Hospitals & Asylums

Welcome

Atlas

Statute

American Popular Election: The United States has not achieved a Quorum for Democracy since 1900 HA-29-10-10

By Anthony J. Sanders

sanderstony@live.com

Contribute to Health and Democracy

Blog About It

Part One: 66% Voting Age Population Turnout Quorum

Part Two: Restrictions on Voter Eligibility

Part Three: Incumbent Democratic-Republican Two Party System

Stage One: Hamiltonian Federalists defeated by the Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans 1788-1820

Stage Two: Jacksonian Democrats and the Whigs 1820-1856

Stage Three: Progressive Republican Era 1860-1896

Stage Four: Republican Populism 1900-1928

Stage Five: New Deal Democrats 1932-1968

Stage Six: Split Ticket Voting 1972-present

Part Four: Evolution of the Federal Corrupt Practices Campaign Act

Part Five: Vote for Me: An Aspiring Young Multi-party Democracy at 222

Part One: 66% Voter Age Population Turnout Quorum

On Tuesday, 2 November 2010, voters in the United States will elect members of the 112th United States Congress, including all members of the United States House of Representatives and almost one-third of the United States Senate (IFES ’10). The Democratic and Republican (DR) bipartisan system holds all public offices at all levels of government in a nearly totalitarian grip. In 2005 ninety-nine of the one hundred U.S. senators were either republicans or Democrats, 434 of the 435 representatives in the House of Representatives are affiliated with one of the two major parties, all fifty of the state governors and more than 7,350 of the approximately 7,400 state legislators elected in partisan elections ran under major party labels (Maisel & Buckley ’05:267). Fifty-eight percent of Americans believe a third major political party is needed because the Republican and Democratic Parties do a poor job of representing the American people. Independents, express a greater degree of support (74%) for a third party, but 47% of Republicans and 45% of Democrats also expressed a desire for the creation of a third party. Sixty-two percent of those who describe themselves as Tea Party supporters would like a third major party formed, but so do 59% of those who are neutral toward the Tea Party movement. (Jones ’10). Congressional approval, averaging 35%, dipped to 16% in March 2010, Presidents usually enjoy a higher job approval rating, averaging around 50%, between 20-90% (Newport ’09). Overall Gallup's annual Governance poll finds a continued deterioration in public confidence in U.S. government institutions. Just 26% of Americans say they are satisfied with the way the nation is being governed, the lowest in the eight-year history of the Governance poll and tying a 1973 Gallup reading, as the lowest in the poll’s 34 year history (Jones ’08).

The legitimacy of a democracy depends upon voter participation. In a democracy the people are sovereign. As a rule of thumb, endorsed by the now defunct Election World website, a minimum of 2/3 voter participation is needed to qualify as a popular democracy (Huntley ’98). Therefore, according to the US Census Bureau Bicentennial Edition statistics, the United States has not technically qualified as a popular democracy since 1900 when voter participation was 73.2 percent. The 2008 president election, typically at least 10 percentage points more popular than midterm elections such as the 2010 congressional election, garnered only 56.8 percent turnout - the highest turnout rate since 1968 when it was 60.6 percent. For a while though, in the Civil War and Reconstruction era between 1840 and 1900 US voter participation was between 69.6 percent in 1952 and 81.8 percent in 1876 including the newly eligible black voters under the XV Amendment of 1870, 1900 was the last election to enjoy 66% turnout. Equal suffrage for women under the XIX Amendment of 1920 was more problematic and the presidential elections of 1920 with 49.2 percent turnout and 1924 with 48.9 percent turnout were the lowest presidential election, since the first popular presidential election 1824, with the exception of 1996 (49.1%), that reinstated Clinton with a mandate to balance the budget. The XVI Amendment of 1971 to allow all people 18 or older to vote similarly had a negative impact on voter turnout pushing voting age turnout in the presidential elections forever below the 60 percent enjoyed throughout the 1950s and ‘60s (Morton & Barabba ’70). Turnout in the once awed European democracies is over 75 percent in Great Britain and France, over 80 percent in west Germany, the Low Countries and Scandinavia, over 90 percent in Italy. Currently the United States ranks twentieth among twenty-one democracies in turnout as a percentage of the voting-age population (only Switzerland is worse). If people are too intimidated or apathetic to come to the polls this indicates the government is either too abusive or too negligent to elect a representative government, which means the government should not be expansive but self-determinant. Fifty million additional American would have had to vote in 1984 to bring turnout back to nineteenth-century levels (Schlesinger 99: 256)

Turnout of Voting Age Population in Presidential Election Years 1824-2008

2012	2008	2004	2000	1996	1992
?	56.8%	55.3%	51.3%	49.1%	55.1%
1988	1984	1980	1976	1972	1968
50.1%	53.1%	52.6%	53.6%	55.2%	60.6%
1964	1960	1956	1952	1948	1944
61.7%	64.0%	60.6%	63.3%	53.0%	55.9%
1940	1936	1932	1928	1924	1920
62.5%	61.0%	56.9%	56.9%	48.9%	49.2%
1916	1912	1908	1904	1900	1896
61.6%	58.8%	65.4%	65.2%	73.2%	79.3%
1892	1888	1884	1880	1876	1872
74.7%	79.3%	77.5%	79.4%	81.8%	71.3%
1868	1864	1860	1856	1852	1848
78.1%	73.8%	81.2%	78.9%	69.6%	72.7%
1844	1840	1836	1832	1828	1824
78.9%	80.2%	57.8%	55.4%	57.6%	26.9%

Source: Series Y 27-78 Morton, Rogers C.B. Secretary of Commerce; Barabba, Vincent P. Director of the Bureau of the Census. Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1970. Bicentennial Edition pg. 1071-1072

Voter participation is actually a function of three factors- eligibility, registration and turnout. The first is who is eligible to register to vote? The second factor involves how many eligible people bother to register. The third factor is the decision of those eligible and registered to turn out to cast their ballot on Election Day. Turnout is often expressed as a percentage of registered voters who actually turn out and vote. Voter age population (VAP) rates are however the standard by which elections are judged, VAP rate is the percentage of voting age population (VAP) who votes. States vary tremendously in their turnout rates. In the 2000 election, eleven states had turnout rates greater than 60 percent of the voting age population, led by Minnesota, at 68.8 percent, and Maine, at 67.3 percent, at the other extreme sixteen states had turnout rates less than 50 percent of the voting age population, with Arizona, Georgia, Hawaii, Nevada and Texas all below 45 percent. The debate over ease of registration has been heated. Turnout during congressional election years is typically under 40 percent (Maisel & Buckley ’05: 80 & 89). A factor that can overturn elections is a percentage of invalid votes exceeding 0.7% in the Parliament and 2% in the presidential election. Out of the past 20 biannual elections between 1968 and 2008 only two of the ten presidential elections resulted in turnout of registered voters less than 66% but in the ten mid-term elections has not achieved 66% turnout since 1970. The turnout of registered voters is not typically used as the gauge of voter participation, however the voter turnout of registered in the United States between 1968 and 2008 does indicate a democratic belief in the President exclusively amongst registered party members or independents. As a percentage of voter age population (VAP) turnout during the 36 biannual elections between 1946 and 2008 not once has the USA achieved the requisite 66% participation of the VAP. Not since the election of 1900 has US voter participation achieved 66% of the VAP (Morton & Barraba ’70: 1071-1072).

Parliamentary Election Turnout United States of America 1946- 2006

Year The year the election took place or a law was passed, etc	Total vote The total number of votes cast in the relevant election. Total vote includes valid and invalid votes, as well as blank votes in cases where these are separated from invalid votes.	Voter Turn- out The voter turnout as defined as the percentage of registered voters who actually voted	Registration The number of registered voters. The figure represents the number of names on the voters' register at the time that the registration process closes (cut-off date), as reported by the electoral management body.	Registration as a percent of voting age population (VAP)	Voting age population The voting age population (VAP) includes all citizens above the legal voting age	VAP Turn- out The voter turnout as defined as the percentage of the voting age population that actually voted	Population The total population
2008	131,313,820	89.75%	146,311,000	65%	225,080,141	58.34%	303,824,640
2006	82,121,411	47.52%	172,805,006	78.5%	220,043,054	37.32%	298,444,215
2004	121,862,329	68.75%	177,265,030	82.5%	215,080,198	56.66%	293,027,571
2002	73,844,526	45.31%	162,993,315	77.4%	210,464,504	35.09%	278,058,881
2000	99,738,383	63.76%	156,421,311	73.1%	213,954,023	46.62%	284,970,789
1998	73,117,022	51.55%	141,850,558	67.4%	210,446,120	34.74%	280,298,524
1996	96,456,345	65.97%	146,211,960	74.4%	196,511,000	49.08%	265,679,000
1994	75,105,860	57.64%	130,292,822	67.3%	193,650,000	38.78%	262,090,745
1992	104,405,155	78.02%	133,821,178	70.6%	189,529,000	55.09%	255,407,000
1990	67,859,189	56.03%	121,105,630	65.2%	185,812,000	36.52%	248,709,873
1988	91,594,693	72.48%	126,379,628	69.1%	182,778,000	50.11%	245,057,000
1986	64,991,128	54.89%	118,399,984	66.3%	178,566,000	36.40%	239,529,693
1984	92,652,680	74.63%	124,150,614	71.2%	174,466,000	53.11%	236,681,000
1982	67,615,576	61.10%	110,671,225	65.2%	169,938,000	39.79%	233,697,676
1980	86,515,221	76.53%	113,043,734	68.7%	164,597,000	52.56%	227,738,000
1978	58,917,938	57.04%	103,291,265	65.2%	158,373,000	37.20%	221,537,514
1976	81,555,789	77.64%	105,037,989	68.9%	152,309,190	53.55%	218,035,000
1974	55,943,834	58.15%	96,199,020	65.8%	146,336,000	38.23%	214,305,134
1972	77,718,554	79.85%	97,328,541	69.1%	140,776,000	55.21%	208,840,000
1970	58,014,338	70.32%	82,496,747	66.3%	124,498,000	46.60%	203,211,926
1968	73,211,875	89.66%	81,658,180	67.9%	120,328,186	60.84%	200,710,000
1966	56,188,046				116,132,000	48.38%	197,730,744
1964	70,644,592				114,090,000	61.92%	192,119,000
1962	53,141,227				112,423,000	47.27%	186,512,143
1960	68,838,204				109,159,000	63.06%	180,684,000
1958	45,966,070				103,221,000	44.53%	175,038,232
1956	58,434,811				106,408,890	54.92%	168,903,000
1954	42,509,905				98,527,000	43.15%	162,725,667
1952	57,582,333				96,466,000	59.69%	157,022,000
1950	40,253,267				94,403,000	42.64%	151,325,798
1948	45,839,622				95,310,150	48.10%	146,631,000
1946	34,279,158				88,388,000	38.78%	142,049,065

Source: International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. County View: United States 2009

Overall in 2008 225 million people were of voting age, 74% of the total population of 303.8 million. 65% these 225 million adults, 146.3 million registered to vote, 48.1% of the total. Of those registered 131.3 million actually voted, a turnout of 89.75%, the highest since the International Institute of Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA) began tracking this measure of voter turnout as a percentage of registered voters in 1968. It is also remarkable that voter registration declined significantly from 172.8 million to 146.3 million, 15.6% between the midterm election of 2006 and the presidential election of 2008. There is not normally much difference in voter registration between presidential and midterm elections, voter registration has progressively increased in all but 8 of the past 20 biannual elections since 1968, with the exception of the midterm elections of 1974, 1978, 1982, 1986, 1990, 1994, 1998 and 2008. The 2008 presidential election was the first election to ever register a decline in voter registration from the previous presidential election and the first to register a decline from the previous midterm election. Numerically voter registration in the 2008 election regressed a decade to 1998-2000 levels. The 2008 presidential election had the lowest rate of registration of voter age population (VAP), at 65% since records began being collected in by IDEA in 1968, only in 1982 did it drop so low as 65.2%, so soon after the high of 82.5% in the 2004 presidential election when the HAVA of 2002 was enforced. Otherwise voter age population (VAP) turnout rate, denied the vote of convicted felons by many states, was 58.34%. The 2008 election is remarkable, for electing a black man to the White House by a landslide, for his record campaign finance contribution, low voter registration and high turnout of registered voters.

General Election VAP Turnout Rates, State by State 2000-2008

State	VAP 2008	VAP 2006	VAP 2004	VAP 2002	VAP 2000		VAP 2008	VAP 2006	VAP 2004	VAP 2002	VAP 2000
United States	56.9%	37.1%	55.4%	36.3%	50.0%	Missouri	64.5%	48.1%	62.9%	43.9%	56.2%
Alabama	59.0%	35.9%	55.2%	40.4%	50.1%	Montana	65.6%	55.6%	63.4%	47.7%	60.6%
Alaska	64.0%	47.8%	65.2%	51.0%	65.0%	Nebraska	59.9%	45.1%	59.8%	37.3%	55.0%
Arizona	47.7%	33.3%	47.0%	30.7%	40.2%	Nevada	49.7%	31.1%	47.3%	31.1%	40.2%
Arkansas	50.1%	36.5%	51.0%	39.7%	46.0%	New Hampshire	69.0%	39.9%	68.4%	46.0%	60.7%
California	49.7%	32.2%	47.1%	29.0%	44.1%	New Jersey	58.4%	34.1%	55.2%	32.6%	50.1%
Colorado	64.1%	43.1%	61.2%	42.0%	53.7%	New Mexico	55.8%	38.6%	53.9%	35.7%	45.4%
Connecticut	61.1%	42.5%	59.7%	38.9%	56.6%	New York	50.8%	30.3%	50.2%	31.4%	47.5%
Delaware	61.3%	39.0%	59.4%	37.9%	54.9%	North Carolina	61.3%	28.7%	53.9%	37.2%	47.5%
District of Columbia	55.4%	25.5%	48.9%	27.1%	43.9%	North Dakota	63.3%	44.1%	63.8%	47.6%	59.7%
Florida	58.3%	34.3%	56.1%	39.5%	47.9%	Ohio	64.7%	46.3%	65.1%	37.6%	55.4%
Georgia	54.7%	30.7%	50.0%	32.2%	42.4%	Oklahoma	53.2%	34.3%	55.3%	39.6%	48.0%
Hawaii	45.4%	34.6%	44.1%	40.2%	39.9%	Oregon	62.5%	48.4%	66.8%	47.2%	59.1%
Idaho	58.7%	42.0%	58.7%	42.0%	53.5%	Pennsylvania	61.4%	42.6%	60.6%	37.3%	52.3%
Illinois	57.0%	36.3%	55.7%	37.7%	51.4%	Rhode Island	57.2%	46.7%	52.9%	40.1%	50.7%
Indiana	57.2%	35.2%	53.0%	33.3%	48.3%	South Carolina	55.8%	33.1%	50.7%	35.6%	45.7%
Iowa	67.2%	46.3%	67.4%	45.7%	59.6%	South Dakota	62.8%	56.4%	66.9%	59.7%	56.9%
Kansas	58.8%	41.1%	58.3%	41.4%	54.0%	Tennessee	54.5%	39.5%	54.1%	37.3%	48.1%
Kentucky	55.7%	39.0%	56.9%	36.4%	50.4%	Texas	45.8%	25.8%	45.4%	28.8%	42.4%
Louisiana	58.6%	28.3%	58.5%	37.8%	54.2%	Utah	50.4%	31.8%	54.7%	35.0%	50.3%
Maine	70.0%	53.3%	72.6%	50.1%	66.4%	Vermont	65.9%	53.8%	65.0%	48.1%	63.1%
Maryland	61.0%	42.2%	57.2%	41.6%	51.0%	Virginia	62.2%	40.6%	56.2%	26.9%	50.9%
Massachusetts	60.1%	44.4%	58.7%	44.4%	55.4%	Washington	60.3%	42.7%	60.8%	37.9%	56.2%
Michigan	65.7%	49.9%	63.9%	42.3%	57.3%	West Virginia	49.9%	32.3%	53.4%	30.8%	46.1%
Minnesota	73.1%	56.4%	73.9%	59.7%	66.4%	Wisconsin	69.0%	50.8%	71.6%	43.2%	64.5%
Mississippi	59.3%	28.5%	54.2%	29.2%	47.8%	Wyoming	62.6%	49.4%	63.7%	49.2%	58.2%

