[EL] most states elected US House at-large in 1789
Rob Richie
rr at fairvote.org
Tue Nov 27 11:17:50 PST 2012
At-large elections for states with more than one seat were commonly done
until the 1842 law mandating single-member districts was first passed - and
were done by states off and up through 1968, the year after the latest
mandate of single-member districts.
The move to requiring House Members to be elected by geographic district
was in response to some states adopting statewide winner-take-all rules for
apparent partisan reasons. That would be consistent with James Madison's
fervent opposition to the statewide winner take-all rule for presidential
electors, which he proposed banishing via a constitutional amendment. (See:
http://www.fairvote.org/why-james-madison-wanted-to-change-the-way-we-vote-for-president/
).
The congressional election reform movement that led in 1842 to mandating
districts might well have been looked to non-winner-take-all voting for
House election if it had had the option to consider that alternative.
Through the accident of history,however, the first writings detailing such
methods came out two years later. If something as persuasive as John
Stuart Mill's Treatise on Representation had come out in 1840 instead of 20
year later, we might have never had to fight over partisan gerrymandering,
Voting Rights Act controversies and bizarre situations like all House seats
in New England next year being Democratic and all 16 House seats in
Arkansas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Nebraska all being Republican.
I'll paste in text from a law review article I'm working on with a
colleague about alternatives to single-member district elections for
Congress and other legislatures. Of course for election the president, I
like the proportion of one person, one vote.
Rob
#########
QUOTE
“Every voice will be heard, every right will be seen, and every wrong felt;
and then the House of Representatives will become what the Framers of the
Constitution intended it should be a bright and honest mirror, reflecting
all the lights and shades of the multifarious interests of this mighty
people, as they lie spread out over this broad land." – Senator Jacob W.
Miller of New Jersey, speaking in favor of a mandate for single-member
congressional districts in 1842.
EXCERPT
When Congress was first established, the states used a variety of creative
methods for electing their representatives. From the second Congress until
1842, most states with large populations used single-member districts,
while those with smaller populations often elected their congressional
representatives by general ticket. All such elections were
winner-take-all, as non-winner-take-all methods had not yet been devised.
They took place over a two-year period, as Congress had yet to pass a law
establishing a single general election date.
As parties developed and became dominant forces in elections, the impact of
voting rules became more clearly measurable. Not surprisingly, the general
ticket elections consistently resulted in partisan sweeps, in which the
entire delegation from that state would come from a single political party.
For example, when New Jersey elected six House seats in 1830, the National
Republican party won all six seats with vote totals for their candidates
ranging from a low of 50.25% to a high of 52.86%. All six Democratic Party
candidates lost, despite receiving as much as 49.38% of the vote. In the
1839 election for the 26th Congress, Alabama used a single-member district
system and elected three Democrats and two Whig Party members. Prior to
the next congressional election, the Democrat-controlled Alabama
legislature switched to election using the general ticket method, and in
1841 Alabama elected a solid slate of five Democrats. In House elections
over the course of 1840 and 1841, seven states conducted congressional
elections by general ticket, and all seven elected single-party slates.
After Alabama successfully shut out the minority Whig Party by switching to
a general ticket, Members of Congress became concerned that other states
would follow suit. Rep. Garrett Davis of Kentucky noted that if large
states began electing slates of candidates, as few as five states could
control a majority of the House of Representatives. This led to the
passage of the 1842 Apportionment Act, including a clause mandating that
states elect representatives only from single-member districts. The law
was controversial, however, with President Tyler seeing it as infringing on
a power traditionally left to states. Some small states ignored the
mandate, and Congress recognized their representatives anyway.
Nonetheless, 1842 marked the point at which the general ticket method for
congressional elections became disfavored. The requirement came and went
from federal law, and by 1967, only Hawaii and New Mexico continued to
elect their representatives by general ticket.
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 1:50 PM, Richard Winger <richardwinger at yahoo.com>wrote:
> In 1789, these states elected members of the US House at large:
> Connecticut, Georgia, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Pennsylvania.
> The only states with district elections were Massachusetts, New York, South
> Carolina, and Virginia. Delaware only had one representative.
>
> North Carolina and Rhode Island didn't vote for Congress in 1788 or 1789
> because they hadn't ratified the US Constitution in time.
>
> Richard Winger
> 415-922-9779
> PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147
>
> --- On *Tue, 11/27/12, David Epstein <david.l.epstein at gmail.com>* wrote:
>
>
> From: David Epstein <david.l.epstein at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [EL] Two thoughts on the Electoral College and National
> Popular Vote
> To: "Renee Christensen" <RChristensen at dcboee.org>
> Cc: "law-election at UCI.EDU" <law-election at uci.edu>
> Date: Tuesday, November 27, 2012, 10:19 AM
>
>
> Sean's item #1 parallels my thinking after the 2000 election, as I sat
> pondering why the nation didn't rise up as one in rejecting the
> anti-democratic nature of the electoral college.
