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