerikanske politiske partier en kandidat til præsident? For at vinde nomineringen i et af partierne indsamler kandidaten løfter fra et flertal af delegerede til partiernes nationale stævner, der i øjeblikket afholdes i løbet af sommeren før valget i november. Der er tre metoder, der i øjeblikket bruges til at fordele delegerede til præsidentkandidater: 1) Caucus -systemet, 2) det primære system eller 3) en kombination af de to. For at bestemme deres kandidat afholder hver stat en politisk konkurrence, kaldet en forsamling eller primær. Caucus -metoden er organiseret af de politiske partier, hvorimod primærvalg organiseres og overvåges af statsregeringen. Den kandidat, der sikrer det højeste antal delegerede ved den politiske konvention, vinder nomineringen og konkurrerer ved folketingsvalget. Hvordan har historien formet denne nomineringsproces, og hvordan påvirkede frimureriet udviklingen af ​​denne proces?

Som den ældre metode til valg af delegerede blev caucus -systemet anvendt af alle stater i Unionen indtil valget i 1832. Udtrykket “caucus ” stammer fra latinsk oprindelse, hvilket betyder “a drikkefartøj ” og blev brugt til at beskrive uformelle lokale politiske klubber før dannelsen af ​​USA.

Et caucus er defineret som et#møde i en politisk gruppe for at udvælge kandidater, planlægge strategi eller træffe beslutninger vedrørende lovgivningsmæssige spørgsmål. ” I nomineringsprocessen er et møde et lokalt møde, hvor registrerede medlemmer af et parti samles for at vælge en delegeret, der kan repræsentere dem ved den nationale konvention. I de fleste stater stemmer deltagerne i kommunalbestyrelsen på deres foretrukne partikandidat, som informerer og leder en procentdel af delstatens delegation ved National Party Convention. I 2016 deltog cirka 123.500 demokratiske vælgere i Colorado deres lokale møde den 1. marts og stemte for at vælge en partikandidat. I modsætning hertil besluttede det republikanske parti i Colorado at opgive at stemme på en kandidat i deres distriktsmøder og valgte kun delegerede til deres fremtidige stævne. Det betyder, at af de 5,5 millioner borgere i Colorado stemte kun 2,2 procent af befolkningen for at vælge en præsidentkandidat til folketingsvalget 2016.

I 2016 udnyttede tretten stater (Iowa, Nevada, Colorado, Minnesota, Kansas, Nebraska, Maine, Idaho, Utah, Alaska, Hawaii, Washington og Wyoming) forsamlingssystemet. I de fleste stater er det kun registrerede vælgere, der kan deltage i et møde, og de er begrænset til generalforsamlingen i det parti, de er tilknyttet. Caucuses bruges typisk i kombination med kongressdistriktsforsamlinger og en statskonference til at vælge delegerede til den nationale nomineringskonference til præsidentvalg.

Primæren

En primær er en statsstyret proces med udvælgelse af kandidater og delegerede, hvor resultaterne bruges til at bestemme konfigurationen af ​​delegerede ved hvert parts nationale stævne. I modsætning til caucuses udføres primærvalg på almindelige valgsteder, betalt af staten og overvåget af statslige valgembedsmænd. Vælgerne afgav en hemmelig afstemning for deres foretrukne kandidat, sammenlignet med forsamlinger, hvor afstemningen foretages i et gruppeforum normalt ved håndsoprækning eller opdeling i grupper baseret på støtte. I 2016, 37 amerikanske stater (New Hampshire, South Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Massachusetts, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Florida, Illinois, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Arizona, Wisconsin, New York, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Indiana, West Virginia, Kentucky, Oregon, Californien, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakot a og South Dakota) og District of Columbia vil foretage et primærvalg. Vælgerdeltagelse har en tendens til at være betydeligt højere i primærvalg. I 2016 stemte mere end 1,5 millioner borgere i staten Missouri til at nominere kandidater til præsident. Med cirka 6 millioner mennesker, der bor i Missouri, svarer det til, at 25 procent af befolkningen stemmer på en præsidentkandidat.

Der er flere typer primærvalg i det amerikanske system: lukket primær, halvlukket primær, åben primær og halv åben primær.

  • Lukket primær: Deltagelse er kun åben for et bestemt politisk partis registrerede medlemmer. Uafhængige eller andre partimedlemmer kan ikke deltage. Florida har en lukket primær.
  • Halvlukket primær: Deltagelse er åben for registrerede partimedlemmer og ikke -tilknyttede vælgere. Statsvalgsregler afgør, om ikke -tilknyttede vælgere må træffe deres valg. New Hampshire har en semi-lukket primær.
  • Åben primær: Enhver registreret vælger kan deltage i en hvilken som helst primærparti. Illinois holder en åben primær.
  • Halvåben primær: Enhver registreret vælger kan deltage i ethvert primærparti, men når de identificerer sig for valgembedsmænd, skal de anmode om et partis specifikke afstemning. Ohio holder en halvåben primær.