Source: United States Election Project. General Elections 2000-2008. October 2010

State-by-state in the five biannual elections between 2000 and 2008, turnout is much higher during presidential elections than midterm elections. Not a single state achieved a 66% quorum during midterm elections, however during the Presidential elections a few states qualify every year. Average national VAP turnout in midterm elections of 2006 was 37.1% with a high of 56.4% in Minnesota and low of 25.5% in the District of Columbia, and in 2002, 36.3%, with a high of 59.7% in Minnesota and low of 26.9% in Virginia. In the 2008 presidential election average participation was 56.9% however five states, Minnesota with 73.1%, Maine with 70.0%, Wisconsin and New Hampshire with 69.0% and Iowa with 67.2% achieved the 66% supermajority VAP turnout needed for a quorum. In 2004 average national participation was 55.4% nonetheless seven states achieved the quorum, the same states as 2008, plus Oregon with 66.8% and South Dakota with 66.9%. In the 2000 presidential election voting age turnout was 50.0%, only two states, Maine and Minnesota with 66.4% VAP turnout were popular. Hawaii consistently had the lowest VAP turnout in presidential elections with 45.4% in 2008, 44.1% in 2004 and 39.9% in 2000. Americans have become more involved in the electoral process since a low of in 1996 and 2000. Americans however do not participate at the desired rates.

Voting Age Population Turnout in Recent Parliamentary Election in 21 Most Populous Aspiring Democracies

Country	VAP Turnout - Parliamentary The voter turnout as defined as the percentage of the voting age population that actually voted in the parliamentary elections	VAP Turnout - Presidential The voter turnout as defined as the percentage of the voting age population that actually voted in the presidential elections	Country	VAP Turnout - Parliamentary The voter turnout as defined as the percentage of the voting age population that actually voted in the parliamentary elections.	VAP Turnout - Presidential The voter turnout as defined as the percentage of the voting age population that actually voted in the presidential elections
Indonesia	87.60% (2004)	74.77% (2004)	Russian Federation	61.91% (2007)	62.22% (2004)
Brazil	83.54% (2006)	83.57% (2006)	India	60.57% (2004)
Italy	79.13% (2008)		United Kingdom	58.32% (2005)
Thailand	76.23% (2007)		Philippines	54.87% (2007)
Turkey	73.99% (2007)		France	54.52% (2007)	76.75% (2007)
Germany	71.99% (2005)		Iran, Islamic Republic of	54.08% (2008)	67.62% (2005)
Japan	66.62% (2005)		Nigeria	46.63% (2003)	65.33% (2003)
Ethiopia	66.19% (2005)		Korea, Republic of	46.59% (2008)	64.17% (2007)
Bangladesh	64.57% (1996)	53.10% (1986)	Pakistan	38.77% (2008)
Mexico	63.62% (2006)	63.26% (2006)	United States	37.32% (2006)	58.23% (2008)
			Egypt	19.75% (2005)	16.41% (2005)

Source: International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. Voter Turnout

With 37.32% voter age population (VAP) turnout during the United States parliamentary elections of 2006 ranked 169^th out of 188 nations using recent election data recorded by the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA). 41%, 77 nations of the 188 had VAP turnout greater than the arbitrary 66% in their most recent parliamentary election. Vietnam reported VAP turnout of 100.79%, either their children are voting or they are having technical difficulties. Rwanda had 93.6% VAP turnout, Indonesia 87.6%, Belgium 86%, Peru 84.1%, Denmark 83.2% while Japan hangs on with 66.62%. While it might be difficult to achieve 66% voter turnout, 41% of nations do, and 59% do not. China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia and the United Nations are conspicuously absent from the electoral statistics. India, often called the world’s largest democracy, ranked 100^th with 60.57% VAP turnout. Technically, the world’s largest popular democracy is Indonesia with 87.6% of adults. Of the 21 most populous aspiring democracies only 8 actually qualified with more than 66% of the vote. Out of 106 nations the U.S. Presidential election of 2008 VAP turnout, usually much higher than in the mid-terms, was 70^th place, with 58.2% VAP turnout, Afghanistan placed 71^st at 57.9%, only 47, 44.3% of participating nations, garnered the 66% supermajority of VAP turnout needed to qualify as popular democracies. The US Parliamentary elections ranked 20^th out of the 21 most populous aspiring democratic nations, only Egypt, a major recipient of US foreign military assistance had lower turnout in their parliamentary elections. The United States scored much higher in the presidential election of 2008 with 58.23% VAP turnout, 17^th out of 21, while Brazil took first place with 83.57% while fewer Indonesians 74.77% voted for their President than Parliament 87.60%. While the presidential election increases voter turnout in some countries, France and Iran are the only nations whose presidential elections helped the nation to achieve a passing VAP turnout, in Mexico, Egypt and Indonesia turnout was lower during the Presidential than Parliamentary election (IDEA ’09).

There is a saying that “people get the government they vote for.” The implication of the maxim is that if undesirable or unwise legislation is enacted, if executive branch officials are inept or ineffective, or if the government is beset with widespread corruption, then such unfortunate results are the consequence of the electorate’s decision regarding whom to trust with the powers and prestige of public office. No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live (Kant 1795 §2.1). However, when governments and political parties have monopolized and manipulated all the options, voting becomes counterproductive to the voter. It is argued that voting is a civic duty and that the state can expect patriotic citizens to invest a certain amount of effort toward that duty. By not voting however, a citizen is expressing that they do not support the political system and either fear or dislike it so much they do not want to be exposed it. If sufficient number of voters turnout to support the government, then the legitimacy of the democracy to embark on expansionist policies, is not typically questioned. However, if less than 66% of the VAP turnout, the electorate has clearly expressed that they want the government to be less intrusive. Secretaries of State aim to ensure that the voting process is accessible to voters and also work to secure the integrity of the ballot box against fraud, waste and abuse. Elections must be conducted in an orderly fashion to guarantee a free and fair election that validly reflects the choice of the electorate (Blackwell ’09: 107-123). Democracy is only a form of despotism, where the executive power is established by the election of a tyranny of the majority, therefore a republican constitution must establish principles to ensure firstly, the freedom of the members of a society, secondly, dependence of all upon a single common legislation, as subjects, and, thirdly, by the law of their equality, as citizens. A republican constitution gives a favorable prospect for the desired consequence, i.e., perpetual peace (Kant 1795 §2.1).

Democratic peace theory is that democracies do not make more upon each other, nor do they commit genocide against their own citizens. If the United States wishes to improve their low VAP turnout the USA must not make war or abuse their citizens and come to identify their nation not as a democracy but as an aspiring democracy (MD §34). The National Voter Registration Act of 1993, and the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA), have facilitated voter registration and the ability to cast ballots with little success. The Acts had four official purposes: (1) to establish procedures that will increase the number of eligible citizens who register to vote in elections for Federal office; (2) to make it possible for Federal, State, and local governments to implement this Act in a manner that enhances the participation of eligible citizens as voters in elections for Federal office; (3) to protect the integrity of the electoral process; and (4) to ensure that accurate and current voter registration rolls are maintained (Blackwell & Klukowski ’09:114). The NVRA of 1993 actually led to the lowest percentage turnout of voting age population since 1924 in the presidential election of 1996. HAVA of 2002, on the other hand, may have brought some people to the polls. In crafting a strategy to improve voter participation the federal government must be sure that it not only reminds citizens of their right to vote but protects the integrity of the ballot box and voter registries against intimidation and injustice. People don’t want to the come to the polls for two reasons. One, because they fear having their identity stolen by abusive officials. And two, with the nearly absolute Democratic and Republican monopoly of political parties at nearly every level of government voting would do no good because all votes just perpetuate the bipartisan system. The reason for the decline in participation since 1900 is the taxman became more oppressive with the epidemiologic surveillance of the U.S. Census Bureau of 1900, income tax of 1916 and prohibition of 1919.

Part Two: Restrictions on Voter Eligibility

The federal constitution forbids age or gender restrictions on voting rights for any citizen of at least 18 years, though some states restrict specific groups including those convicted of felonies. Registration is self-initiated and not compulsory. Most states require citizens to register by some deadline well in advance of an election, though a few permit same day or Election Day registration, and one does not conduct registration at all. State-level officials (Board of Elections or Secretary of State) design registration forms and determine requirements, but most election boards use continuous voter registries maintained by local governments. Two populations, people under 18 and convicted felons are the two remaining populations to be legally disenfranchised from the polling booth. No state in the world allows children to vote. Four states (Maine, Massachusetts, Utah, Vermont) do not disenfranchise convicted felons. In forty-six states and the District of Columbia, criminal disenfranchisement laws deny the vote to all convicted adults in prison. Thirty-two states also disenfranchise felons on parole; twenty-nine disenfranchise those on probation. And, due to laws that may be unique in the world, and in violation of the “no previous condition of servitude” clause of the XV Amendment, in fourteen states even ex-offenders who have fully served their sentences remain barred for life from voting, although their crime had nothing to do with electoral fraud. These restrictions cut into the third party vote and overall VAP turnout. An estimated 3.9 million Americans, or one in fifty adults, have currently or permanently lost the ability to vote because of a felony conviction, an estimated 1.7% of the voting age population, 3% of voter turnout (JD §264: 882-887). The U.S. foreign-born population is 36.5 million, with 14.4 million naturalized citizens. Research documents that naturalized citizens are less likely to register and vote than native citizens (Crissey ’08).

Impact of Felon Disenfranchisement on Voter Age and Voting Eligible Populations under State Voting Law 2008

State	Total Turnout	Voting Age Population	VAP Turnout Rate	Voting Eligible Population	VEP Turnout Rate	Non- Citizen	Prison	Probation	Parole	Total Ineligible Felons	Overseas Eligible
Alabama	2,105,622	3,558,576	59.0%	3,418,204	61.6%	2.2%	30,508	53,252	8,042	61,155	74,079
Alaska	327,341	510,020	64.0%	481,716	68.0%	3.7%	5,014	6,708	1,732	9,234	60,686
Arizona	2,320,851	4,809,400	47.7%	4,165,988	55.7%	11.6%	39,589	82,232	7,534	84,472	90,036
Arkansas	1,095,958	2,167,235	50.1%	2,064,173	53.1%	2.9%	14,716	31,169	19,908	40,255	43,963
California	13,743,177	27,279,556	49.7%	22,153,555	62.0%	17.9%	173,670	0	120,753	234,047	486,207
Colorado	2,422,236	3,748,718	64.1%	3,419,539	70.8%	8.0%	23,274	0	11,654	29,101	71,854
Connecticut		2,695,793	61.1%	2,443,533		8.5%	20,661	0	2,328	21,825	45,799
Delaware	413,562	672,304	61.3%	620,448	66.7%	5.3%	7,075	17,216	551	15,959	12,658
District of Columbia	266,871	479,880	55.4%	430,690	62.0%	10.3%	0	0	0	0	6,916
Florida	8,453,743	14,395,399	58.3%	12,542,585	67.4%	11.2%	102,388	279,760	4,528	244,532	451,907
Georgia	3,940,705	7,169,980	54.7%	6,380,404	61.8%	7.3%	52,719	397,081	23,448	262,984	141,001
Hawaii	456,064	1,000,026	45.4%	897,488	50.8%	9.7%	5,955	0	0	5,955	20,090
Idaho	667,506	1,116,659	58.7%	1,028,291	64.9%	4.9%	7,290	49,513	3,361	33,727	26,779
Illinois	5,578,195	9,684,345	57.0%	8,743,436	63.8%	9.2%	45,474	0	0	45,474	200,530
Indiana	2,805,986	4,808,900	57.2%	4,636,209	60.5%	3.0%	28,322	0	0	28,322	89,605
Iowa	1,543,662	2,285,881	67.2%	2,203,793	70.0%	2.6%	8,766	22,958	3,159	21,825	43,108
Kansas	1,264,208	2,102,464	58.8%	1,994,038	63.4%	4.2%	8,539	16,263	4,958	19,150	42,495
Kentucky	1,858,578	3,281,251	55.7%	3,156,184	58.9%	2.2%	21,706	51,035	12,277	53,362	58,518
Louisiana	1,979,852	3,343,411	58.6%	3,206,903	61.7%	2.0%	38,381	40,025	24,636	70,712	68,285
Maine	744,456	1,045,008	70.0%	1,031,496	72.2%	1.3%	0	0	0	0	21,362
Maryland	2,651,428	4,317,486	61.0%	3,901,736	68.0%	7.8%	23,324	96,360	13,220	78,114	77,074
Massachusetts	3,102,995	5,123,478	60.1%	4,672,376	66.4%	8.6%	11,408	0	0	11,408	77,830
Michigan	5,039,080	7,613,003	65.7%	7,311,245	68.9%	3.3%	48,738	0	0	48,738	163,673
Minnesota	2,921,147	3,980,782	73.1%	3,744,757	78.0%	4.0%	9,910	127,627	5,081	76,264	70,063
Mississippi		2,176,453	59.3%	2,099,663		1.9%	22,754	22,267	2,922	35,349	45,082
Missouri	2,992,023	4,533,017	64.5%	4,352,278	68.7%	2.5%	30,186	57,360	20,683	69,208	96,710
Montana	497,599	750,159	65.6%	736,697	67.5%	1.3%	3,545	0	0	3,545	22,898
Nebraska	811,923	1,337,385	59.9%	1,264,519	64.2%	4.3%	4,520	19,606	846	14,746	27,311
Nevada	970,019	1,946,641	49.7%	1,650,759	58.8%	14.1%	12,743	13,337	3,908	21,366	45,656
New Hampshire	719,643	1,030,415	69.0%	1,000,628	71.9%	2.6%	2,702	0	0	2,702	25,558
New Jersey	3,910,220	6,627,332	58.4%	5,755,371	67.9%	11.7%	25,953	128,737	15,849	98,246	110,559
New Mexico	833,365	1,486,830	55.8%	1,345,199	62.0%	8.3%	6,402	20,883	3,724	18,706	31,444
New York	7,721,718	15,048,837	50.8%	13,099,560	58.9%	12.4%	60,347	0	52,225	86,460	263,787
North Carolina	4,354,571	7,029,536	61.3%	6,521,263	66.8%	5.9%	39,482	109,678	3,409	96,026	133,483
North Dakota	321,133	499,894	63.3%	492,052	65.3%	1.3%	1,452	0	0	1,452	11,179
Ohio	5,773,387	8,802,396	64.7%	8,557,033	67.5%	2.2%	51,686	0	0	51,686	174,703
Oklahoma	1,474,694	2,747,092	53.2%	2,596,910	56.8%	4.0%	25,864	27,940	3,073	41,371	57,046
Oregon	1,845,251	2,925,885	62.5%	2,709,299	68.1%	6.9%	14,167	0	0	14,167	63,480
Pennsylvania		9,790,263	61.4%	9,435,272		3.1%	49,215	0	0	49,215	203,791
Rhode Island	475,428	824,604	57.2%	762,509	62.4%	7.0%	4,045	0	0	4,045	13,827
South Carolina	1,927,153	3,445,524	55.8%	3,284,019	58.7%	3.4%	24,326	41,254	1,947	45,927	72,241
South Dakota	387,449	608,222	62.8%	596,337	65.0%	1.2%	3,342	0	2,720	4,702	20,144
Tennessee	2,618,238	4,767,143	54.5%	4,558,557	57.4%	3.1%	27,228	58,109	10,578	61,572	127,930
Texas		17,654,414	45.8%	14,841,794		13.5%	172,506	427,080	102,921	437,507	549,216
Utah	971,185	1,889,690	50.4%	1,746,298	55.6%	7.2%	6,552	0	0	6,552	31,783
Vermont	326,822	493,436	65.9%	483,487	67.6%	2.0%	0	0	0	0	10,546
Virginia	3,753,059	5,982,805	62.2%	5,518,704	68.0%	6.6%	38,276	53,614	4,471	67,319	124,689
Washington	3,071,587	5,036,901	60.3%	4,564,797	67.3%	7.8%	17,926	113,134	11,768	80,377	138,296
West Virginia	731,691	1,429,429	49.9%	1,407,009	52.0%	0.8%	6,059	8,283	2,005	11,203	33,788
Wisconsin	2,997,086	4,322,269	69.0%	4,135,627	72.5%	3.0%	23,379	50,418	18,105	57,641	78,721
Wyoming	256,035	406,742	62.6%	394,627	64.9%	1.7%	2,084	5,438	727	5,167	13,832
U.S. Total	132,645,504	230,782,870	56.9%	213,231,835	62.2%	8.4%	1,605,448	2,451,085	627,680	3,144,831	4,972,217

