OK, one last election post in a row, I swear.
So, on Tuesday the US had what could charitably be called a surprise result for--I would guess--80% of the population. Even those like me who were feeling like the election could be close were still largely certain that Clinton would win.
It did not happen that way...at least, not yet.
We currently stand with Trump having 290 electoral college votes to Clinton's 232 source, but with Clinton leading Trump by about 2 million popular votes and counting source. But it's done, right? Trump won?
Not so fast.
So, while the currently election keeps getting more interesting, I thought I'd do a little research to put all of these things in perspective. So, let's go exploring!
1) Other Split Votes
There have been three other times in US history where the electoral college outcome was different from the popular vote: 1876, 1888, and 2000 (sorry, 1824, but no one won enough electoral votes that year [T_T]) source. One thing that I find rather interesting is that the first two happened during what's called the Gilded Age, while the second two can be pretty well compared to the rise of Talk Show Radio in the US. In other words, both sets (and I really think that they can be thought of as sets) marked the end of one political order, and the rise of another.
A) 1876 and 1888 (anything un-sourced is from my own noggin)
1876 is one of the most contentious elections in US history. At the very least, the 2016 election (so far) ended on election day. The 1876 election, on the other hand, went on for quite a bit longer. At fault were a set of unclaimed electoral votes, and the memory of reconstruction. See, the outgoing president was one Ulysses Simpson Grant--a civil war general on the union side--who had maintained a troop presence in the Southern States during his term. A Democrat was almost certain to throw them out--in a rather unceremonious fashion, in all likelihood--resulting in Southern Democrats taking back control of the states. So, what eventually solved the problem? The Compromise of 1877, where Rutherford B Hayes won the election by a single electoral vote, but the troops in the south were removed. Basically, the Republicans both sent them there, and were allowed to take them back--while maintaining control of the federal government--but the southern democrats were allowed to assume control of the former confederacy.
Meanwhile, in 1888, Grover Cleveland was attempting to keep his seat away from Benjamin Harrison. Though Cleveland won the popular vote by a narrow margin, Harrison won the electoral college. Why is there not more here? Well, for one, neither president was exactly a shining exemplar in office. Aside from the fact that Cleveland beat Harrison in a rematch four years later, I'm having a hard time thinking of anything to really write about these two.
So, how was this time period the end of an era? From the birth of the nation to the civil war, slavery had always been a major issue in US politics. After the civil war, two strains--the offshoot of reconstruction, and the continued problem of tariffs--continued to have an effect. The 1876 election could be seen as the last gasp of Reconstruction, with the final troops being pulled and the last reconstruction era governments crumbling, while the 1888 election could be seen as the last great war over tariffs source (a discussion for anther time after a lot more research.)
B) The 2000 and 2016 elections. There's really not much to say here, because we're still seeing how things pan out. The 2000 election was at the tail end of the first part of what I like to call the Technological Revolution (the rise of technology starting in the 1990's, of which the first bubble burst in 2001). In fact, I would say that the Bush-Gore election was the first one since the internet really took off. It was certainly the first after Google became ubiquitous, and news had started to become less the property of newspapers and gossip, and more the realm of the masses and their opinions. Together, this mass of information led to the election of Bush, with Gore winning the popular vote.
And then we come to the 2016 election. If the last elections were powered by the social media of Facebook and Twitter, this one was fueled by Reddit. And, if the newest news is anything to go by, it ent over yet.
So, where does that leave us? What's the new epoch going to look like in American history? I don't really know. A lot of news sites were calling Donald Trump the zenith of a movement, but I don't think we'll be able to really say that for another ten years. We need to see how he fits into the wider history from a little bit of a further perspective before we can really make a judgement. Is he a sign of things to come? A last gasp of an older order? A wrench in the system? Only time will tell.
One last thing: this isn't the first time a recount has occurred. The only one that I could find was the year 2000 (source), although I would assume that the closeness of the 1876 election necessitated a few recounts as well. The US has a long history of close elections where the loser bows down and accepts the results. We don't have to be happy with who was elected--and, if that's the case, then make sure to vote in the mid-terms--but we do need to accept that they were voted in. And for those voted into power while losing the popular vote, just remember that a majority of people do not agree with you. It is not an invitation to follow your promises to the bitter end, but to try to find a better path. Regardless, running a country is never going to be easy, and I can only hope that the Republic will go on.
Friday, November 25, 2016
Sunday, November 6, 2016
On the Modern Election
Two more days...
TWO MORE DAYS!!!!
Two more days and then the 2016 presidential election is (hopefully) over*.
*assuming that no one decides to contest the election...
And my, what an election it's been. I have to say--and this is really just my personal feelings on the matter--but 24 MONTHS IS AT LEAST 20 MONTHS TOO MANY!
I understand that a lot of the US is used to candidates personally coming around, shaking hands to getting vote, and really getting to be personal with everyone...
And, really, it's that last one that has me worried, because the more that we worry about getting to know someone personally, the more the whole process devolves into being more about personalities than programs.
Alright, a disclaimer: the US presidential elections--and, really, most elections in the country--have been more about party and personality than politics. No, seriously, go look at the primary sources that we have from earlier elections. Many people, when asked why they are voting for a certain ticket, will talk about how their parents were part of the party, and their grandparents had been part of the party, and really, the party was so ingrained in their family that they couldn't imagine things going another way. These party allegiances are so ingrained that it takes huge demographic shifts and movements in platform to change the dynamics.