Før 1970'erne brugte de fleste stater caucus -systemet til at vælge deres delegerede, men offentligt oprør over korruption fra politiske chefer førte til betydelige ændringer i processen til valget i 1972. Forsamlingssystemet begunstigede magtfulde ledere med træk i deres delegation som den berømte partichef Borgmester Daley i Chicago. I 1968 udtalte CBS -reporter, Martin Plissner, "Hvis Daley instruerer Illinois -delegaterne om at stemme på Ho Chi Minh, vil alle undtagen tyve stemmer gå til Ho Chi Minh uden spørgsmål." I et forsøg på at gøre nomineringsprocessen mere inklusiv og gennemsigtig har de fleste stater flyttet til det primære system.

Politiske partis nationale konventioner

Hvert fjerde år afholdes et politisk partis nationale stævne, normalt om sommeren, af de store politiske partier, der stiller nominerede til det kommende amerikanske præsidentvalg i november. Formålet med den nationale konvention er at vælge den part, der er nomineret til præsident, vedtage en politisk platform, og vedtage reglerne for partiets aktiviteter i den næste valgcyklus. Under stævnet afholdes der et navneopråb af stemmerne, hvor hver statsdelegation annoncerer sine stemmesummer. Hvis ingen kandidat sikrer et flertal af delegerede under den første afstemning, påberåbes en “Brokered Convention ”. I en formidlet konvention frigives de fleste pantsatte delegerede fra deres aftaler om at støtte en bestemt kandidat, og delegerede kan derefter skifte deres troskab til en anden kandidat. Partinominering afgøres derefter gennem en debatproces og afrunder genstemning, indtil en kandidat er valgt.

Historisk analyse: Frimurer Andrew Jackson og reformer til nomineringsprocessen

Inden 1820 ville kongresmedlemmer holde et møde i møde og nominere kandidater fra deres parti. Der var ingen primærvalg eller nationale stævner, i stedet var kongrespartimedlemmer samlet i et møde for at beslutte partiets kandidat. Systemet blev ændret efter det amerikanske præsidentvalg i 1824, omtalt som “The Corrupt Bargain, ”, da Andrew Jackson vandt den populære og valgbare college -afstemning, men det amerikanske repræsentanthus valgte John Quincy Adams til at være præsident. Mr. Jackson afviste korruptionen med angivelse af, “Jeg græder over mit lands frihed, når jeg på denne tidlige dag af dets vellykkede eksperiment ser, at korruption er blevet tilregnet mange medlemmer af Repræsentanternes Hus, og folkets rettigheder har blevet byttet om for løfter om embede. ”

Andrew Jackson, frimurer og stormester i Grand Lodge of Tennessee (1822-1824), var blandt de mest strenge kritikere af caucus-metoden til udvælgelse af kandidater. I sit præsidentbud fra 1828 løb Jackson med den højlydte hensigt at genoprette folkets stemme til valgprocessen. Som en mand i folket hævdede Andrew Jackson, at caucus -systemet var elitært og udemokratisk, da kun en lille procentdel af befolkningen var involveret i processen. Jackson lovede, at han ville åbne systemet for at øge vælgernes politiske magt, og han foreslog at eliminere Electoral College og indføre et direkte folkeligt valg af præsidenten. Jackson argumenterede, ” Vores regering er baseret på folkets intelligens. Jeg fortvivler ikke for republikken. Jeg har stor tillid til den store flertals dyd, og jeg kan ikke frygte resultatet. deltog mod kun 300.000 i 1824.


Valg fra 1789 til 1828

Dette afsnit indeholder oplysninger og memorabilia om valget fra 1789 til 1828. Rul ned på siden for at lære mere om bestemte valgår.

Valg 1789

Ved dette første valg var der ingen officiel nominering. George Washington blev holdt af så stor agtelse af de andre grundlæggere og var så populær, at der ikke var nogen seriøse rivaler til hans valg. Han havde ikke kampagne for kontoret eller holdt taler på egne vegne. Hver vælger afgav en stemme til Washington (69 stemmer). For at undgå stemmelighed ved formandskabet blev den anden afstemning delt mellem elleve andre potentielle kandidater. Med det næsthøjeste i alt (34 stemmer) blev John Adams vicepræsident. Thus, in the first test of the Electoral College, George Washington was chosen as the first U.S. President and inaugurated in New York City on April 30, 1789. Virginia cast its 10 electoral votes for George Washington.