Source: United States Election Project. General Elections 2008. October 2010

The impact of various factors, such a felony disenfranchisement laws, non-citizenship and overseas eligibility need to be analyzed. In the 2008 election of the 230.8 million people of voting age and 132.6 million showed up to vote between 56.9%-57.5% allowed by the 8.4% margin of non-citizens. Only 213.2 million of the 230.8 million voter age population, in 2008 were eligible to vote, 17.6 million votes were disqualified either because they were one of the 20 million non-citizens, not all of them permanent residents, or they were among the 3.1 million convicted felons disenfranchised by state law, or the ballot was unreadable. There are nearly 5 million overseas votes (US Election Project ’08). The disenfranchisement of felons weighs particularly heavily upon the 1.4 million African American men, or 13 percent of the black adult male population, are disenfranchised, reflecting a rate of disenfranchisement that is seven times the national average. More than one-third (36 percent) of the total disenfranchised population are black men. Ten states disenfranchise more than one in five adult black men; in seven of these states, one in four black men are permanently disenfranchised. Given current rates of incarceration, three in ten of the next generation of black men will be disenfranchised at some point in their lifetime. In states with the most restrictive voting laws, 40 percent of African American men are likely to be permanently disenfranchised (Human Rights Watch ’98; JD §264: 882-887). The United States really needs to review the previous condition of servitude clause of the XV Amendment reinstate the right to vote to people who have served their sentence, and consider reinstating it to all 3.1 million people have been denied the right to vote on the grounds that were sentenced to prison, probation and parole. This reform would be more likely to improve than detract from voter turnout because felon disenfranchisement is more of a continuation of the black slavery issue than the overprotection of women and children

In colonial times only those white males who owned land were empowered to vote. The first step in expanding the franchise involved eliminating the property requirement that only taxpayers could vote. This reform happened on a state-by-state basis, starting before the ratification of the Constitution, when Vermont granted universal male suffrage in 1777 and when South Carolina substituted a taxpayer requirement for a property-holding requirement. In 1789 only white males who owned property were generally eligible to vote, only around one in thirty Americans. At independence, the newly formed states rejected some of the civil disabilities inherited from Europe; criminal disenfranchisement was among those retained. In the mid-nineteenth century, nineteen of the thirty-four existing states excluded serious offenders from the franchise. Convicted felons were not the only people excluded from the vote. Suffrage was extremely limited in the new country: women, African Americans, illiterates, and people without property were also among those unable to vote. Before the Civil War the United States Constitution did not provide specific protections for voting. Qualifications for voting were matters which neither the Constitution nor federal laws governed. At that time, although a few northern states permitted a small number of free black men to register and vote, slavery and restrictive state laws and practices led the franchise to be exercised almost exclusively by white males. The history of equal suffrage has four phases, first, an increase in white male eligibility, enfranchisement of black citizens, enfranchisement of women, and enfranchisement of those between the ages of eighteen and twenty-one. The property qualification finally disappeared when Virginia eliminated it in 1850 (Morton & Barabbas ’70: 1071-1072). It is possible a compromise between the North and South could have been reached allowing the Republican Party to enroll southern blacks as members of their party pursuant to voting and Union rights. A great many people participated in the political process during this time known as the Gilded Age of political parties, the only era to consistently achieve the 66% quorum, hoping to influence the system and be rewarded by philanthropic parties.

Shortly after the end of the Civil War Congress enacted the Military Reconstruction Act of 1867, which allowed former Confederate States to be readmitted to the Union if they adopted new state constitutions that permitted universal male suffrage, and militarily occupied the Southern States. The 14th Amendment, which conferred citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States, was ratified in 1868. The Fifteenth Amendment to the constitution, ratified in 1870, provided specifically that the “right to vote shall not be denied or abridged on the basis of race, color or previous condition of servitude”. This superseded state laws that had directly prohibited black voting. Congress then enacted the Enforcement Act of 1870, which contained criminal penalties for interference with the right to vote, and the Force Act of 1871, which provided for federal election oversight. As a result, in the former Confederate States, where new black citizens in some cases comprised outright or near majorities of the eligible voting population, hundreds of thousands -- perhaps one million -- recently-freed slaves registered to vote. Black candidates began for the first time to be elected to state, local and federal offices and to play a meaningful role in their governments (Maisel & Buckley ’05: 70). By 1877 about 2,000 black men had won local, state, and federal offices in the former Confederate states. As many as a million blacks registered to vote and voter age participation remained above 66% from 1860-1896 (Morton & Barabbas ’70: 1071-1072).

Electoral success changed when Reconstruction ended in 1877 and federal troops withdrew from the old Confederacy. The extension of the franchise to black citizens was strongly resisted and the prisons never reviewed. With federal troops no longer present to protect the rights of black citizens, white supremacy quickly returned to the old Confederate states. Among others, the Ku Klux Klan, the Knights of the White Camellia, and other terrorist organizations attempted to prevent the 15th Amendment from being enforced by violence and intimidation. Two decisions in 1876 by the Supreme Court narrowed the scope of enforcement under the Enforcement Act and the Force Act, and, together with the end of Reconstruction marked by the removal of federal troops after the Hayes-Tilden Compromise of 1877, resulted in a climate in which violence could be used to depress black voter turnout and fraud could be used to undo the effect of lawfully cast votes. Once whites regained control of the state legislatures using these tactics, a process known as "Redemption," they used gerrymandering of election districts to further reduce black voting strength and minimize the number of black elected officials. In the 1890s, these states began to amend their constitutions and to enact a series of laws intended to re-establish and entrench white political supremacy. Such disfranchising laws included poll taxes, literacy tests, vouchers of "good character," and disqualification for "crimes of moral turpitude." These laws were "color-blind" on their face, but were designed to exclude black citizens disproportionately by allowing white election officials to apply the procedures selectively. Other laws and practices, such as the "white primary," attempted to evade the 15th Amendment by allowing "private" political parties to conduct elections and establish qualifications for their members (Maisel & Buckley ’05: 70).

The Southern states experimented with numerous additional restrictions to limit black participation in politics, many of which were struck down by federal courts over the next decades. As a result of these efforts, in the former Confederate states nearly all black citizens were disenfranchised by 1910. The problem of racial discrimination in voting, by white Southern legislators legally limiting blacks from voting with Jim Crow laws, including literacy tests, tests on interpreting the Constitution, whites only primaries, poll taxes and residency requirements. By 1960 fewer than 10 percent of the African American citizens in Mississippi were registered to vote. The process of restoring the rights taken stolen by these tactics would take many decades. In Guinn v. United States, 238 U.S. 347 (1915), the Supreme Court held that voter registration requirements containing "grandfather clauses," which made voter registration in part dependent upon whether the applicant was descended from men enfranchised before enactment of the 15th Amendment violated that amendment. In Smith v. Allright 321 U.S. 649 (1944) the Supreme Court ruled that primaries that the Texas whites only primary was unconstitutional. By the 1960s all but five states had eliminated even nominal poll taxes (Maisel & Buckley ’05: 73-74). In Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964), the Supreme Court established the one-person, one-vote principle (Maisel & Buckley ’05: 71). In Richardson v. Ramirez 418 U.S. 24, 41-55 (1974) the Court rejected the argument that the disenfranchisement of felons violates the Equal Protection Clause, ruling felon disenfranchisement is a matter of state policy (Blackwell ’09:113).

Black Voter Registration in Southern States 1960-2000

State	1960	1970	1980	1990	2000
Alabama	13.7	66.0	55.8	71.8	72.0
Arkansas	38.0	82.3	57.2	62.4	60.0
Florida	39.4	55.3	58.3	54.7	52.7
Georgia	29.3	57.2	48.6	53.9	66.3
Louisiana	31.1	57.4	60.7	82.3	73.5
Mississippi	5.2	71.0	62.3	78.5	73.7
North Carolina	39.1	51.3	51.3	64.0	62.9
South Carolina	13.7	56.1	53.7	62.0	68.6
Tennessee	59.1	71.6	64.0	77.4	64.9
Texas	35.5	72.6	56.0	63.5	69.5
Virginia	23.1	57.0	53.2	64.5	58.0
Average	29.7	63.4	56.5	66.8	65.66

Source: Table 3.1 pg. 76 Maisel & Buckley ‘05

The Constitution requires a national census to be conducted once per decade, and this mandate serves as the basis for apportioning seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. For each state, the number of people in each constituent congressional district must be precisely equal (Blackwell & Klukowski ’09). Congress passed legislation in 1957, 1960, and 1964 that contained voting-related provisions. The 1957 Act created the Civil Rights Division within the Department of Justice and the Commission on Civil Rights; the Attorney General was given authority to intervene in and institute lawsuits seeking injunctive relief against violations of the 15th Amendment. The 1960 Act permitted federal courts to appoint voting referees to conduct voter registration following a judicial finding of voting discrimination. In the early 1960s, the Supreme Court also overcame its reluctance to apply the Constitution to unfair redistricting practices. In Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962), the Supreme Court recognized that grossly mal-apportioned state legislative districts could seriously undervalue -- or dilute -- the voting strength of the residents of overpopulated districts while overvaluing the voting strength of residents of under-populated districts. The 1964 Act also contained several relatively minor voting-related provisions. In 1971, 13 individuals created the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC). Between 1970 and 1992, the number of African Americans serving in state legislatures increased 274 percent (from 168 to 463). According to 2003 figures from the National Conference of State Legislators, 595 African Americans held seats in the upper or lower house in state legislatures, accounting for 8.1 percent of all. in 1970 there were only 15 black women state legislators—accounting for less than 10 percent of all African-American state legislators. By 1992, the number of black women state legislators had increased to 131, or roughly 28 percent of all black state legislators. As with other women in Congress, legislative experience at the state level provided a vehicle for election to the U.S. Congress. In 1971, there was only one African-American woman in Congress—Shirley Chisholm of New York—among a total of 14 blacks in Congress. By late 2007, African-American women accounted for nearly one-third of all the sitting black Members of Congress.

Apportionment of Representatives among the States 1790-1970

Year	Congress	Population Base (1,000)	Number of States	Number of Repre-sentatives	Date of Act	Apportionment Population per Representative
1970	93^rd	203,053	50	435		469,088
1960	88^th -92^nd	178,559	50	435		410,5481
1950	83^rd-87^th	149,895	48	435		334,587
1940	78^th – 82^nd	131,006	48	435	November 15, 1941	301,164
1930	73^rd – 77^th	122,093	48	435	June 18, 1929	280,675
1920	No re-app.		48	435
1910	63^rd – 72^nd	91,604	48	435	August 8, 1911	210,583
1900	58^th – 62^nd	74,568	45	386	January 16, 1901	193,167
1890	53^rd – 57^th	61,909	44	356	February 7, 1891	173,901
1880	48^th – 52^nd	49,371	38	325	February 25, 1882	151,912
1870	43^rd – 47^th	38,116	37	292	February 2, 1872	130,538
1860	38^th – 42^nd	29,550	34	241	March 4, 1862	122,614
1850	33^rd – 37^th	21,767	31	234	July 30, 1852	93,020
1840	28^th -32^nd	15,908	25	223	June 25, 1842	71,338
1830	23^rd – 27^th	11,981	24	240	May 22, 1832	49,712
1820	18^th -22^nd	8,972	24	213	March 7, 1822	42,124
1810	13^th – 17^th	6,584	17	181	December 21, 1811	36,377
1800	8^th -12^th	4,880	16	141	January 14, 1802	34,609
1790	3^rd – 7^th 1^st – 2^nd	3,616 ----	15 13	105 65	April 14, 1792 Constitution 1789	34,436 30,000

Source: Series Y 215-219 Morton, Rogers C.B. Secretary of Commerce; Barabba, Vincent P. Director of the Bureau of the Census. Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1970. Bicentennial Edition pg. 1084

Women first came together in the famous conference at Seneca Falls, New York in 1848 to asset their own rights. From that point until the successful adoption of the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920, women suffragists waged a valiant, prolonged, often brilliant and frequently frustrating battle to win the right to vote. Women were first given the right to vote on school issues in the frontier states in the 1890s. Wyoming had granted women the right to vote on all matters in 1869 and in applying for admission to the Union, Wyoming included women’s suffrage in its constitution, Congress however did not admit Wyoming until 1890 as the first state with universal female suffrage. Other Western states followed Wyoming’s lead, in at least partial recognition of the important and equal role women played in the settlement of the frontier, but the progress was slow and often frustrating. By 1916 women’s suffrage was included in both party platforms, though the suffragists still wanted state action. In 1917 women turned to more militant actions, picketing the White House and delivering petitions to the president. Some were jailed, others replaced them. When female prisoners were force fed, the press had a field day. More women came to Washington and the jails became more crowded. The women’s suffrage amendment passed the House in the second session of the Sixty-fifth Congress, but it failed to achieve the two-thirds vote necessary in the Senate. More women came to Washington, more picketed, more were jailed, and more hunger strikes ensued. Finally President Wilson was won over to the cause. Then the Republican controlled House passed the measure in 1919, Wilson pressured his fellow Democrats in the Senate to enact women’s suffrage. At long last, in August 1920, the Nineteenth Amendment was ratified by three-quarters of the states, and women won the right to vote in all elections. No further legal barrier could be used to prevent women from voting (Maisel & Buckley ’05: 78-79).