>
> One answer, of course, was that if the election was that close anyway,
> people thought you might as well flip a coin to select the winner, or go
> through the Supreme Court, which is basically equivalent. (Just kidding; I
> couldn't resist, given the audience.)
>
> At a more fundamental level, though, the original idea of the electoral
> college was to break the national election for president into a number of
> state elections, because at that time the communications difficulties in
> running a truly national election were seen to be insuperable. (At the time
> of the founding, of course, these were the only federal state-wide
> elections, since senators were still selected by state legislatures.)
>
> These days the communications aspect has been solved, but with more states
> and more voters, the prospect of having to do a nation-wide recount in a
> close race is enough to give one pause when contemplating a true NPV
> scheme. So the original logic of the electoral college still holds, if for
> a different reason.
>
> David
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Renee Christensen <
> RChristensen at dcboee.org <http://mc/compose?to=RChristensen@dcboee.org>>wrote:
>
> Just a comment re “17 states have completed their tallies”. Not sure if
> the author is using the phrase “completed their tallies” deliberately, or
> mixing up “completed their tallies” with the state’s final action of
> certifying election results.****
>
> ** **
>
> Here in DC, the Board of Elections has completed the tallying of votes, is
> currently doing a statutorily required pre-certification audit, with
> tentative certification scheduled for Thursday. ****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<http://mc/compose?to=law-election-bounces@department-lists.uci.edu>[mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<http://mc/compose?to=law-election-bounces@department-lists.uci.edu>]
> *On Behalf Of *Sean Parnell
> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 27, 2012 11:52 AM
>
> *To:* law-election at UCI.EDU <http://mc/compose?to=law-election@UCI.EDU>
> *Subject:* [EL] Two thoughts on the Electoral College and National
> Popular Vote****
>
> ** **
>
> Two items came across my Twitter feed today (h/t to Rick for both) that I
> think have some bearing on the whole National Popular Vote/Electoral Issue.
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> **1. **Apparently only 17 states have completed their count of all
> ballots, per this USA Today editorial (as a rule, I abhor citing
> editorials, but I’m going to trust they got this fact right):
> http://usatoday.com/story/opinion/2012/11/26/counting-votes-voting-system/1728529/I think the implications for National Popular Vote are pretty obvious – had
> this been a closer election (say, Bush-Gore or Kennedy-Nixon close) we’d
> still not know who the president was, and there would be horrific legal
> battles being waged right now all across the country over which ballots
> should or should not be counted. The Electoral College seems to have
> provided conclusive clarity rather quickly. ****
>
> **2. **Second, apparently there’s a theory floating around out there
> that Romney could still be elected by the House of Representatives if a
> number of states voting for Romney failed to submit their electoral votes,
> depriving the Electoral College of a quorum (see here:
> http://www.idahostatesman.com/2012/11/27/2360565/lawmaker-shares-last-chance-idea.html).
> Absolute malarkey, to borrow from our Vice President. Still, it does help
> to show the fallacy of what I call the ‘English Bob’<http://www.quotefully.com/movie/Unforgiven/English+Bob>theory touted by advocates of National Popular Vote, which is basically
> that the passage of NPV would be so popular and accepted that there would
> be little thought of challenge through the courts or legislative hanky
> panky. To paraphrase, “Well there's a dignity to National Popular Vote. A
> majesty that precludes the likelihood of partisan games. If you were to
> attempt to draft a lawsuit or bill aimed at changing the election your
> hands would shake as though palsied. I can assure you, if you did, that the
> popularity of NPV would cause you to dismiss all thoughts of resistance and
> you would stand... how shall I put it? In awe.”****
>
> ** **
>
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> And yes, I have been waiting for a long time to unleash my English Bob
> analogy.****
>
> ** **
>
> Best,****
>
> ** **
>
> Sean Parnell****
>
> President****
>
> Impact Policy Management, LLC****
>
> 6411 Caleb Court****
>
> Alexandria, VA 22315****
>
> 571-289-1374 (c)****
>
> sean at impactpolicymanagement.com<http://mc/compose?to=sean@impactpolicymanagement.com>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<http://mc/compose?to=Law-election@department-lists.uci.edu>
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
>
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<http://mc/compose?to=Law-election@department-lists.uci.edu>
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Respect for Every Vote and Every Voice"
Rob Richie
Executive Director
FairVote
6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 610
Takoma Park, MD 20912
www.fairvote.org <http://www.fairvote.org> rr at fairvote.org
(301) 270-4616
Please support FairVote through action and tax-deductible donations -- see
http://fairvote.org/donate. For federal employees, please consider a gift
to us through the Combined Federal Campaign (FairVote's CFC number is
10132.) Thank you!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20121127/e292a74b/attachment.html>
View list directory