Election of 1792

Many agreed that George Washington’s reelection was essential to the stability of the new nation. Although he had initially planned to retire, he agreed to serve another term. Again, there was no campaign, and Washington was elected unanimously, receiving 132 electoral votes. John Adams came in second with 77 votes, followed by George Clinton with 50 votes. There were now fifteen states, and all participated. Electors were chosen by state legislatures in nine states and by popular vote in the other six. The friction between the developing political parties intensified during Washington’s second administration. When Washington declined to run for a third term the election of 1796 marked the first real contest for the presidency. Virginia cast its 21 electoral votes for George Washington.

Election of 1796

The friction between the developing political parties, the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans, intensified during Washington’s second administration. When Washington declined to run for a third term the election of 1796 marked the first real contest for the presidency. Through private letters and meetings leaders of each faction chose their candidates for the election. Federalists selected John Adams, Thomas Pinckney, and Oliver Ellsworth, while Democratic-Republicans favored Thomas Jefferson, Aaron Burr, Samuel Adams, and George Clinton. As was the custom of the time, the candidates did not actively participate or campaign on their own behalf. However, their supporters tried to influence electors (or voters in those states where a popular vote chose the electors) through partisan newspapers and pamphlets. In addition to domestic policy, the two parties differed in their view of America’s support of England and France. Jefferson, who was sympathetic to the idea of liberty in the French Revolution, was labeled by Federalists as an “anarchist” and “Jacobin” (a French political radical). John Adams, who detested the French Revolution and who favored closer economic ties with England, was attacked by Democratic-Republicans as a “monarchist” who opposed liberty.

Adams became the second president when he received 71 votes, only three more than Jefferson, who served as vice president. This was the only time that a president and vice president were from different parties. Of its 21 electoral votes, Virginia cast
20 for Jefferson and 1 for John Adams.

Election of 1800

Through private letters and meetings, leaders of the two major factions, the Federalists and the Republicans, chose their candidates for the election of 1800. For the first time, congressmen for each political party met to nominate candidates. The Federalists selected John Adams and Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, while the Republicans put forward Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr. The candidates remained outwardly aloof but relied on partisan newspapers, pamphlets, and personal letters to obtain support. Activists of opposing parties often used vehement name calling and smear tactics against Adams and Jefferson. The Constitution did not distinguish between candidates for the presidency and vice presidency. As a result, when each Democratic-Republican elector cast his two votes for Jefferson and Burr, the result was a tie (each man got 73 votes). John Adams received 65 votes and Pinckney 64. For the first time, the House of Representatives was called upon to decide a presidential election. After 35 ballots, however, it still had not chosen a president. Finally, Federalist Alexander Hamilton, detesting Burr more, used his influence to support Jefferson, who won the election and became the third president.

This election marked the first peaceful transfer of power from one party to another. It also resulted in the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution (ratified in 1804), which declared separate voting for presidential and vice-presidential candidates. Virginia cast its 21 electoral votes for Thomas Jefferson.

Election of 1804

Thomas Jefferson was easily nominated by the Democratic-Republican caucus to run for a second term. With the Louisiana Purchase expanding the nation and economic prosperity at home, the resultant popularity made him difficult to beat. George Clinton replaced Aaron Burr as the vice-presidential candidate. With the retirement of John Adams and the death of Alexander Hamilton in a duel against Aaron Burr, the Federalist Party was disorganized. Without a caucus, it agreed to support Charles Cotesworth Pinckney and Rufus King. Partisan newspapers attacked the candidates. Federalists claimed the purchase of the Louisiana territory was unconstitutional. They accused Jefferson of having an enslaved lover and repeated old charges of atheism and cowardice during the Revolutionary War. Nevertheless, the Federalists could not overcome Jefferson’s popularity.

Jefferson easily defeated Pinckney by a landslide of 162 electoral votes to 14. For the first time, electors chose the president and vice-president separately. Virginia cast its 24 electoral votes for Thomas Jefferson.

Election of 1808

War between England and France during the two Jefferson administrations led the United States to enact the Embargo Act in 1807, which imposed economic sanctions against these countries. This proved unpopular with its own economic interest and became the main issue against Jefferson’s secretary of state, James Madison, who represented the Democratic-Republicans in the 1808 election. Again, the candidates gave no speeches on their own behalf, and the campaign was conducted primarily in the press and private writings.

Despite the growing strength of the Federalist Party, Madison and Vice President George Clinton won easily over Federalist Charles Cotesworth Pinckney and Rufus King with 122 electoral votes to 47. Virginia cast its 24 electoral votes for James Madison.