Voter Turnout in Presidential Elections, by Gender, 1964-2008

Source: Center for American Women and Politics. Gender Differences in Voter Turnout. Eagleton Institute of Politics. Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey. November 2009

The women and children of the 20^th century were not as well received as the freed blacks of the Gilded Age. Voter turnout for women remained low in the years immediately after enfranchisement. Voter participation in 1920 and 1924 was the lowest voter participation in history at 49.2% and 48.9% respectively, probably as the result of the restrictions on freedom imposed by the XVIII Amendment prohibition of alcohol one year from 1919. Despite the adversity, the number of female voters steadily increased, exceeding the male number by 1964, and leveled off in 1972, at a turnout level only slightly below that of men. Since 1980 turnout rates of women voters have exceeded the rates for men in every national election. Today, women still constitute only 19 per cent of the members of parliaments around the world. In the United States House of Representatives 73 of 435 seats, only 16.8% were filled by women. In the Senate only 15 seats, 15% were occupied by women. This is below international mean. No woman has ever been elected President or Vice President although many unsuccessful challengers have nominated women as their Vice-Presidential candidate. Female candidates suffer no electoral or fund-raising disadvantage compared to male candidates. A gender related fund-raising disadvantage may have existed in Congressional elections prior to the mid-eighties, but this seems to have disappeared or even reversed in recent years. Since 1984, female candidates for the House have been slightly more successful than males at raising funds and at least as successful in raising PAC contributions, large contributions and even early contributions. At the state level, female candidates also raise more money than their male counterparts. Consequently, the current dearth of female office holders is thought to be primarily the result of prior barriers to women entering politics, the effects of which are still realized today because of the generic incumbency advantage. Older and more male-dominated cohorts are being replaced by younger and less male-dominated cohorts (Milyo & Schosberg ’00: 2).

2004 Voter Turnout by Age

Age Group	Turnout
18 – 24	47%
25 - 34	56%
35 - 44	64%
45 - 54	69%
55 - 64	73%
65 and older	71%

Source: Old Enough to Fight but Not Old Enough to Vote: The 26^th Amendment. The Free Library. Scholastic Inc. 2008

During World War II, when eighteen year olds were conscripted into military service, many people believed that the voting age should be lowered to eighteen. In 1943 Georgia lowered its voting age to eighteen, but no other state followed suit. President Eisenhower expressed support for eighteen-year-old voters during his first term (1953-1957), but only Kentucky amended its constitution to effect that change. When Alaska and Hawaii were admitted to the Union in the late 1950s, their constitutions called for voting ages of nineteen and twenty, respectively. No further changes ensued until the United States became embroiled in the Vietnam War. The cries were heard, “old enough to die but not old enough to vote.” In response Congress enacted the Voting Rights Act of 1970, one provision of which made eighteen year olds eligible to vote in all national, state, and local elections. In Oregon v. Mitchell 400 U.S. 112 (1970) the Supreme Court struck down this provision, asserting that Congress could not constitutionally take such actions for state and local elections. In response Congress passed and the requisite 37 states ratified, the Twenty-sixth Amendment, making eighteen the minimum voting age for all elections (Maisel & Buckley ’05: 85). In 1974 the US abolished the draft and became a volunteer military. 11 million 18 – 20 year olds gained the right to vote and between 1970 and 1972 the voter age population increased by 16.3 million from 124.5 million to 140.8 million, 13.1% growth. Between 1972 and 1974 growth in VAP was 3.9% and between 1968 and 1970 3.5% close to the birth rate. The 26^th Amendment set voter age participation back ten percentage points from the 60-70% in the 1960s presidential elections and 40-50% in midterm elections to the 50-60% in all subsequent presidential elections and the 30-40% in congressional elections (IDEA ’09). Young voters are easy to register but least likely to show up to the polls, of any age group.

The easing of voting restrictions has a checkered history. Property requirement were eased and during Reconstruction former Confederate states were obligated to enfranchise black voters in their constitutions, the XV amendments guaranteed blacks the right to vote and participated in politics. Voter participation was never higher between 1860 and 1900 voter participation did not fall below 71.3%. However when Union occupying forces left southern states legislated a Redemption and by 1890 few blacks were registered to vote. Segregation cast a pall over the elections and since 1900 no national election has achieved a 66% turnout. By 1900 the voting franchise had been tainted by apartheid and to assure a fear for one’s health the U.S. Census Bureau began keeping accurate epidemiologic statistics. Women’s suffrage, the XIX amendment of 1920, was falsely associated with the cruel prohibition of alcohol of the XVIII amendment of 1919-20, and 1920 and 1924 had the lowest voter participation rates of the 20^th century. The U.S. Census Bureau uniquely did not even bother to re-apportion the districts in 1920. The admission of an estimated 33.9 million women doubled the size of the voting age population from 27 million males in 1910 to 60.9 million men and women in 1920 a 226% increase (U.S. Census ’48 : 1). It took a while for voter turnout to pick back up as a percentage but by 1964 there were numerically more women registered to vote than men, by the 1972 women had equal turnout rates and since 1980 more women have turned out to vote than men. The XVI amendment of 1971 allowed 11 million people ages 18-20 to vote at the polls, but these youths have the lowest participation rates of any age group, and subsequently voter participation has dropped 10 percentage points. The enfranchisement of convicted felons offers to expand the electorate by 3.1 million votes. Extending the right to vote to people under 18 would increase the voting age population by 74.6 million, 32%. These captive populations would be particularly easy to motivate to go to the polls. The penal system would stay out of the electoral process. Third parties could appeal for prison votes. Probation officers could give out election material. Parents could vote for their infants so long as they had identification and were registered to vote. Only genuine third party option would be as likely to foster voter turnout.

Part Three: Incumbent Democratic-Republican Two Party Electoral System

We elect one president of the United States, fifty governors, one hundred senators, 435 members of Congress, 1,984 state senators, 5,440 state representatives, thousands of mayors, city council members, county commissioners, judges of probate, clerks of court, water district commissioners and other public officeholders. In 2005 ninety-nine of the one hundred U.S. senators are either republicans or Democrats, 434 of the 435 representatives in the House of Representatives are affiliated with one of the two major parties, all fifty of the state governors and more than 7,350 of the approximately 7,400 state legislators elected in partisan elections ran under major party labels (Maisel & Buckley ’05: 267). Although federal officials get most of the attention, state and local officials often make decisions that have more direct impact on our daily lives. State and local officials holding some elective office are also qualified candidates for higher office (Maisel & Buckley ’05: 200-201). The States have the constitutional responsibility for delivering the vast array of governmental programs and services that characterize life in the United States. There are about 85,000 local governments in the United States. One of the usual responsibilities of nearly every county government is the conducting of elections. Sometimes, local governments supplement their finances with federal aid (Dover ’03: 67). The distribution of power within the American federal system places extensive responsibilities at the local level, yet the structure of public finance leaves those local governments with only limited funding to carry out their numerous responsibilities. The federal government dominates the most lucrative types of taxation, while the states rely upon the ones that follow in their ability to produce revenue. Local governments, such as counties, are often left with the least-productive types of taxation to finance their myriad activities (Dover ’03: 68).

Nearly two-thirds of U.S. cities with a population of over five thousand hold nonpartisan elections to determine who will hold local offices. The movement toward nonpartisan government was part of Progressive era reforms, advocates of nonpartisan local government feel that running a local government should be more like administering a business than playing partisan politics. Frequently they cited the corruption and the inefficiency of partisan politics as, “There is no Democratic or Republican way to clean a street”. Critics contend that nonpartisan elections tend to draw fewer voters because citizens do not care who wins these elections and because elections without the cue of party often confuse voters (Maisel & Buckley ’05: 473). States have also delegated considerable power to the people in regards to initiatives and referendums. The California recall process begins with an official “Notice of Intention to Recall”, signed by at least sixty-five voters, filed with the California secretary of state’s office, whereby the lieutenant governors will set the date of the recall election within sixty to eighty days (Maisel & Buckley ’05: 262). In Maine organized parties rarely have enough strength to help state legislative candidates significantly, however, in states such as Minnesota, party organizations practically run the campaign for candidates. In Massachusetts in 1998 eighteen of the forty seats in the state senate were won without any major party opposition, 45 percent, 68 out of 160 house members won reelection with no opponent, 42.5 percent. In Florida in the 1998 elections for representative to the state house of representatives, Democratic candidates ran unopposed by Republican opponents in 37 of 120 races. Republican candidates faced no major party opposition in twenty races (Maisel & Buckley ’05: 25).

The modern two party system evolved in six distinct party systems in American political history, Jeffersonian Democratic-Republican, Jachsonian Democrats, Progressive Republican Era, Republican Populist, New Deal Democrats and the modern age of split ticket voting whereupon informed voters divide their vote so that the President’s party does not also hold a majority in Congress (Maisel & Buckley ’05: Xxiii). The Founder envisioned directly elected Representatives connected to their populace and two Senators selected by the state parties. The other elected officials of the federal government were chosen through a filtering process. The elaborate mechanism for choosing the president has given the office a great deal of independence from the ruling party (Maisel & Buckley ’05: 10-11). The Electoral College was created in 1787 as part of the original writing of the national constitution. Some convention delegates wanted the president chosen by a direct popular vote of the people, while others preferred a more indirect method, choice by Congress, the electoral college was a compromise. The House of Representatives would choose the president if the Electoral College failed in its designated task. One unusual feature of the Electoral College was the method designated for choosing the vice president, now deferring to the Presidential candidate’s counsel. Originally the vice president would be the second highest vote getter in the Electoral College and would have the responsibility of presiding over the Senate. Electors were each given two votes for someone not of their state (Dover ’03: 23-25). The Electoral College helped to produce a clear winner in three elections. In the elections of 1860, 1912 and 1992, Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson and Bill Clinton, respectively, finished first in the popular vote in campaigns in which there were more than two major candidates. Lincoln attained 39.8 percent of the popular vote, Wilson 41.8 percent and Clinton 43.4 percent. None of these are convincing victories. The distributions of electoral votes in these elections provided more convincing evidence for claims of victory. Lincoln attained 180 votes of the 303 that were cast in 1860; Wilson garnered 435 out of 531 while Clinton won 370 votes from the grand total of 538 that comprised the electoral college of 1992. The size of these electoral vote triumphs allowed these presidents to claim popular mandates when their actual votes may have suggested otherwise (Dover ’03: 33).

The ability of the president to lead his own party in Congress, to win support in the other party, or to coalesce opposition measured by presidential support scores and presidential opposition scores changes. Poor showing in public opinion polls certainly works against the president’s credibility as a leader to his fellow partisans in Congress. But increased popularity does not necessarily equate legislative success. American is not a parliamentary democracy. Congress is a separate branch of government, representatives and senators have separate electoral bases from the president. Therefore, the ability of the president to lead his party in Congress will depend on two criteria, first, institutional constraints, where his agenda falls relative to the preferences of his party’s majority, second external factors from scandal to war to the economy, all of which affect the ability of a president to persuade even members of his own party to follow his lead (Maisel & Buckley ’05: 465). Vice presidential running mates for major-party candidates are officially nominated by the two parties’ conventions. But the choices are made by the presidential candidate. The vice presidential nominee can help or hurt the ticket. Certainly the nominee is evaluated in party on this choice, the first important decision he has to make after confirmation as his party’s standard bearer. The process for choosing vice presidential candidates is not a formal one, but it has been a careful and organized one (Maisel & Buckley ’05: 325 & 326). The party leadership roles of majority leader and minority leader and majority whip and minority whip developed out of the intense partisan conflict at the turn of the 20^th century. Although Speakers are officially elected by the entire House, the vote to elect them is essentially party line. Each party’s caucus, a meeting of all party members, nominates a candidate for Speaker. The Speaker’s right hand is the majority leader. Elected by members of his or her own party to handle the day-to-day leadership of the party, the majority leader schedules legislation, coordinates committee work, and negotiates with the president, the House minority leader, and the Senate leadership. The goal of a majority leader is to build and maintain voting coalitions and essentially to keep peace in the family. Next in line in the party hierarchy are the whips, their job is to link the rank and file to the party leadership. They are the information disseminators, in house pollsters, and vote counters. They make the party position known to all members of the caucus, assess who is for, against, or on the fence on any given piece of legislation and try to persuade reluctant members to follow the party line and report back to the Speaker and the majority and minority leaders with the expected vote tallies (Maisel & Buckley ’05: 438). Nancy Pelosi is a generous fund raiser, she gave $1 million in 2002 to her colleagues for their reelection bids, more than any other House Democrat (Maisel & Buckley ’05: 447).

The incumbent has a distinct advantage. In only six elections since World War II have fewer than 90 percent of those seeking reelection been reelected. Over 90 percent of House incumbents seeking to return are successful in election after election. The average reelection rate for incumbents seeking reelection in the last three elections was over 97 percent. Senators too are rarely defeated (Maisel & Buckley ’05: 471).

State legislators seeking reelection also win virtually all of the time (Maisel & Buckley ’05: 258). Incumbent presidents do not have to prove that they are capable of handling the office or that they have the requisite background and experience, they have held the job for four years. What is better experience for being president than having been president? Incumbent presidents have a political organization in place (Maisel & Buckley ’05: 369). Incumbents are winning because challengers are poor campaigners. When challengers run good campaigns, incumbents can lost. But good challengers appear too infrequently for too many important offices. The lack of good challengers and good campaigns insulate incumbents in congressional races, the same factors insulate those incumbents seeking reelection to less visible and less attractive offices as well (Maisel & Buckley ’05: 260). Early in the twentieth century, Presidents Taft, Hoover and Bush I lost bids for reelection, but these defeats are easily explained. Taft lost because former president Theodore Roosevelt ran as a third-party candidate, as the candidate of his famous Bull Moose Party splitting the Republican vote, allowing Woodrow Wilson to win with less than a majority. Hoover lost because the voting public blamed him for the Great Depression. Bush lost votes on the economy to Perot. Each loss took place before the electronic media multiplied the advantages of incumbency (Maisel & Buckley ’05: 369). Nearly 90 percent of respondents report having had some contact with their congressional leaders, almost a quarter had personally met their representatives, and almost three quarters had received mail from their representative in Washington. Challengers are not known at all, voters do not choose between two candidates on equal footing but between one who is well known and positively viewed and another who has to fight to be viewed at all (Maisel & Buckley ’05: 80 & 89).

