This is another post from the Presidential history geek. One of the things that I find interesting that really isn't discussed much is how rarely the Republican candidate for President actually wins the plurality of the vote nowadays. Sure, I understand that at the election level that it doesn't matter. A candidate can lose by millions of votes as long as they win just a few more votes than the other candidate in a very small handful of swing states (eg Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Arizona).
Even so, it seems striking to me that, since 1992, the Republican candidate has only won the popular vote once (when George W Bush beat John Kerry in 2004). Over the last 30 years, over a total of eight elections, the Republican candidate has won once. Republicans were able to thread the electoral college needle twice in those years and win the Presidency despite losing the popular vote, so they ended up in the more respectable position of winning three out of the last eight elections. If it wasn't for the electoral college, people would be writing think pieces about the death of the national Republican party.
I'm not here to advocate for the abolishment of the electoral college (although I certainly have done so before). Those are the rules of the game and the Republican party is playing by those rules, fair and square. It does lead me to wonder about the future of a party that seems not to be particularly interested in even trying for a plurality of votes at the national level. Is the fact that such a party has been fairly successful with this strategy a positive or a negative for our country? It's at least food for thought.
No, what I'm here to write about today is to figure out how much of a historical anomaly this is. Under the 225 years or so that we've been operating under our current constitution, has there been such a period where one party or the other has dominated in such a fashion?
Well, the short answer is no.
Here's the longer answer. 
Although never as long as this, there have been times where one party has been dominant. Let's discuss.
First of all, after the Democratic-Republican Thomas Jefferson defeated the Federalist John Adams and then the Federalist Andrew Hamilton was shot dead in a duel, the Federalist party kind of fell apart. For Jefferson's two terms, and then Madison's two terms, and then Monroe's two terms, the Democratic-Republican party ruled supreme. In fact, Monroe was so unopposed that one person voted against him in the electoral college just so that Washington would continue to be the only unanimously chosen president. Let's call this case the Virginia faction.
So, the Democratic-Republican party won the electoral college and the popular vote six consecutive times. Impressive. In 1824, John Quincy Adams ran for president as a Democratic-Republican against Andrew Jackson. Jackson was also a Democratic-Republican but the fact is that he was already against the party and shortly afterward formed the Democratic party. Adams lost the popular vote to Jackson but neither party got a majority in the electoral college. The race was decided by the House. Whether for corrupt reasons or not, Henry Clay threw his support to Adams and Adams was elected even though he lost the popular vote (the first time it ever happened),
So, that's case number one. The Democratic-Republican party won the electoral college seven consecutive times but only won the popular vote six times. After Jackson's formal split, the Democratic-Republican party ceased to exist.
Case number two is Andrew Jackson. He won the popular vote in 1824 but lost the electoral college. He won both the popular vote and the presidency in 1828 and 1832. His Vice President, Martin Van Buren, won on his own in 1836. He then lost to a Whig candidate in 1840. Jackson (known as Old Hickory) had a protégé named James Polk (known as Young Hickory). Polk won the Presidency in 1844. He served one term and retired. Thus ends the Jackson wave of candidates. Over six presidential elections, Jackson and his minions won the popular vote in five of them.
Case number three is the Republican party and the Civil War. Lincoln won two terms (although technically his second term was under the National Union party, but who were they kidding?), followed by Grant winning two terms. In 1876, the Republican Rutherford Hayes lost the popular vote to the Democratic Samuel Tilden, but in a truly corrupt act, a couple of Southern states agreed to throw their electoral count over to Hayes if that administration agreed to backoff from Reconstruction. In 1880, the Republican James Garfield won the election. That ended the Civil War streak of Republican wins. Like with the Jackson faction earlier, they won the popular vote in five out of six elections. Let's call this the Civil War faction.
Case number four takes us all of the way to the Great Depression and the New Deal. This one is pretty easy to explain. Franklin Roosevelt won four consecutive terms and Harry Truman won one of his own (in all cases winning both the popular vote and the electoral college). So, in this case, the Democratic party won five consecutive elections. Let's call this the New Deal faction.
That brings us to the last case. As the nation kind of collapsed socially, economically, and militarily in the 1960s, the Democratic party lost its way and the Republican party found their way (in a fashion). This led to the Republican Richard Nixon's two election wins, interrupted by the Democratic Jimmy Carter's win, and then followed by three more Republican wins by Ronald Reagan (twice) and George HW Bush (once). All victories were both in the popular vote as well as the electoral college. Like with the Jackson and the Civil War cases earlier, the Republican party won the popular vote five out of six elections. Let's call this the hippy-reaction faction.
So, what does all of this tell us?
One is that, in terms of the popular vote, we are in the current longest dry spell (or alternatively, winning streak) in our country's history. The Democratic party's streak of winning the popular vote in seven out of eight elections is unparalleled.
The first case, the Virginia faction, was brought about because of our country's immaturity as a democracy. When the Federalist party collapsed, apparently no one really knew or cared about creating an alternative party so they were essentially unopposed.
In the Civil War case and the Great Depression case, even though the opposing party did not completely collapse, they were in dire shape. In the aftermath of the Civil War, the Democratic party was derisively known as Confederate sympathizing Copperheads. During the Great Depression, the Republican party simply had no answer to the New Deal that was also attractive to voters.
It's interesting that the Jackson factor started their long run on the heels of the Virginia faction's long run. In fact, it was Jackson's popular vote victory (even if he didn't win the electoral college) that brought up the demise of the Democratic-Republican party.
You can argue that a similar thing happened during recent times. Democratic Bill Clinton defeated George HW Bush in 1992, thus marking the end of the hippy-reaction faction and marking the beginning of the faction currently in place.
How will this end? Who knows? In normal times, you'd think that a party that consistently loses popular votes would morph its positions accordingly to more popular positions or, barring that, simply fade away (I'm looking at you Know Nothing party!). It does seem that the modern Republican party thinks that it's found some electoral college secret code that allows it to win (nearly) half the time without actually going to the trouble of trying to represent the will of a plurality of voters.
Will they try again in 2024? Will it work? Stay tuned!
No comments:
Post a Comment