Election of 1812

The election of 1812 was our country’s first wartime election. Attacks on American shipping, impressments of American sailors, and a desire to remove England from Canada led to the War of 1812. The conflict was the major issue of the campaign. The Federalist Party denounced the war as “Mr. Madison’s War,” and in a national convention, it nominated DeWitt Clinton seeking to gain support from disgruntled antiwar Democratic-Republicans as well. The Democratic-Republican caucus selected James Madison for reelection. Eldridge Gerry replaced George Clinton as the candidate for vice president. James Madison easily won reelection when he received 128 electoral votes to 89 for Clinton. Virginia cast its 25 electoral votes for James Madison.

Valg af 1816

Following the conclusion of the War of 1812 and the popular victory at the Battle of New Orleans, the Democratic-Republicans became the dominant political party. The Federalists, who had opposed “Mr. Madison’s War,” were in disarray. Although they nominated Rufus King for president, there was little actual support. James Monroe received the Democratic-Republican nomination, though there was some opposition to nominating another Virginian for president. Once the Democratic-Republican candidate was nominated, the election of 1816 was over. In the election, James Monroe received 183 electoral votes to 34 for the opposition. Rufus King was the last Federalist candidate for president. Virginia cast its 25 electoral votes for James Monroe.

Election of 1820

In 1820, James Monroe ran for reelection unopposed by a Federalist candidate. The only presidential candidate to do that since George Washington. The election was almost unanimous with Monroe receiving 228 or 231 electoral votes. The different totals arose because of the dispute over the validity of Missouri's 3 electoral votes, which related to the timing of its assumption of statehood. A single elector voted for John Quincy Adams, who was also a Democratic-Republican, to keep the electoral college vote from being unanimous. James Monroe was the last of the “Founding Fathers,” last of the succession of Virginians (with the exception of John Adams), and the last Revolutionary War veteran to be president. Virginia cast its 25 electoral votes for James Monroe.

Election of 1824

In the absence of a replacement for the defunct Federalist Party, all the major candidates for the presidency in 1824 were Democratic-Republicans. Sectional differences over slavery had been temporarily solved by the Missouri Compromise of 1820, and election issues centered on individual personalities as well as regional economic interests. The candidates in the election included Secretary of State John Quincy Adams Speaker of the House Henry Clay Congressman John C. Calhoun of South Carolina Secretary of the Treasury William Crawford and Andrew Jackson, the hero of the War of 1812. Calhoun dropped out of the race because he could not get sufficient electoral votes in the north. Crawford, who was initially the most popular and considered the early leader for the presidency, suffered a paralyzing stroke in 1823, but despite this, he was nominated by a poorly attended Democratic-Republican congressional caucus. The candidate with the least legislative experience was Jackson, but as the contest went on, he continued to gain widespread popular support. Friends of Jackson promoted him as a patriot, a national hero, and champion of the people.

Throughout the campaign supporters of the candidates made use of published letters, newspapers, and handbills to promote their choice and vehemently attack opponents. Clay was denounced as a drunkard, Jackson was accused of murder, Adams was considered an aloof snob, and Crawford was accused of mismanaging public funds. Although Andrew Jackson received the greatest number of popular and electoral votes (99 electoral votes to 84 for Adams, 41 for Crawford, and 37 for Clay), no candidate received a majority, and once again the contest went to the House of Representatives. Under the rules of the Twelfth Amendment, Henry Clay was eliminated, as only the top three candidates were eligible. With Clay’s support, the House decided on John Quincy Adams as president. Shortly after, Henry Clay was announced as the new secretary of state. Jackson supporters were furious. They claimed that their candidate, despite having received the most popular votes, had been cheated by a “corrupt bargain” between Adams and Clay. They vowed to get even in the next election. Virginia cast its 24 electoral votes for William Crawford.

Election of 1828

Convinced that the 1824 election had been stolen from him, Andrew Jackson and his supporters sought vindication in 1828. After the 1824 election, they began to form party organizations throughout the country. At first known as the “Jackson Party,” it eventually became the Democrats. In response, supporters of John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay organized as the National Republicans, thus giving rise to a national two-party system.

By 1828 relaxation of the voting restrictions meant that nearly all white males could vote, and because voters could cast a ballot for electors committed to their favorite candidate, it was apparent to political factions that candidates would need to advertise to attract this “common man” vote. Although this election was the first to use campaign objects to influence the voter, most campaigning centered on the personalities rather than reflecting on political issues. Both sides engaged in vehement mudslinging with distorted stories about both candidates printed in newspapers and posters. Democrats not only continued to accuse Adams of a “corrupt bargain” in the 1824 election, but they also accused him of gambling in the White House and nefarious activity while a minister to Russia. Republicans accused Jackson of numerous sins including gambling, slave trading, adultery, and murder. A widely distributed broadside that featured six coffins on it, known as the “Coffin Handbill,” claimed that Jackson had six soldiers executed during the War of 1812 who had completed their service and wanted to go home but were falsely accused of desertion.