The most prevalent rules call for candidates to run in their party’s primary if they meet certain fairly simple criteria. First, the prospective candidate must be a registered member of the political party whose nomination he or she seeks. Second, candidates must meet some sort of test to gain access to the ballot. Often this test involves gathering a certain number of signatures on a petition. The number of signatures necessary and who is eligible to sign are important factors. In Tennessee, only 25 signatures are required for most offices. In Maine a percentage of those voting in the last election are needed, only registered party members may sign petitions, and they must sign a petition that contains only the names of party members from their home town (Maisel & Buckley ’05: 208). Despite the lip service given to the basic principle of majority rule, majority rule is an exception in American politics. Most elections in America, and certainly most primaries are determined by plurality rule. That is, the person with the most votes, not necessarily 50 percent plus at least one, in the primary wins the nomination (Maisel & Buckley ’05: 217). Politicians generally like to avoid hotly contested primaries. However, under certain circumstances, such as when a candidate is not well known and/or a candidates organization has not tested, a little primary can be a good thing (Maisel & Buckley ’05: 230). Credential disputes are the most easily understood. In party rules and in the call to the convention, each party establishes the procedures through which delegates are to be chose. In most cases no one challenges the delegates presenting themselves as representing a certain state. Each party appoints a Credentials Committee that hears challenges to proposed delegations and rules on the disputes. The report of the Credentials Committee is the first order of official business before the nominating convention. Credentials, and rules disputes which can determine who wins and who loses, are seen as critical matters. The whips inform the delegates and the delegates fall into line (Maisel & Buckley ’05: 321 &324).

After the national conventions, party members sometimes even reject the top candidate of their party and cross over to split their ballots at election time. Only party regulars can more or less be counted on to vote the straight ticket. Many people find choosing between the parties a hard decision, or may reject both. Many don’t bother to register, or frustrated, they leave a blank or register Independent. Unwillingness to join one side disregards the fact that the membership of a major party includes a surprising diversity of conservatives, moderates, liberals, pro and anti-government, pro-regulation and deregulation, internationalist and isolationist and other attributes that divide people. Both the rise of blind allegiance to Party and rejection of Party have gotten out of hand. Asked about their orientation in 2002, Americans replied that they were Moderate (40%), Conservative (36%) and Liberal (19%). Liberal is the meaning of recent years, not the 19^th century one which was rooted in freedom from government authority. Being Independent takes one out of the party arena and may seem to reduce stress and strain, but it excludes one from party primaries in many, but not all states. It facilitates tuning out of the kinds of meaningful disputes over issues that perennially occupy those who affiliate with a Party. It also diminishes the percentage of the electorate who participate in our primary elections. While Independents tend to revel in their freedom form the controls of Party, they actually prevent themselves from having much to do with the orientation of the American System of Government, whose power is rooted in political parties and those who work effectively within the party machinery. After all, a political party is at its core an organization that consists of individuals, leaders and followers alike, at national, state, and local levels (Bornet ’04: 10-11).

A party system is a pattern of interaction in which two or more political parties compete for office or power in government and for the support of the electorate, and must therefore take one another into account in their behavior in government and in election contests. The American national party system is generally classified as a competitive two party-system. The Democratic and Republican parties compete with each other for national offices; each has a chance of winning. Minor parties may be on the ballot from time to time, but they neither persist nor have they had much of a chance of winning. In the 1992 presidential election, and to a lesser extent in the 1996 campaign, Ross Perot’s third party threatened the hegemony of the Democratic and Republican (DR) parties. But in the final analysis his effort to undermine the two-party system fell short. Thus our national system remains the competitive two party-system. It is decentralized in the sense that local and state politics are not generally disciplined (Maisel & Buckley ’05: 15 & 17). Theoretically the Democrat and Republican parties are organized in each of the roughly 190,000 precincts in the United States. Oftentimes, only one party has a precinct. In the 1980s and 1990s the Christian right motivated their members to show up for local precinct committee meetings in their areas and to attend the nominating caucuses to promote conservative candidates. This grassroots strategy eventually led to conservative control of local Republican party organizations in states such as Texas and Minnesota and has continued to provide a critical base of electoral support for GOP candidates (Maisel & Buckley ’05: 59). Today, state party central committees operate for both parties in each of the fifty states, and the means of choosing committee members is set by state law. Those who favor strong party organization believe that the state should interfere as little as possible with the internal working of political parties. Effective state party chairs not only lead the state committee, they define its tasks and setting its goals, they also act as the linchpin between grassroots party and the national party. The average budget for state parties rose nearly five times, to nearly $300,000 annually, between 1961 and 1979. By 1984 the average had risen to nearly $350,000 with the largest state budgets reaching $2.5 million and with only a quarter of the party committees operating with budgets of less than $100,000. State parties recruit and de-cruit candidates for local and state offices. State parties are continually at work to increase turnout in both primary and general elections. At the national level there are the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Republican National Committee (RNC) (Maisel & Buckley ’05: 61-63).

In Federalist 10 (1787) Madison warns of the mischief of faction, reasoning that many groups must be allowed to flourish so that no one group becomes too powerful. Such was the concept of party at the time the Constitution was drafted to the tune of “taxation without representation is tyranny!” The major American political parties exist, as do other political organizations, to organize large numbers of individuals behind attempts to influence the selection of public officials and the decisions these officials subsequently make in office. The differences between parties and other political organizations are often slender. We may define “political party” generally as the articulate organization of society’s active political agents, those who are concerned with the control of governmental power and who compete for popular support with another group or groups holding divergent views (Maisel & Buckley ’05: 14). The Democratic Party traces its origins back to Thomas Jefferson’s Democratic-Republican Party that murdered the Federalist Party. President Andrew Jackson split with the party retaining only the name Democrat. By the 1830s hundreds of delegates from state party affiliates would convene to nominate the candidates (Dover ’03: 27). The Republican Party emerged as the foe of the expansion of slavery into the territories and won the Presidency in 1860 with Abraham Lincoln, who served as president and commander in chief during the four years of the Civil War. It was the Republicans who pushed for the adoption of the 13^th, 14^th and 15^th Amendments during Reconstruction but they took their Union pensions and ran from the racial discrimination that swept the nation until the middle of the 20^th century. Modern political parties were in their infancy at the dawn of the nineteenth century. The Republican Party, reliant upon the military occupation of the former Confederate states, was dominating the American political landscape at the dawn of the twentieth century (Maisel & Buckley ’05: 468). In the beginning of the 20^th century Republicans vacillated between Progressivism, trust busting, government regulation of business and Conservatism, pro-business and protective tariffs. Republicans held office for the entire post-Civil War era with the exception of Grover Cleveland’s non-consecutive terms, and Woodrow Wilson’s two terms. The New Deal Democrats elected FDR by a landslide for four consecutive terms, and usually held the presidency and majority until the 70s (Bornet ’04: 1 & 4).

FDRs party identifies with the New Deal’s public works programs and federal help for the unemployed of the Great Depression and with the Social Security act of 1935, civil rights and trade union legislation, and Medicare. The Democrats are at one with use of the national government regulate the private sector of the economy and increasing the federal power. Republicans advocate the well-being of business and entrepreneurship, and minimum taxes and governmental regulations espoused by Reagan. The Democratic Party remains the party of Franklin D. Roosevelt. In contrast the Republican Party has become the party of Reagan. Scratch an orthodox Republican and you will quickly find someone who professes distrust of Government. Yet at the same time that individual will happily use Government to crate and operate the Nation’s military establishment, and FBI. Scratch and orthodox Democrat, and you will uncover an expressed belief in a form of government that uses its power to regulate and to collect income taxes from the affluent, with the money supposed to be spent on improving the circumstances of mankind at home and abroad. Tax policies commonly divide the parties, with some Republican conservatives eager to cut taxes in upper brackets to help the economy, not of course themselves. Democratic liberals, meanwhile, seem sometimes to desire using taxes not just to balance the budget or pay for programs, but to level the playing field of income distribution and property ownership. Democrats say they are champions of individual security and of protection of free speech. Republicans, meanwhile, tend to observe that they try to keep the good of the whole Nation in the forefront of their thinking. They assert that they believe fervently in the right to earn a living free of most government intervention, and that the right to own property certainly ought to include most aspects of the right to its use as the owner sees fit (Bornet ‘4: 5, 7, 8 & 13). In basic political matter we are more alike than we may think. Fundamentally, paraphrasing Jefferson’s first Inaugural Address, “we are all Republicans, we are all Democrats”. We are democrats in that we insist on one person, one vote, and majority decision-making. We are republican in relying on representative government, a necessity where large populations, widely scattered, are involved. We are Democratic-Republican in our belief System, which is solidly federalist yet also nationalist, solidly rooted in democratic principles yet clearly republican in electoral activities (Bornet ’04: 6).

This is an enormous country, with sections and regions. There are variations in economic conditions and recourse, and differing landscapes. Some blame for the rejection of party affiliation by young people should be placed on those who routinely besmirch party heroes. College professors as a whole are sharply divided in politics. In the social sciences and humanities they are overwhelmingly Democratic liberals. Some remember the old Socialist Party, still hoping for government ownership and regulation of the means of production and distribution. The science and physical education departments are by no means Democrats, while the business division faculty is probably Republican up and down the corridors. Judges vary in party affiliation. When they are appointed to the highest court, justices often change their ideology appreciably during their years of service, emerging in old age with beliefs foreign to their early careers (Bornet ’04: 9-10). Terrorism is defined as the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious or ideological in nature, through intimidation, coercion or instilling fear (Chomsky ’04: 79). Presidents from the Democratic Party led the Nation’s military establishment as commander in chief in World War I and II, Korea, Vietnam, Haiti, Somalia and Bosnia. Presidents from the Republican Party accepted the burden of leading the Union in the Civil War, the Spanish-American War and inherited the Vietnam War, they sought wars in Grenada and Panama and led the Nation during both the Gulf War and the Iraq War. Criticism of the United Nations is normally Republican, for it was President Wilson, a Democrat, who pioneers international organization with his ungratified League of Nations, while Roosevelt and Truman helped create the United Nations. Presidents from both parties have relied on NATO. They were both aggressive during the Cold War in confronting the Soviet Union (Bornet ’04: 7).

A representative democracy rests no just on the consent of the governed but on the informed consent of the governed. One conception of democratic society is one in which the public has the means to participate in some meaningful way in the management of their affairs and the means of information are open and free. If you look up democracy in the dictionary you’ll get a definition something like that. An alternative conception of democracy is that the elections bar the public from managing their own affairs and the means of information must be kept rigidly and narrowly controlled, the democratic official is a popularly elected despot, not necessarily an aristocrat, but despot nonetheless (Chomsky ’02). The question of how responsible men get into the positions where they have the authority to make decisions is by serving people with real power. The people with real power are the ones who own the society, and have instilled in them the beliefs and doctrines that will serve the interests of private power. Unless they can master that skill, they’re not part of the political class. So we have one kind of educational system directed to the responsible men, the political class. They have to be deeply indoctrinated in the values and interests of private power and the state-corporate nexus that represents it. As society becomes more free and democratic, propaganda is needed to control the masses. The business community controls the media and has massive resources. The political system trains the political class to work in the service of the masters the people who own the society. The rest of the population ought to be deprived of any form of organization, they ought to be working. If they can achieve that, then they can be part of the political class, who create and perpetuate the “necessary illusions” and emotionally potent “oversimplifications” to keep the naïve simpletons more or less on course (Chomsky ’02: 19-20). Parties have essentially become one of a class of participants in modern elections. Parties have become little more than super PACs. Candidates view parties as a source of money (Maisel & Buckley ’05: 479). The most interesting debate about the role of political parties in the twenty-first century is how the two parties define themselves (Maisel & Buckley ’05: 480). When parties are weak, the linkage role of the electoral process is not played well. When parties are strong, a possibility exists that representation and accountability will follow. Other institutions, the media, interest groups, have tried to pick up the slack, but they have done so without notable success. And thus we are drawn back to the conclusion that if political parties did not exist, someone would have to invent them. Since ours already exist, we should get on with the work of making them function more productively (Maisel & Buckley ’05: 486). A progressive theory of liberal democratic thought argues that a revolution in the art of democracy could be used to manufacture consent and bring about agreement on the part of the public for the election of third party candidates (Chomsky ’02: 9-17).

Stage One: Hamiltonian Federalists and Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans

George Washington won the election in 1788 and reelection in the nation’s second presidential election of 1792. Under the original rules electors were selected in November, they voted in December and Congress counted the votes in January. He deigned to run for a third term. In 1788 all 69 electors voted for Washington but with their second vote 34 voted for John Adams and the remaining 35 were split with John Jay receiving 9 votes. In the election of 1792 each of the 135 electors from fifteen states voted for Washington and with their second vote indicated Adams as their pick for vice president over New York Governor George Clinton (Dover ’03: 28) The first American party was the Federalist party, it was shaped largely by Alexander Hamilton, George Washington’s treasury secretary. James Madison, author of famous Federalist Paper Number 10 regarding the need for faction, pressured a reluctant Thomas Jefferson to join him in organizing an opposition party to Hamilton’s Federalists. Jefferson’s Democratic-Republicans formed as a reaction to the rising tide of Federalist policies gaining support in Congress, favoring New England merchants and manufacturers at the expense of southern and western farmers and tradesmen (Maisel & Buckley ’05: 33). The classical Greek philosophy of the Democratic-Republican (DR) was superb. By Washington’s retirement the nation had developed two active political parties, the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans. Jefferson stood against Hamilton’s statist ideas for good administration and an expansive executive, for an empowered federal government, with a capacity for managing finance, taking control of debt and banking, and encouraging manufacture. Hamilton had wanted to unite the interest and credit of rich individuals with those of the state in order to foster economic growth. The Jeffersonians, in heated contrast, proposed to limit the intrusiveness of the federal government in the market. In 1804 Treasury Secretary Hamilton was killed in a duel by Burr, the Anti-Federalist candidate, who returned to finish his term as Vice President before being acquitted for murder. Instinctively the Jeffersonians aligned themselves with the likes of the Whiskey Rebellion and thus with popular rule over federal authority. Jefferson set out his party’s core principle as “equal rights for all, special privileges for none” (Greenberg ’04: 9).