Jackson’s image and popularity, as well as his new campaign style of mixing entertainment with politics, brought him a decisive victory. Voter turnout tripled compared to the prior election. With 56 percent of the popular vote, Andrew Jackson received 178 electoral votes to 83 for Adams. Virginia cast its 24 electoral votes for Andrew Jackson.

Bliv medlem! Nyd spændende fordele, og udforsk nye udstillinger året rundt.


1824: The Corrupt Bargain

Better known as the corrupt bargain, the election of 1824 had four key players: John Quincy Adams, son of founding father John Adams, Andrew Jackson, candidate of the people, Henry Clay, House Speaker and underdog William Crawford. Before this election, the US had only had five presidents and the country was a very different place than it is today. Firstly, there were no parties as we know them now. Candidates identified as Whigs, Federalists, or a variety of others, but a candidate’s party did not matter as much as with whom he identified (common people or the elite) and with whom he was friends with. It is important to understand the idiosyncrasies of the political system, especially as they stood in the early 1800s. In 1804, the 12th Amendment was passed stating the presidency would be awarded to the candidate who held a majority of the votes in the electoral college. If a candidate could do this, they would win the election.

As the election approached the people clearly favored the charismatic Andrew Jackson. Jackson, a war hero concentrated his political positions on supporting the working class people. John Quincy Adams on the other hand, ran with a brash, off-putting attitude, but strong political and financial backing. His father had been a president, he himself served as the secretary of state since 1817, and he was well connected with strong business and political backers. Henry Clay and William Crawford, though contenders for the position were no match against Adams and Jackson. That being said, they held a critical role in this election.

When the ballots were tallied Andrew Jackson appeared to have won with 99 electoral votes, and 43% of the popular vote. Adams grabbed 84 electoral votes and the remaining 78 votes were split between Clay and Crawford. As previously mentioned, the only way for a candidate to win the presidency was by a majority vote in the electoral college, not just a plurality. For those who don’t know, a majority is only achieved when a candidate wins more than 50% of the votes while a plurality is simply more than anyone else. By not meeting this qualification, Both Adams and Jackson were moved to a “round 2” of voting. This second round of elections would be decided by the House of Representatives. It is important to note that Henry Clay still held his position of speaker of the house, a position in the House of representatives.

This campaign was a fierce battle between the desires of the people and the wants of those with the power. While it was clear in the first round of elections, that the people favored Jackson, the House of Representatives was a much different ball game. This group of people was composed of the powerful wealthy people whom Adams was friends with. On top of these connections, Adams had spoken to Clay who had strong influence over the election. While there is no official proof of a deal was made, Clay swung his support towards Adams convincing the rest of the House to join. While this in itself was not extremely shocking, as Clay did not particularly like Jackson during the first round of elections, it was in the aftermath of the election that gives this election its importance in history. Following Adams being declared president, he named Clay Secretary of State (a position of power well placed for moving up in the government).

While the 12th amendment is still in place now, the election of 1824 is the only election in which the House of Representatives was called in to determine who would become president. Scandals about how a candidate has won the presidency have popped up throughout history however the most famous is still the corrupt bargain of 1824.


The Nastiest, Strangest Presidential Elections in US History

Reading the political news, you'd think this election is the nastiest, most contentious and most important our nation has ever faced. No doubt the outcome matters, but in the annals of American elections, this one barely registers for sheer strangeness.

In fact, electoral politics have always been a down-and-dirty business, starting at least as early as 1800, when our founding fathers proved themselves adept at bitter battles. Other elections have featured nasty accusations, bizarre happenstance and even the death of one of the candidates.

Read on for five of the strangest presidential elections in U.S. history.

1. The very first one, 1788-1789

The first presidential election in our nation's history was one-of-a-kind in that it was literally no contest. Organized political parties had yet to form, and George Washington ran unopposed. His victory is the only one in the nation's history to feature 100 percent of the Electoral College vote. [Quiz: Weirdest Presidential Elections]

The real question in 1788 was who would become vice president. At the time, this office was awarded to the runner-up in the electoral vote (each elector cast two votes to ensure there would be a runner-up.) Eleven candidates made a play for the vice-presidency, but John Adams came out on top.

2. It's a tie, 1800

Electoral politics got serious in 1800. Forget the hand-holding peace of George Washington's first run &mdash political parties were in full swing by this time, and they battled over high-stakes issues (taxes, states' rights and foreign policy alignments). Thomas Jefferson ran as the Democratic-Republican candidate and John Adams as the Federalist.

At the time, states got to pick their own election days, so voting ran from April to October (and you thought waiting for the West Coast polls to close was frustrating). Because of the complicated "pick two" voting structure in the Electoral College, the election ended up a tie between Jefferson and his vice-presidential pick, Aaron Burr. One South Carolina delegate was supposed to give one of his votes on another candidate, so as to arrange for Jefferson to win and Burr to come in second. The plan somehow went wrong, and both men ended up with 73 electoral votes.

That sent the tie-breaking vote to the House of Representatives, not all of whom were on board with a Jefferson presidency and Burr vice-presidency. Seven tense days of voting followed, but Jefferson finally pulled ahead of Burr. The drama triggered the passage of the 12th amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which stipulates that the Electoral College pick the president and vice-president separately, doing away with the runner-up complications.

3. Things get nasty, 1828

Anything involving dueling war veteran Andrew Jackson was liable to get dirty, but the 1828 electoral battle between Jackson and John Quincy Adams took the cake for mud slinging. Jackson had lost out to Adams in 1824 after Speaker of the House Henry Clay cast a tie-breaking vote. When Adams chose Clay as his Secretary of State, Jackson was furious and accused the two of a "corrupt bargain."

And that was before the 1828 election even got started, when Adams was accused of pimping out an American girl to a Russian Czar. Jackson's wife, Rachel, was called a "convicted adulteress," because she had, years earlier, married Jackson before finalizing her divorce to her previous husband. Rachel died after Jackson won the election, but before his inauguration at her funeral, Jackson blamed his opponents' bigamy accusations. "May God Almighty forgiver her murderers, as I know she forgave them," Jackson said. "I never can." [6 Most Tragic Love Stories in History]

To round out a rough election, Jackson's inauguration party (open to the public) turned into a mob scene, with thousands of well-wishers crowding into the White House.

"Ladies fainted, men were seen with bloody noses, and such a scene of confusion took place as is impossible to describe," wrote Margaret Smith, a Washington socialite who attended the party.

4. Running against a corpse, 1872

In 1872, incumbent Ulysses S. Grant had an easy run for a second term &mdash because his opponent died before the final votes were cast.

Grant had the election in the bag even before his opponent, Horace Greeley, died, however. The incumbent won 286 electoral votes compared with Greeley's 66 after election day. But on Nov. 29, 1872, before the Electoral College votes were in, Greeley died and his electoral votes were split among other candidates. Greeley remains the only presidential candidate to die before the election was finalized.

5. The hanging chads, 2000

Democrat Al Gore beat Republican George W. Bush in the popular vote in the 2000 election, but the electoral vote was a close, and controversial, call. As election night drew to a close, New Mexico, Oregon and Florida remained too close to call.

It would be Florida that determined the winner, but not until the Supreme Court weighed in. For a month, the outcome of the election remained in recount limbo, as Gore's campaign contested the vote count in several close counties and the Florida and U.S. Supreme Courts engaged in a tug-of-war over whether to halt the recounts or extend their deadlines. Among the challenges faced by the hand counts: determining whether semi-attached scraps of paper, or "hanging chads," on punch-card ballots should count as votes.

Ultimately, on Dec. 12, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that a statewide recount was unconstitutional, alongside a further decision that the smaller recounts could not go forward. The decision meant the original vote counts stood, giving the election to Bush.


LotsOfEssays.com

The campaign of 1800, which Jefferson won-- "The only Federalist creation that Jefferson really tried to destroy was the judiciaryàà(President Adams)àfilled up every newly established judicial office by 'midnight appointments' on the evening of March 3" (Morison 1965 362). The new President, in those days, was sworn in on March 4.) The campaign was nasty. Jefferson was accused of being an atheist and an agent of France, while Adams was considered too friendly to the British monarchy. At this time, there were separate votes for President and Vice President. "As no Republican elector dared to throw away his second vote, Jefferson and Burr were tied for first place" (Morison 1965 356). The election went to the House of Representatives, which had to make a final choice, voting by states. It took 33 votes before three Federalist electors cast blank ballots which permitted Jefferson to become President by a majority of two states. In 1804, the 12th Amendment then removed any possibility of a tie between two candidates of the same party. The eventual outcome of the election doomed the Federalist arty, but historians make it clear that Jefferson never really won by a "popular" vote, since the electors were chosen by state legirlatures. "So parsed into minority the party that contained more talent and virtue, with less common senseà" (Morison 357). Somehow, the facts treat Jefferson far less kindly, at least in 1800, than we normally believe. It is significant, however, that despit4e all the rancor and anger, when the Presidency passed to Jefferson it was done peacefully, and obviously his eight years as President achieved much.