Electoral College Count in Presidential Elections 1789-1820

Year	# States	Candidates	Party Affiliation	Votes
1820	24	James Monroe	Republican	231
		John Q. Adams,	Independent-Republican	1
		Not Voted		3
1816	19	James Monroe	Republican	183
		Rufus King	Federalist	34
		Not Voted		4
1812	18	James Madison	Democratic-Republican	128
		De Witt Clinton	Fusion	89
		Not Voted		1
1808	17	James Madison	Democratic-Republican	122
		C.C. Pinckney	Federalist	47
		George Clinton	Independent-Republican	6
		Not Voted		1
1804	17	Thomas Jefferson	Democratic-Republican	162
		C.C. Pinckney	Federalist	14
1800	16	Thomas Jefferson	Democratic-Republican	73
		Aaron Burr	Democratic-Republican	73
		John Adams	Federalist	65
		C.C. Pinckney	Federalist	64
		John Jay	Federalist	1
1796	16	John Adams	Federalist	71
		Thomas Jefferson	Democratic-Republican	68
		Thomas Pinckney	Federalist	69
		Aaron Burr	Anti-Federalist	80
		Samuel Adams	Democratic-Republican	15
		Oliver Ellsworth	Federalist	11
		George Clinton	Democratic-Republican	7
		John Jay	Independent Federalist	5
		James Iredell	Federalist	3
		George Washington	Federalist	2
		John Henry	Independent	2
		S. Johnston	Independent Federalist	2
		C.C. Pinckney	Independent Federalist	1
1792	15	George Washington	Federalist	132
		John Adams	Federalist	77
		George Clinton	Democratic-Republican	50
		Thomas Jefferson		4
		Aaron Burr		1
1789	13	George Washington		69
		John Adams		34
		John Jay		9
		R.H. Harrison		6
		John Rutledge		6
		John Hancock		4
		George Clinton		3
		Samuel Huntington		2
		John Milton		2
		James Armstrong		1
		Benjamin Lincoln		1
		Edward Telfair		1
		Not Voted		12

Source: Series Y 79 – 83. Morton, Rogers C.B. Secretary of Commerce; Barabba, Vincent P. Director of the Bureau of the Census. Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1970. Bicentennial Edition pg. 1073-1074

This first party-system allowed for the orderly succession after Washington stepped down when John Adams (F) defeated Thomas Jefferson (D-R) in 1796 and Jefferson defeated Adams in 1800. In the election of 1796 Adams, a Federalist, won with 71 votes and nine states, while Jefferson, Democratic-Republican, won 68 votes and seven states. For Vice President Pinckney had been slated by the Federalists and Aaron Burr by the Anti-Federalists. Jefferson however had won the second largest number of electoral votes and took the post of Vice President. Because of partisan rivalry, was never assigned any executive responsibilities. In 1800 the problems with the electoral-college became worse. Both Adams and Jefferson ran again, with Jefferson winning this election by a close margin of 73 to 65 electoral votes. There was more party unity this time because Burr also received 73 votes. Burr had marched with the traitor Benedict Arnold during the war. The House of Representatives chose Jefferson over Burr, who was elected Vice President (Dover ’03: 28). On July 11, 1804, at the Heights of Weehawken in New Jersey, Alexander Hamilton was mortally wounded in a duel with Aaron Burr, who was later acquitted of murder charges and returned to finish his term as Vice President before leaving politics. Thus ended the rise of two-party competition in a limited electorate, limited by low suffrage and the dissemination of information. Given that presidents and senators were not popularly elected, the Federalists and Democratic-Republicans had to extend their efforts to the states to woo potential presidential electors and to recruit state legislators who were supportive of their respective parties national candidates (Maisel & Buckley ’05: 33). In his inaugural address in 1800 Jefferson reflected, “Every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. We have called by different names brethren of the same principle. We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists.” During Jefferson’s administration, few legislators identified themselves according to party. The Democratic-Republicans dominated the political scene for twenty-four years, without serious opposition during the administrations of Jefferson, Madison and Monroe (Maisel & Buckley ’05: 35).

The Federalist Party declined significantly after John Adams lost the election of 1800. After the election of 1800 the Federalist party soon became a New England sectional party, promoting policies too conservative to appeal to the greater electorate. More specifically, the Federalists denouncement of Congress’s declaration of war against Britain in 1812 further diminished the party credibility. It competed in national elections for nearly two decades after that but never won, nor did it appear likely to do so. It ceased its efforts entirely after 1816. The last Federalist presidential nominee was defeated by Monroe in 1816. With the virtual collapse of the Federalist party, the first American party system essentially collapsed. The adoption of the Twelfth Amendment in 1804 had two effects. First it eliminated the problem that had developed from the initial language of the Constitution by repealing the provision that electors must cast two undesignated votes for President. Second, it informally recognized political parties as the nominating institutions in presidential elections by providing separate ballots for president and vice president (Maisel & Buckley ’05: 35 & 36). By 1824 the Federalist Party had ceased to exist (Maisel & Buckley ’05: 35 & 36). James Monroe was unopposed for a second term in 1820 but the lack of a rival damaged the ruling Democratic-Republicans in the battle for a successor to Monroe in 1824. With little opposition Monroe was reelected in 1820, his two terms were so lacking in party conflict that the pundits deemed it the “era of good feelings.” But, the lack of another party to compete with in the electoral arena did not mean a lack of conflict within the dominant party (Maisel & Buckley ’05: 35 & 36).

A great distinction must be made between parties. Some countries are so large that the different populations who are in perpetual state of opposition. If a civil war breaks out the struggle is carried on by rival states. But when the citizens entertain different opinions upon subjects which affect the whole country alike, such, for instance, as the principles upon which the government is to be conducted, then distinctions arise that may correctly be styled parties. When the War of Independence was terminated and the foundations of the new government were to be laid down, the nation was divided between two opinions, as old as the world, one tending to limit, the other to extend indefinitely the power of the people. The Party that desired to limit the power of the people were Federalists. The other party was exclusively attached to the cause of liberty, the Democratic-Republican (DR). America is the land of democracy and the Federalists were always in the minority, but they relied upon the moral power of the great men from the War of Independence. In 1801 the DR got hold possession of the government, Thomas Jefferson was elected President and he increased the influence of their party. The means by which the Federalists had maintained their position were artificial, and their resources temporary, and the Federalists found themselves in so small a minority they perceived they were vanquished and fell into two divisions, one joined the victorious DR and the other laid down their banners and changed their name. Society is convulsed by great parties, it is only agitated by minor ones. When the Democratic-Republican party got the upper hand, it took exclusive possession of the conduct of affairs, and from that time on the laws and the customs of society have been adapted to its caprices. The two chief weapons that parties use in order to obtain success are the newspapers and public associations (DeToquevile 1835:174- 180)

Stage 2: Jacksonian Democrats 1824 - 1856

1824 was the first year the electoral-college vote for President was decided by popular election, and it was so flawed as to need to be decided by the House. Turnout for the Presidential election jumped from 26.9% in 1824, the first year, to 57.6% in 1828 to an all-time high of 80.2% in 1840 (Greenberg ‘04:10). By 1824 there were four candidates all claiming membership to the Democratic-Republican Party, as a result no candidate won either a majority of the electoral or popular vote and the election was decided in the House of Representatives. John C. Calhoun, Monroe’s secretary of war declared himself a candidate in 1821. Secretary of State John Quincy Adams, Secretary of the Treasury William H. Crawford, Speaker of the House Henry Clay and the hero of the battle of New Orleans, General Andrew Jackson, had all been put forward by their supporters. Crawford might have been the front-runner, but he suffered a paralyzing stroke in the fall of 1823 and had to stop campaigning. Calhoun withdrew when he was promised the vice presidential nomination by both Adams and Jackson. Andrew Jackson led in the popular vote with 41.3 percent of the popular vote and 99 electoral votes and eleven states, followed by John Quincy Adams with 84 electoral votes, 30.9 percent of the popular vote and seven states. William Crawford and Henry Clay each won three states. Crawford finished third in electoral votes, with 41 votes, but fourth in popular vote, with 11.2 percent, while Clay finished third in the popular vote with 13 percent, but fourth in electoral votes with only 37 votes. Since no candidate had a majority of the electoral vote, the House of Representatives decided the election. Clay was Speaker of the House. He actively supported Adams, and his backing proved crucial. Adams was elected because thirteen state delegations voted for him on the one and only ballot. Jackson won the support of seven states, and Crawford of four. Adams named Clay his Secretary of State. The House election of Adams and his deal with Clay convinced the people of the undesirability of allowing the House of Representatives to choose the president (Dover ‘03: 30). The election of 1924 created a violent split in the Jeffersonian Democratic-Republican party, between the backers of Adams, the National Republicans, and those of Jackson, the Democrats (Maisel & Buckley ’05: 37).

Popular and Electoral Votes in Presidential Election 1824- 1856

Year	# States	Candidate	Party Affiliation	Electoral College Votes	Popular Votes	Vote Eligible Population Turnout
1856	31	James Buchanan	Democratic	174	1,832,955	78.9%
		John C. Fremont	Republican	114	1,339,932
		Millard Fillmore	American	8	871,731
1852	31	Franklin Pierce	Democratic	254	1,601,117	69.6%
		Winfield Scott	Whig	42	1,385,458
		John P. Hale	Free Soil		155,825
1848	30	Zachary Taylor	Whig	163	1,360,967	72.7%
		Lewis Cass	Democratic	127	1,222,342
		Martin Van Buren	Free Soil		291,268
1844	26	James K. Polk	Democratic	170	1,338,464	78.9%
		Henry Clay	Whig	105	1,300,097
		James G. Birney	Liberty		62,300
1840	26	William H. Harrison	Whig	234	1,274,624	80.2%
		Martin Van Buren	Democratic	60	1,127,781
1836	26	Martin Van Buren	Democratic	170	765,483	57.8%
		William H. Harrison	Whig	73
		Hugh L. White	Whig	26	739,795
		Daniel Webster	Whig	14
		W.P. Mangum	Anti-Jackson	11
1832	24	Andrew Jackson	Democratic	219	687,502	55.4%
		Henry Clay	National Republican	49	530,189
		William Wirt	Anti-Masonic	7
		John Floyd	Nullifiers	11
		Not Voted		2
1828	24	Andrew Jackson	Democratic	178	647,286	57.6%
		John Q. Adams	National Republican	88	508,064
1824	24	John Q. Adams	No Majority	84	108,740	26.9%
		Andrew Jackson	Decided in House	99	153,544
		Henry Clay	No Parties Designations	37	47,136
		W.H. Crawford		41	46,618

Source: Series Y 79 – 83. Morton, Rogers C.B. Secretary of Commerce; Barabba, Vincent P. Director of the Bureau of the Census. Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1970. Bicentennial Edition pg. 1073-1074

By 1828 the party system had been redesigned. Jackson’s supporters created the Democratic Party, while Adams and Clay started the National Republican Party. The latter entity did not last long and was succeeded by the Whig Party in 1834. The Whigs were, in turn, replaced by the current Republican Party in the election of 1856. Since that time, the two major parties have performed the role of nominating the two final candidates for president, with the Electoral College serving as the electing institution (Dover ‘03: 30). By 1928 all but two of the 24 states selected their electors by popular vote. The popular vote in 1828 more than tripled that of 1824. Jackson’s victory in 1828 put a premium on party organization to mobilize voters. The successful grassroots organization by Jackson supporters was due much in part to the leadership of Martin van Buren. Often referred to as the “father of parties” Van Buren was the chief architect of the first American mass party and the chief defender of the patronage system that supported it. Nominating conventions have been integral components of Presidential elections since the 1830s (Dover ‘03: 2). Supported by a loyal following Jackson readily won reelection in 1832, having been re-nominated by his party at the first national party convention, with Van Buren on the ticket as vice president. As Jacksonian Democrats continued to build support, using the spoils system that rewarded legions of friends, a new opposition party led by Henry Clay and Daniel Webster, the Whigs, was formed to oppose Jackson (Maisel & Buckley ’05: 38). By the election of 1836, competition between the Democrats, as the Jeffersonian or Democratic Republicans came to be called and the Whigs became intense. Strong party organization on both sides of the presidential campaign of 1840 between Van Buren and Henry Harrison yielded a record number of voters at the polls. 78 percent of adult white males voted in the 1840 presidential election, up from the record set previously by Jackson, the 56 percent turnout in 1828 was more than double the 1824 percentage. In 1848 Martin van Buren broke with the Democrats to head the Free-Soil party (Greenberg ’04:11).

Politics had emerged as the true national pastime and the spoils system retained its place as a powerful tool in the arsenal of nineteenth-century party warfare. Once in office, even the Whigs, who criticized the Democratic use of patronage as corrupt, proved to be as adept as their counterparts in utilizing the spoils of success to their maximum electoral advantage (Maisel & Buckley ’05: 39). Political parties cling to principles, in them private interest is more studiously veiled under the pretext of the public good. The Jacksonian Democrats emerged with a philosophy of government and citizens consistent in content and style with those of the Jeffersonians. They gained clarity in opposition to Henry Clay’s “American system”, where the government expanded credit, protected industry and financed internal improvement, for the purpose of promoting America’s modernization. But while the Whig opponents proffered a government should exert a beneficial paternal fostering influence upon the Industry and Prosperity of the People, the Democrats wanted to stop government from overreaching, the Democrats as they put it preferred the “voluntary system”. They opposed high tariffs, arguing it was a system for plundering the laboring classes, The Democrats assumed special guardianship over the principles of the Constitution, to block those who would expand government with a doctrine of expediency and general welfare.” The Democrats sought to center the American in the common man, but not slaves or Native Americans who were cruelly mistreated in this era. Democrats built support in all regions of the country by 1838 that would keep them in power for decades. Every Democratic ticket from 1836 to 1860 was by design regionally balanced, one Southerner and one non-Southerner. The Democrats’ rules required then, and up until 1936, that the nominee win two-third of the votes at the convention (Greenberg ’04:10). The election of Zachary Taylor, a Whig, in 1848 was the only election in this cycle of nine presidential elections who was not a Democrat.

In 1845 Congress designated the first Tuesday after the first Monday in even numbered years as the day in which states had to conduct elections to select members of Congress. In response to this law, state governments tended to schedule elections for their own and local officials on these same days (Dover ’03: 70). By the 1850s, it was clear the leaders of the two major parties could no longer sidestep the slavery issue. The slavery question had been a latent source of political conflict since the Missouri Compromise of 1820 that decreed all territories above latitude 36º 30’ north, slavery would be forever prohibited, solidifying sectional division between the northern and southern wings of the two parties. The Compromise of 1850 secured the admission of California as a free state and abolished the use of the District of Columbia as a depot in the interstate slave trade, and also opened New Mexico and Utah to popular sovereignty on the slavery issue. Third parties rose to take a stand, or fall, on the slavery issue, the Liberty party, then the Free Soil party. A coalition of antislavery parties united in opposition to the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 gave birth to the Republican party. John C. Fremont got nearly 40 percent of the vote in 1856, a majority in the North, but he was not even on the ballot in most of the Southern states. In the election of 1860 Abraham Lincoln, the second Republican presidential candidate, defeated Democrat Stephen A. Douglas as well as Southern Democrat candidate John C. Breckinridge and the Constitutional Union party’s John Bell, ushering in the third party system. By 1850 the basic features of the American political system were not unlike those in place today (Maisel & Buckley ’05: 40-42).

Stage Three: Progressive Republican Era 1860-1896

In the election of 1860 Abraham Lincoln, the second Republican presidential candidate, defeated Democrat Stephen A. Douglas as well as Southern Democrat candidate John C. Breckinridge and the Constitutional Union party’s John Bell, ushering in the third party system. The third party system roughly coincided with the “Gilded Age” or the “Progressive Era” following the Civil War to the mid-1890s, when political parties achieved unprecedented levels of power and organization. This period had the highest turnout of any in American history, from 1868 to 1892, almost 80 percent of all eligible voters showed up at the polls for presidential elections, including black males of voting age. The most significant political innovation of this period was the urban political machine. Each machine was organized as a structured hierarchy, a dominant leader, the political boss, ward leaders beholden to the boss, precinct captains beholden to the ward leader, and those who worked the streets beholden to those organizing the precinct. The glue that held these machines together was material incentives, tangible rewards for work well done, and the withdrawal of those rewards if work was not done. Patronage jobs were the reward for electoral success. Aid, to the newly arrived immigrant, the unemployed, or the underemployed, ensured loyalty to the machine (Maisel & Buckley ’05: 43-44). Perhaps the classic example of an urban political machine during this era was Tammany Hall, the Democratic New York City machine and its notorious ringleaders, Boss William Marcy Tweed. George Washington Plunkitt, ward boss of the Fifteenth Assembly District in New York said, the importance of patronage, material good and constituent services in securing party loyalty to the machine is clear, “You can’t keep an organization together without patronage. Men ain’t in politics for nothin’”. The machine boss flourished in a time when a complex industrial society outstripped the instruments of governance. Not only did the gilded Age parties control patronage jobs, but they were the gate-keepers to elected offices as well. However while bosses dominated politics industrialists dominated society (Maisel & Buckley ’05: 46).

Popular and Electoral Votes in Presidential Election 1860-1896

Year	# States	Candidate	Party Affiliation	Electoral College Votes	Popular Votes	Vote Eligible Population Turnout
1896	45	William McKinley	Republican	271	7,102,246	79.3%
		William J. Bryan	Democratic	176	6,492,559
		John M. Palmer	National Democratic		133,148
		Joshua Levering	Prohibition		132,007
		Charles H. Matchett	Socialist Labor		36,274
		Charles E. Bentley	Nationalist		13,969
1892	44	Grover Cleveland	Democratic	277	5,555,426	74.7%
		Benjamin Harrison	Republican	145	5,182,690
		James B. Weaver	People’s	22	1,029,846
		John Bidwell	Prohibition		264,133
		Simon Wing	Socialist Labor		21,164
1888	38	Benjamin Harrison	Republican	233	5,447,129	79.3%
		Grover Cleveland	Democratic	168	5,537,857
		Clinton B. Fisk	Prohibition		249,506
		Anson J. Streeter	Union Labor		146,985
1884	38	Grover Cleveland	Democratic	219	4,879,507	77.5%
		James G. Blaine	Republican	182	4,860,293
		Benjamin F. Butler	Greenback-Labor		175,370
		John P. St. John	Prohibition		150,369
1880	38	James A. Garfield	Republican	214	4,453,295
		Winfield S. Hancock	Democratic	155	4,414,082	79.4%
		James B. Weaver	Greenback-Labor		308,578
		Neal Dow	Prohibition		10,305
1876	38	Rutherford B. Hayes	Republican	185	4,036,572	81.8%
		Samuel J. Tilden	Democratic	184	4,284,020
		Peter Cooper	Greenback		81,737
1872	37	Ulysses S. Grant	Republican	286	3,596,745	71.3%
		Horace Greenley	Democratic	3 (died)	2,843,446
		Charles O’connor	Straight Democratic		29,489
		Thomas A. Hendricks	Independent Democratic	42
		B. Gratz Brown	Democratic	18
		Charles J. Jenkins	Democratic	2
		David Davis	Democratic	2
		Not Voted		17
1868	37	Ulysses S. Grant	Republican	214	3,013,421	78.1%
		Horatio Seymour	Democratic	80	2,706,829
		Not Voted		23
1864	36	Abraham Lincoln	Republican	212	2,206,988	73.8%
		George B. McClellan	Democratic	21	1,808,787
		Not Voted		81
1860	33	Abraham Lincoln	Republican	180	1,865,598	81.2%
		J.C. Breckinridge	Democratic (S)	72	848,356
		Stephen A. Douglas	Democratic	12	1,382,718
		John Bell	Constitutional Union	39	592,906

Source: Series Y 79 – 83. Morton, Rogers C.B. Secretary of Commerce; Barabba, Vincent P. Director of the Bureau of the Census. Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1970. Bicentennial Edition pg. 1073-1074

The new Republican Party won in 1860, based exclusively in the North and militarily occupied the South for the entire Progressive era. The Republican Party would win the great majority of elections between 1860 and 1928 although they faced close elections in 1876, 1880 and 1888. However, Democrat Grover Cleveland won the White House in nonconsecutive terms in 1884 and 1892 when Jim Crow laws were most ascendant. The essential voting patterns were established as early as 1856 and confirmed in 1880 when the South was reintegrated into the Union. Lincoln established the Republicans as the party that held the nation together, and by abolishing slavery and breaking the power of the South landed classes they had set the country irrevocably down a modernizing and industrial path. Republican leaders from Lincoln to Teddy Roosevelt to Coolidge described their party as the American Party, ready to defend America. The Civil War was a reference point where Republicans could continually remind voters that they defended America’s virtues with force of arms. The great majority of the party’s presidential nominees were military figures, especially in this period after the Civil War. The states of the Old South at the outset of the 1890s began enacting statutes to disenfranchise the black voter and to end the prospect of competitive general elections in the Southern states. The Republicans, for their part, constructed a system of Civil War pensions available only to veterans of the Union Army, one in ten voters concentrated in the Northeast and Midwest, not much. The payment exploded from 1880 to 1910, when the Republicans were retrenching their position to fend off the Populists. The Grand Army of the Republic, 400,000 strong, backing the Republicans through all the election battles (Greenberg ;04:12). The Republicans won the Civil War.

Two elections in the post-Civil War period were defined by electoral-college difficulties. In 1876, voters appeared to have chosen the Democratic nominee Samuel Tilden for president over Republican Rutherford Hayes by a margin of over 250,000 popular votes and an electoral vote count of 203 to 166; 51 percent of the popular vote to 48 percent. There were serious discrepancies in the vote count in three former confederate states, South Carolina, Louisiana and Florida. In each of these states, competing governmental institutions submitted final vote tallies that showed the party of the leaders of those institutions winning the state, with Tilden leading in all three. Congress had to choose between the party slates and appointed a commission comprised of five House members, five senators and five justices to investigate the claims and decide which slates to accept. The commission voted eight to seven, strictly on party lines, to seat the Republican electors. The Senate accepted this decision, but the House indicated it would disapprove. In a move of historic significance, a number of Southern congressmen agreed to vote for the Republican slates in exchange for an end to Reconstruction and the appointment of several Southerners as executives in the new Republican administration. This deal made, the disputed electors went to Hayes, who won the presidency through an electoral vote count of 185 to 184 despite the fact that he had lost the popular vote. Without the existence of the electoral college, Tilden would have become president. The Congress responded to this controversy by enacting a law, which is still in effect today, that says Congress must accept the slate of electors that is certified as official by a state’s governor unless it can be proven that such a slate was chosen in a fraudulent manner (Dover ’03: 31).

The second difficult election occurred in 1888. The Democrats nominated Grover Cleveland for a second term as president, while the Republicans chose Benjamin Harrison. The election was close, as were most of the elections, during this time, with Cleveland garnering 48.6 percent of the popular vote compared to Harrison’s 47.8 percent. While this margin may not seem large, only 0.8 percent of 1 percent, it was large when compared to its two predecessors. The popular vote difference in the election of 1880 was only 0.02 percent, and Cleveland had won the popular vote when seeking his first term in 1884 by only 0.25 percent. There was an important difference between the elections of 1884 and 1888, Cleveland had won the electoral votes of twenty of the nation’s thirty-eight states in 1884, by 1888 he carried only eighteen. Two of the states he had carried in 1884, New York and Indiana, went for Harrison. As a result, Harrison won the electoral vote by an overwhelming margin of 233 to 168. Cleveland won the popular vote by scoring massive victories in the former confederate states, where nearly all voters supported the Democrats. Harrison won most of the other states by far closer margins. Cleveland had more votes, but Harrison had a broader and more national base of support. The election of 1888 was the last time when the winner of the popular vote did not also win the electoral vote, until 2000 (Dover ’03: 31). Progressive reforms in the electoral arena had more immediate impacts. The first was the Australian ballot, a state-printed ballot cast in secret and listing all candidates for a particular position, no one party’ candidates for all position. The new ballot, adopted in all but two states from 1889 and 1891, enabled split-ticket voting and reduced voter intimidation at the polls (Maisel & Buckley ’05: 48 & 49).

The Populist platform began, “corruption dominates the ballot box, the legislatures, the Congress and touches even the ermine of the bench. The people are demoralized. Most of the states have been compelled to isolate the voters at the polling places to prevent universal intimidation or bribery”. Popular momentum for anti-machine reforms was provided by Charles J. Guitenau, the deranged disappointed office seeker who shot President Garfield. His crime and Garfield’s death focused popular criticism on the spoils system and indirectly create the civil service system. The Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act of 1883 was the first step in the decline of the urban machines, depriving them of their very lifeblood, patronage (Maisel & Buckley ’05: 48 & 49). The immediate post-Civil War years were, the golden age of American parties. Flush with industrial contributions party regularity was higher, party loyalty deeper and party stability greater than at any other time in American history. In 1876 the Greenback Labor Party nominated a candidate for president, Peter Cooper of New York, paradoxically one of the richest men in the country, a “limousine liberal”, and in 1878 the party attracted 1,060,000 votes in congressional elections, enough to elect fourteen congressmen (Gordon 04: 268). Third parties such as the Greenback party in 1880, the Anti-Monopoly party in 1884, the Labor party in 1888 and the Populist party in 1892 flourished (Schlesinger 99: 265). In the nineteenth century visiting Europeans were awed by the popular obsession with politics. Tocqueville in the 1830s thought politics “the only pleasure an American knows.” Bryce half a century later found parties “organized far more elaborately in the United States than anywhere else in the world.” Voting statistics justified transatlantic awe. In no presidential election between the Civil War and the end of the century did the American turnout, the proportion of eligible voters actually voting, fall below 70 percent. In 1876 it reached nearly 82 percent. But in no presidential election since 1968 has the American turnout exceeded 55 percent. In 1984, only 52.9 percent voted (Schlesinger 99: 260).

The Republican Party was defined by its modernizing, unifying and nationalist vision that became more ideologically developed as the parties battled through the industrial revolution. Between 1880 and 1910 national wealth increased 275 percent and the urban population grew from 28 to 46 percent, while massive immigration brought downward pressure on wages. This was a time for the rise of corporations, holding companies, trusts and monopolies, but also a time for deep downturns, including most of the 1890s, after the panic of 1893. The election of 1896 was hot. The Democrats, breaking with their tradition of running fiscally austere, antigovernment nominees, chose William Jennings Bryan, the populist, evangelical candidate who would change the identity of the Democratic Party. His politics were rooted in the civic virtue and common man themes that carried the Democrats through the nineteenth century, but it included the premise that the country should be enriched from the bottom up, “if you legislate to make the masses prosperous, their prosperity will find its way up through every class which rests upon them”. Republicans thought the government should promote the country’s growth and advancement with mercantilist policies, by creating markets, protecting American manufacturing behind high tariffs, and create a favorable climate for surging big corporations. McKinley said, “We are not a nation of classes, but of sturdy, free, independent and honorable people \aspiring to achieve the highest development and greatest prosperity, out of come the greatest gains to the people, the greatest comforts to the masses, the widest encouragement for many aspirations. There is no way in the world of earning money except by work”. Republicans associated themselves with business and Americans accepted this pro-capitalist model and Republican won elections (Greenberg ’04:14). In 1896 an era of reform began. Before 1896 both parties favored industrialization, and both parties sought to appeal to urban populations. Civil War allegiances shifted in the election of 1896. The realignment signaled the “end of the era of no decision” (Maisel & Buckley ’05: 47-48).

Stage Four: Republican Populism 1900-1928

When Theodore Roosevelt became president in 1901 on the assassination of William McKinley, he moved sharply in the direction of the progressive wing of the Republican Party that dominated the House 185 to 163 with 9 Independents and Senate 53 to 26 with 8 Independents and ushered in a fourth party system of Republican Populism. The Republicans would hold the White House for sixteen consecutive years and for 28 of the next 36 years. With the realignment of the electorate after 1896, Republicans dominated the North and Midwest while Democrats maintained a stronghold in the “Southern states and border states. The decline in competition between the two major parties would take its toll on party organization, no longer were the tightly run, vote mobilizing institutions of the Gilded Age needed to win. The mandated primary, which most states instituted from 1905 to 1910, stripped the parties of a critical source of power, control over nominations. Candidates no longer needed the party nod to get on the ballot. In addition many cities introduced nonpartisan elections, in which party names do not even appear on the ballots, further reducing the stronghold of parties at the local level. The Progressive era empowered the populace with such procedures as the initiative, the referendum and the recall. The Seventeenth Amendment, adopted in 1913, further reined in the parties, by mandating the direct election of U.S. senators (Maisel & Buckley ’05: 49). Although Democrat Woodrow Wilson won the presidency in 1912 and 1916, the electoral coalitions did not change and the Republicans remained the majority party. Wilson won the 1912 election because Teddy Roosevelt split the Republican vote, running on his own third-party ticket, that of the Progressive Bull Moose party. Wilson barely won again in 1916, as many old Progressives marched back to the Republicans. By 1920 the Republican coalition had regained prominence. (Maisel & Buckley ’05: 47-48).