"Following the Republican triumph in 1800, Jefferson's immediate successors were nominated by caucuses of congressmen. But by 1824, every major political leader was in the Republican fold, and many of them wanted to be president. A surfeit of candidates -- Andrew Jackson, John Quincy Adams, William Craw.


Andrew Jackson: Campaigns and Elections

The Virginia presidential dynasty was coming to an end with the second term of James Monroe. Three seasoned members of his cabinet vied for the succession: Secretary of State John Quincy Adams of Massachusetts, Secretary of the Treasury William Harris Crawford of Georgia, and Secretary of War John C. Calhoun of South Carolina. Henry Clay of Kentucky, the brilliant Speaker of the House of Representatives and a rival of Jackson's for popularity in the new western states, was also an aspirant.

Compared to these men, Jackson had scanty qualifications as a statesman, with only brief and undistinguished service in Congress and as a territorial governor. Where all Presidents since Washington had served extensive administrative and diplomatic apprenticeships, Jackson had never held a Cabinet post or even been abroad. He spoke no foreign languages and even wrote English roughly. On the other hand, his heroics as a general had a far greater hold on the public imagination than the governmental experience of his competitors.

All five men were Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans, but in the absence of organized opposition, party affiliation had ceased to be much of a political marker. In past years, Jeffersonians had selected their presidential candidate through a congressional party caucus. Held in Washington where congressmen were gathered anyway, the caucus was a convenient mechanism to unite the party against the Federalist foe. But the withering of Federalism after the War of 1812 had undercut its rationale. Once seen as a necessary device for ensuring victory, the caucus now seemed a gratuitous intrusion upon the popular will, a means to deprive the voters of any meaningful choice at the polls. A poorly attended caucus nominated Crawford in 1824, but his consequent image as the insider's choice rather harmed than helped his chances. Other candidacies were put in play by various means. The Tennessee legislature nominated Jackson for the presidency in 1822 and, to burnish his credentials, elected him to the Senate the next year.

There was no organized national presidential campaign in 1824. Candidacies built on a regional base: Adams was the favorite in New England, Jackson in the Southwest, Clay in the Ohio valley, Crawford in his native Virginia. Calhoun dropped out, settling for the vice-presidency on the Adams and Jackson tickets. Following tradition, the candidates did not actively seek votes or make promises. Jackson and Adams were generally understood to support the current Monroe administration, Crawford (despite his Cabinet post) and Clay to oppose it.

Many political professionals, especially Clay, did not take Jackson's candidacy entirely seriously at first. The returns showed their mistake. He proved to be the only aspirant with a truly national popular following. Along with the entire Southwest, Jackson carried Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and the Carolinas, for a total of eleven states out of twenty-four. He led the field with 43% of the popular vote and 99 electoral votes, less than a majority. Adams ran second, with 84 electoral votes. Crawford had 41, Clay 37.

Since no candidate had a majority in the electoral college, under the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution the choice between the top three now fell to the House of Representatives, where each state delegation cast one vote. Speaker Clay, out of the running, announced his support for Adams, warning that Jackson was a mere "military chieftain" unfit by training or temperament for the presidency. With his aid, Adams drew the votes of thirteen states—a majority—on the first ballot in the House. Promptly Adams named Clay secretary of state, the traditional stepping-stone to the presidency. Jackson swore that a "corrupt bargain" had swindled him out of the office. Promptly he began to gird for a rematch in 1828.

The Campaign and Election of 1828

The four years of the John Quincy Adams administration constituted one long, acrimonious, and in the end, one-sided presidential campaign. Determined not to be paralyzed by his status as a minority President, Adams overreached with controversial policy initiatives. He threw his support behind the "American System," Henry Clay's program of congressional aid to economic development through transportation subsidies and protective tariffs. Adams's activism backfired as Jackson and his publicists mounted a cry to clean out the corruptionists and restore purity and economy in government. Major constituencies swung behind Jackson: Vice-President Calhoun and his South Carolina following, Crawfordites shepherded by Martin Van Buren of New York, and disaffected Clay men in the west led by Thomas Hart Benton of Missouri—Jackson's former Tennessee antagonist, now a political ally.

This diffuse coalition included both friends and foes of the American System. To break it, Adams men tried to smoke out Jackson's position. Jackson refused to be pinned down, while his followers fended off questions about his qualifications and experience by touting his battlefield exploits, indomitable patriotism, and opposition to aristocracy and corruption. A good deal of mud was slung on both sides, much of it aimed at Jackson's marriage, his violent escapades, and the incidents of ferocious discipline and of disrespect for civilian authority that dotted his military career. Adams men painted him as a grasping and bloodthirsty character, a budding tyrant in the model of Caesar or Napoleon, whose election would spell the death of the republic. Jacksonians branded Adams as a corruptionist, an aristocrat, and—ridiculously—a libertine. In the end, none of the slanders could touch Jackson's invincible popularity. He won easily in 1828, with 56 percent of the vote and 178 electoral votes to Adams's 83. Jackson carried New York and Pennsylvania as well as the entire West and South. He was the first President elected from west of the Appalachians and, at that time, the oldest man to assume the office. But his victory was touched with grief. As if in response to the torrent of abuse, Rachel sickened and died on December 22.