Popular and Electoral Votes in Presidential Election 1900-1928

Year	# States	Candidate	Party Affiliation	Electoral	Popular Votes	Congress	Split	Turnout
1928	48	Herbert C. Hoover	Republican	444	21,391,993	72^nd House	220 D, 214 R, 1 I
		Alfred E. Smith	Democratic	87	15,016,169	72^nd Senate	47 D, 48 R, 1 I
		Norma Thomas	Socialist		267,835	71^st House	167 D, 267, 1 I	56.9%
		Verne L. Reynolds	Socialist Labor		21,603	71^st Senate	39 D, 56 R, 1 I	(1928)
		William Z. Foster	Workers		21,181
		William F. Varney	Prohibition		20,106
1924	48	Calvin Coolidge	Republican	382	15,718,711	70^th House	195 D, 237 R, 3 I
		John W. Davis	Democratic	136	8,385,283	70^th Senate	46 D, 49 R, 1 I
		Robert M. LaFollette	Progressive	13	4,831,289	69^th House	183 D, 247 R, 4 I	48.9%
		Herman P. Faris	Prohibition		57,520	69^th Senate	39 D, 56 R
		Frank T. Johns	Socialist Labor		36,428
		William Z. Foster	Workers		36,386
		Gilbert O. Nations	American		23,967
1920	48	Warren G. Harding	Republican	404	16,143,407	68^th House	205 D, 225 R, 5 I
		James M. Cox	Democratic	127	9,130,328	68^th Senate	43 D, 51 R, 1 I
		Eugene V. Debs	Socialist		919,799	67^th House	131 D, 301 R, 1 I	49.2%
		P.P. Christensen	Farmer-Labor		265,411	67^th Senate	37 D, 59 R, 2 I
		Aaron S. Watkins	Prohibition		189,408
		James E. Ferguson	American		48,000
		W.W. Cox	Socialist Labor		31,715
1916	48	Woodrow Wilson	Democratic	277	9,127,695	66^th House	190 D, 240 R, 3 I
		Charles E. Hughes	Republican	254	8,533,507	66^th Senate	47 D, 49 R
		A.L. Benson	Socialist		585,113	65^th House	216 D, 210 R, 6 I	61.6%
		J. Frank Hanley	Prohibition		220,506	65^th Senate	53 D, 42 R
		Arthur E. Reimer	Socialist Labor		13,403
1912	48	Woodrow Wilson	Democratic	438	6,296,547	64^th House	230 D, 196 R, 9 I
		Theodore Roosevelt	Progressive	88	4,118,571	64^th Senate	56 D, 40 R
		William H. Taft	Republican	8	3,486,720	63^rd House	291 D, 127 R, 17 I	58.8%
		Eugene V. Debs	Socialist		900,672	63^rd Senate	51 D, 44 R, 1 I
		Eugene W. Chafin	Prohibition		206,275
		Arthur E. Reimer	Socialist Labor		28,750
1908	46	William H. Taft	Republican	321	7,675,320	62^nd House	228 D, 161 R, 1 I
		William J. Bryan	Democratic	162	6,412,294	62^nd Senate	41 D, 51 R
		Eugene V. Debs	Socialist		420,793	61^st House	172 D, 219 R	65.4%
		Eugene W. Chafin	Prohibition		253,840	61^st Senate	32 D, 61 R
		Thomas L. Hisgen	Independence		82,872
		Thomas E. Watson	People’s		29,100
		August Gillhaus	Socialist Labor		14,021
1904	45	Theodore Roosevelt	Republican	336	7,628,461	60^th House	164 D, 222 R
		Alton B. Parker	Democratic	140	5,084,223	60^th Senate	31 D, 61 R
		Eugene V. Debs	Socialist		87,814	59^th House	136 D, 250 R	65.2%
		Silas C. Swallow	Prohibition		258,536	59^th Senate	33 D, 57 R
		Thomas E. Watson	People’s		117,183
		Charles H. Corregan	Socialist Labor		31,249
1900	45	William McKinley	Republican	292	7,218,491	58^th House	178 D, 208 R
		William J. Bryan	Democratic	155	6,356,734	58^th Senate	33 D, 57 R
		John C. Wooley	Prohibition		208,914	57^th House	151 D, 197 R, 9 I	73.2%
		Eugene V. Debs	Socialist		87,814	57^th Senate	33 D, 57 R
		Wharton Barker	People’s		50,373
		Jos. F. Mailoney	Socialist Labor		39,739

Source: Series Y 79 – 83. Morton, Rogers C.B. Secretary of Commerce; Barabba, Vincent P. Director of the Bureau of the Census. Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1970. Bicentennial Edition pg. 1073-1074, Table 1.5 & 1.6 pgs. 18-22 Maisel, L. Sandy; Buckley, Kara Z. Parties and Elections in America: The Electoral Process. Fourth Edition. Lanham Maryland. Roman & Littlefield Publishers. 2005

In 1906 Roosevelt advocated a tax on inheritances. Taft, a far more conservative man than Roosevelt, revered the Supreme Court. Indeed he would serve as chief justice, an office far more congenial to his nature than the presidency, for most of the 1920s. He was horrified at the idea of defying the Supreme Court so he proposed the idea of a constitutional amendment that would permit an income tax and proposed a corporate income tax on profits. In 1911 the Supreme Court agreed unanimously. The Sixteenth amendment meanwhile passed the Senate 77-0 and the House 318-14. The amendment was ratified by the required number of state legislatures and was declared effective on February 3, 1913. By that time the Republican Party had split between the conservative Taft Republicans and the progressive Roosevelt Republicans, who stormed out of the 1912 convention to form their own party under the symbol of the bull-moose. As a result, the Democrat Woodrow Wilson was elected president with less than 42 percent of the popular vote but with almost 82 percent of the electoral votes (Gordon 04: 271). Among the first acts of the new Wilson administration was the passage of a personal income tax law. Although only fourteen pages long, it contained the seeds of the vast complexity that was to come. Incomes more than $3,000 was to be taxed, on a progressive scale from 1 to 7 percent on incomes more than $500,000. But there were many exemptions, such as interest on state and local bonds and corporate dividends up to $20,000. Interest on all debts, depreciation of property, and many other things were deductible from taxable income. The corporate income tax remained a completely separate tax. The financial exigencies of the twentieth century’s great wars would send income tax rates soaring to heights undreamed of by even its most passionate advocates (Gordon 04: 277). Justice Oliver Holmes said, “Taxes are the price we pay for civilization.”

After the Democrats took control of the House of Representatives in 1910, Congress finally passed a bill creating a Cabinet level department to “promote and develop the welfare of the wage earners of the United States, to improve their working conditions, and to advance their opportunities for profitable employment”. William Howard Taft grudgingly signed the bill into law on March 4, 1913, the final day of his presidency (Cohen 09: 195). American manufacturing increased rapidly as the result of the World War in Europe. Markets in Latin American and Asia, which had been served by European companies, were now open to be taken over by American firms. Far more important was the avalanche of order that began to roll in to American firms form Great Britain and its allies, for steel, vehicles, railroad rolling stock and rails, and a new invention barbed wire. Munitions were of course n the greatest demand. Du Pont had been only a midsized manufacturer of gunpowder before the war, but would come to supply the Allies with fully 40 percent of their munitions. In the four years of war Du Pont’s military business increased by a factor of 276 and it became one of the world’s largest chemical companies as well. By the end of the war Du Pont had revenues twenty-six times as large as they had been in 1913 (Gordon 04: 292). Overall the gross national product of the United States increased by 21 percent in the four years of the war, while manufacturing increased by 25 percent (Gordon 04: 289).

Between 1910 and 1920 only about 21 large firms a year started pension plans, in the 1920s the number rose to about 45. By 1925 over 200 firms, led by the railroads, which dominated the expansion of private pensions, offered them. By the late 1920s retirement funds for policemen, teachers and firemen had become nearly universal. In 1921 the national government gave employers tax exemptions for contributions to trust funds designed to accumulate and distribute capital for fringe benefits. Treasury rulings in 1914 and 1921 allowed businesses to deduct pension expenses from the recently enacted income tax. The 1926 Revenue Act wrote these administrative rulings into law. Calvin Coolidge at the end of this period of Republican dominance was president for the 1920s, when incomes grew by 20 percent between 1921 and 1929 and the number of automobiles rose from 9.3 million to 23.1 million, by the end of the decade there was almost one care for every family. But this was also a decade for speculative booms, with rising inequality. Coolidge, with Andrew Mellon, likely the wealthiest man in the country, as his secretary of the treasury, proceeded with an economic policy of aggressive tax slashing for the wealthy. They cut the inheritance tax in half, abolished the gift tax, and reduced the income tax to 5 percent. Like their predecessors in 1896, Coolidge and Mellon attacked those who “seek to perpetuate prejudice and class hatred and pit one class of taxpayers against another”. The Republican bargain, Mellon declared, was straightforward, “In no other nation and at no other time in the history of the world have so many people enjoyed such a high degree of prosperity” (Greenberg ’04: 14-15).

To be sure 659 banks failed in 1929, but that was slightly below the annual average for the decade and no major banks had collapsed as a result of the crash (Gordon 04: 318). President Herbert Hoover called a conference of businessmen in November 1929 and urged them to invest in construction, he telegraphed state governors, who funded 80 percent of government construction, to do the same and in the spring he promised to increase spending by $140 million. No small sum in a federal budget that amounted to only $3.3 billion or about 3 percent of GNP. At the time twenty-five percent of the federal budget went to debt service, and most of the rest to fund the 139,000 man army and the 95,000 man navy. The winter and early spring of 1930 the stock market rebound regaining about 45 percent of what had been lost. By the Spring of 1930 it didn’t look as if more would be needed and President Hoover told a religious group, “You have come sixty days too late. The depression is over.” (Gordon 04: 320). Unfortunately Hoover then signed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. This was economic folly. Tariffs are taxes and taxes inescapably are always a drag on the economy. But far worse, high tariffs breed retaliation from other countries. Professional economists knew this and a thousand of them signed a petition asking Hoover to veto the tariff bill. The economist’s arguments proved all too true and world trade began to collapse. The Federal government that Hoover presided over was small and limited in scope to conventional wisdom. Herbert Hoover said on 25 March 1932, “the absolute necessity of a balanced budget is the most essential factor to economic recovery (5 May) the imperative and immediate step (13 May) indispensable (21 May) the first necessity of the Nation (11 August) the foundation of all public and private financial stability (11 August). The government collected little revenue and therefore it had little money to dispense. The federal income tax had been in effect a mere twenty years, and only about 5 percent of Americans paid it. The total federal budget was just $3.3 billion (Gordon 04: 328).

Stage Five: New Deal Democrats 1932-1968

The stock market crash in 1929 and the Great Depression shattered the allegiances of the fourth party system. The American public blamed the Great Depression on the Republican president Herbert Hoover and his party. In 1932, Franklin Delano Roosevelt swept into office with 57 percent of the popular vote, with the electoral college 472 to 59 and stayed in office for five successive terms only two 1936 and 1940 above 60% turnout. For the next thirty years it would be the Democrats who were dominant. The voting patterns forged in the 1850s and 1880s were radically disrupted. The Republicans had identified themselves with the concept of business led prosperity that turned to ash. The New Deal coalition solidified union support for the Democratic Party, African-Americans began to identify with the Democratic party and poverty was defined at an annual income of less than $3,000 a year. Roosevelt made the Democratic Party the indispensable party for an America that would recover economically and honor the mass of laboring and working people. Even though Republicans won Congress in 1946, and despite President Eisenhower’s defeat of Democrat Adlai Stevenson in both 1952 and 1956, these elections, quite popular, were seen as deviations, Eisenhower’s success was more a result of a war hero’s popularity than it was an electoral shift to the GOP. The majority of Americans still owed allegiance to the Democratic Party, and the issues dividing the electorate were still the New Deal issues. Kennedy and Johnson recaptured the 1960s for Democrats and sustained voter turnout in the 60% range. For more than three decades the political agenda would be defined by the same question, does the federal government have a responsibility to serve as the employer of last resort, intervene actively in the economy and help those unable to help themselves (Maisel & Buckley ’05: 52).

Popular and Electoral Votes in Presidential Election 1932-1968

Year	# States	Candidate	Party Affiliation	Electoral	Popular Votes	Congress	Split	Turnout
1968	50	Richard M. Nixon	Republican	301	31,785,480	92^nd House	254 D, 180 R	46.6%
		Hubert H. Humphrey	Democratic	191	31,275,166	92^nd Senate	54 D, 44 R, 2 I	(1970)
		George C. Wallace	American Independent	46	9,906,473	91^st House	243 D, 192 R, 1 I	60.6% (1968)
		Henning A. Blomen	Socialist Labor		52,588	91^st Senate	57 D, 43 R
		Dick Gregory			47,133
		Fred Halstead	Socialist Workers		41,388
		Eldridge Cleaver	Peace and Freedom		36,563
		Eugene J. McCarthy			25,552
		E. Harold Munn	Prohibition		15,123
1964	50	Lyndon B. Johnson	Democratic	486	43,129,566	90^th House	247 D, 197 R	48.4%
		Barry M. Goldwater	Republican	52	27,178,188	90^th Senate	64 D, 36 R	(1966)
		Eric Hass	Socialist Labor		45,219	89^th House	295 D, 140 R	61.7%
		Clifton DeBerry	Socialist Workers		32,720	89^th Senate	68 D, 32 R	(1964)
		E. Harold Munn	Prohibition		23,267
1960	50	John F. Kennedy	Democratic	303	34,226,731	88^th House	258 D, 177 R	47.3%
		Richard M. Nixon	Republican	219	34,108,157	88^th Senate	67 D, 33 R	(1962)
		Eric Hass	Socialist Labor		44,450	87^th House	263 D, 174 R	64.0%
		Rutherford L. Decker	Prohibition		46,203	87^th Senate	65 D, 35 R	(1960)
		Orval E. Faubus	National States Rights		44,977
		Farrell Dobbs	Socialist Workers		40,165
		Charles L. Sullivan	Constitution		18,162
1956	48	Dwight D. Eisenhower	Republican	457	35,590,472	86^th House	283 D, 153 R
		Adlai E. Stevenson	Democratic	73	26,022,752	86^th Senate	64 D, 34 R
		T. Coleman Andrews	States’ Rights		111,178	85^th House	233 D, 200 R	60.6%
		Eric Hass	Socialist Labor		44,450	85^th Senate	49 D, 47 R	(1956)
		Enoch A. Holtwick	Prohibition		41,987
1952	48	Dwight D. Eisenhower	Republican	442	33,936,234	84^th House	232, D, 203 R
		Adlai E. Stevenson	Democratic	89	27,314,992	84^th Senate	48 D, 47 R
		Vincent Hallinan	Progressive		140,023	83^rd House	211 D, 221 R. 1 I	63.3%
		Stuart Hamblen	Prohibition		72,949	83^rd Senate	47 D, 48 R, 1 I	(1952)
		Eric Hass	Socialist Labor		30,267
		Darlington Hoops	Socialist		20,208
		Douglas A. MacArthur	Constitution		17,205
		Farrell Dobbs	Socialist Workers		10,312
1948	48	Harry S. Truman	Democratic	303	24,179,345	82^nd House	234 D, 199 R, 1 I
		Thomas E. Dewey	Republican	189	21,991,291	82^nd Senate	49 D, 47 r, 1 I
		Strom Thurmond	States’ Rights	39	1,176,125	81^st House	263 D, 171 R, 1 I	53.0%
		Henry Wallace	Progressive		1,157,326	81^st Senate	54 D, 42 R	(1948)
		Norman Thomas	Socialist		139,572
		Claude A. Watson	Prohibition		103,900
		Edward A. Teichert	Socialist Labor		29,241
		Farrell Dobbs	Socialist Workers		13,614
1944	48	Franklin D. Roosevelt	Democratic	432	25,606,585	80^th House	188 D, 245 R, 1 I
		Thomas E. Dewey	Republican	99	22,014,745	80^th Senate	45 D, 15 R
		Norman Thomas	Socialist		80,518	79^th House	242 D, 190 R, 2 I	55.9%
		Claude A. Watson	Prohibition		74,758	79^th Senate	56 D, 38 R	(1944)
		Edward A. Teichert	Socialist Labor		45,336
1940	48	Franklin D. Roosevelt	Democratic	449	27,307,819	78^th House	218 D, 208 R, 4 I
		Wendell L. Willkie	Republican	82	22,321,018	78^th Senate	58 D, 37 R, 1 I
		Norman Thomas	Socialist		80,518	77^th House	268 D, 162 R, 5 I	62.5%