The Campaign and Election of 1832

Jackson stood for re-election in 1832. By this time he had come out publicly against the American System. He had also created a new issue by vetoing the recharter of the Bank of the United States. The American System men, now calling themselves National Republicans, nominated Henry Clay. A third party also took the field: the quixotic Anti-Masonic Party, formed in reaction to exposures of political favoritism and corruption by members of the fraternal order of Freemasons. Strong in some northern states, the Anti-Masons nominated former attorney general William Wirt. They were generally anti-Jackson, but thoughts of uniting with the National Republicans collapsed when Clay refused to denounce the Masonic order, of which both he and Jackson were members.

The 1832 campaign introduced the national nominating convention in place of the old discredited congressional caucus as a means of selecting a candidate. The National Republicans and Anti-Masons held conventions and adopted formal addresses to the public. Jackson's followers, popularly though not yet officially known as Democrats, met in Baltimore to endorse Jackson's choice of Martin Van Buren for vice president. To show their unanimity, they also adopted a rule requiring a two-thirds vote for nomination—a rule that would later deprive Van Buren of the Democratic presidential nomination in 1844.

Despite the new issues and innovations in party organization, the election was essentially a replay of 1828. Jackson again carried Pennsylvania, New York, and nearly the entire South. He defeated Clay handily, with 55 percent of the popular vote and 219 electoral votes to the latter's 49. Jackson read his victory as a popular ratification of his policies, especially the Bank veto. Opponents chalked it up to his untouchable personal popularity.


1824 and 2000 elections history paper

Both the 1824 and 2000 presidential elections were very controversial and hotly contested. Before we look at specifics, let’s just make sure we remember who the candidates were. In 1824 it was John Quincy Adams vs Andrew Jackson in 2000 it was George W. Bush vs Al Gore.

In the 1824 presidential election Andrew Jackson won both the popular vote and the electoral vote. However, he had less than the required amount of electoral votes so the election went on to the House of Representatives. This is where the whole issue happened. The result of the House of Reps vote put John Quincy Adams in the White House. How is that an issue? The issue was how Adams got the votes. According to Jackson, Henry Clay (the candidate with fewest electoral votes, also Speaker of the House) came to him and offered his support (the votes of his followers), in exchange for the position of Secretary of State. Jackson refused and then Clay supposedly went to Adams, who accepted, sealing the “Corrupt Bargain”. Nobody was ever able to prove this right or wrong though, so the election of 1824 remains controversial.

The accuracy of the results of the presidential election in 2000 are also very debatable. In this election, just like the previously mentioned one, the losing candidate again won more popular votes. This election however, did not make it to the House of Representatives, ending in the Electoral College. Almost everyone remembers that Bush won this election. Did he rightfully win, we will never know, but here are some of the facts from the election.

The final outcome of the election all depended on who won Florida’s electoral votes, 25 total. There were voting issues in a few states but one of the main reasons this state is picked as the controversial state is because Bush’s brother was governor of Florida at the time, giving him certain control over voting in Florida. For example he gave orders to state troopers stationed near polling sites to search all voters’ cars, slowing, and stopping some from voting before they closed. He also passed a law right before elections that required voters to have two photo IDs, preventing some elderly or poorer folks from voting. Uncounted ballot boxes went missing, many from African-American precincts (African-Americans had favored Gore over Bush). At this point Gore was behind Bush by a few hundred points and gained votes during each attempt at a recount. However, the Supreme Court voted against a full recount, handing Bush the presidency. Again, we don’t know if the winning candidate cheated or not, and probably never will.

Let’s look at some similarities and differences between the two elections. The losing candidate in both elections won the popular vote. The winning candidate might have had an ally in a high government office tip the scales in their favor. The winning candidate also had a father who had formerly served as president. In the 2000 presidential election however, unlike that of 1824, the voting went past the Electoral College to the House of Representatives. After the 1824 elections, the losing candidate took his revenge on the president, making fun of him for his entire presidency, and then beating him in the next elections. After the 2000 elections, the losing candidate acknowledged his defeat and gave up. These two presidential elections will always be remembered as controversial. How would the US be different if the other candidate had won? Do you think it would be better off?


Se videoen: Najúspešnejší kandidáti v parl. voľbách SR.