For a modern example, look what happened to white, industrial voters when the demographic party dropped unions as a core tenant of the party.
But all of these aspects--though fascinating--aren't what I'm here to talk about today. Instead, I'm going to talk about how overt personality has become in our elections.
As I said, personality has always been heavy in US politics, but policy has factored in as well. I'm not talking about policy as something that actually swayed the voting populace--though that has happened--instead, I'm talking about policy in general as an idea. What that idea stood for was that, somehow, elections--and our elected officials--transcended the pettiness of everyday life, that what an individual did--or said they would do--was more important than who they were.
At least, that's what the history books tend to say.
The one president who transgressed this rule to the extent that it simply could not be ignored--Nixon--left office in disgrace. Several got close--Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton come to mind--but for the most part presidents were able to be judged by their policies, while their less savory aspects were swept under the rug (and, once again, left out of history books. Really, Iran-Contra affair? You only got two paragraphs in my text book? What gives?) and forgotten by pretty much everyone.
But, today, policies seem to have been left behind. Orange, criminal, racist, corrupt, inept, untrustworthy, boorish, b***h...I see these words every day in our campaign.
And it's driving me nuts.
Why? Because of what it symbolizes. Call me naive, but it seems to me that we as a society are quite divided. Issues are seen in black and white--red and blue--and the other side is seen as unpatriotic. I repeat: the other side is seen as unpatriotic. Not their ideas, but the people themselves.
That is what scares me.
Disagreeing with an idea is fine, because it tends to lead to discussion, and then the ability to enjoy the company of the other person. But disagreeing with a person does not lead to discussion, because there is nothing to discuss. Any disagreement is, by definition, a personal insult, which only drives people away.
So, what do I recommend?
There are lots of possible answers. However, to me, two main lines come to mind. First, separate people from their ideas. Just because someone disagrees with you does not make the a bad person, nor does it necessarily make them wrong--but that's another issue all together. Second, and this may be the harder one to bring about, is that we need to leave the two party system. Hearkening back to our earliest days, many of the founders (including George Washington) did not want there to be political parties. From a personal standpoint, I find that only having two parties lessons our discourse. When there are only two sides to every issue, everything agreed upon is never discussed, and everything disagreed upon is automatically polarized. Until we have more than two parties, we will only ever have two sides to every argument, and avoid the savagery of this election.
Then again, history will probably sweep most of this under the rug, and remember this as a fairly calm, normal election. Isn't history fun?
TWO MORE DAYS!!!!
Two more days and then the 2016 presidential election is (hopefully) over*.
*assuming that no one decides to contest the election...
And my, what an election it's been. I have to say--and this is really just my personal feelings on the matter--but 24 MONTHS IS AT LEAST 20 MONTHS TOO MANY!
I understand that a lot of the US is used to candidates personally coming around, shaking hands to getting vote, and really getting to be personal with everyone...
And, really, it's that last one that has me worried, because the more that we worry about getting to know someone personally, the more the whole process devolves into being more about personalities than programs.
Alright, a disclaimer: the US presidential elections--and, really, most elections in the country--have been more about party and personality than politics. No, seriously, go look at the primary sources that we have from earlier elections. Many people, when asked why they are voting for a certain ticket, will talk about how their parents were part of the party, and their grandparents had been part of the party, and really, the party was so ingrained in their family that they couldn't imagine things going another way. These party allegiances are so ingrained that it takes huge demographic shifts and movements in platform to change the dynamics.
For a modern example, look what happened to white, industrial voters when the demographic party dropped unions as a core tenant of the party.
But all of these aspects--though fascinating--aren't what I'm here to talk about today. Instead, I'm going to talk about how overt personality has become in our elections.
As I said, personality has always been heavy in US politics, but policy has factored in as well. I'm not talking about policy as something that actually swayed the voting populace--though that has happened--instead, I'm talking about policy in general as an idea. What that idea stood for was that, somehow, elections--and our elected officials--transcended the pettiness of everyday life, that what an individual did--or said they would do--was more important than who they were.
At least, that's what the history books tend to say.
The one president who transgressed this rule to the extent that it simply could not be ignored--Nixon--left office in disgrace. Several got close--Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton come to mind--but for the most part presidents were able to be judged by their policies, while their less savory aspects were swept under the rug (and, once again, left out of history books. Really, Iran-Contra affair? You only got two paragraphs in my text book? What gives?) and forgotten by pretty much everyone.
But, today, policies seem to have been left behind. Orange, criminal, racist, corrupt, inept, untrustworthy, boorish, b***h...I see these words every day in our campaign.
And it's driving me nuts.
Why? Because of what it symbolizes. Call me naive, but it seems to me that we as a society are quite divided. Issues are seen in black and white--red and blue--and the other side is seen as unpatriotic. I repeat: the other side is seen as unpatriotic. Not their ideas, but the people themselves.
That is what scares me.
Disagreeing with an idea is fine, because it tends to lead to discussion, and then the ability to enjoy the company of the other person. But disagreeing with a person does not lead to discussion, because there is nothing to discuss. Any disagreement is, by definition, a personal insult, which only drives people away.
So, what do I recommend?
There are lots of possible answers. However, to me, two main lines come to mind. First, separate people from their ideas. Just because someone disagrees with you does not make the a bad person, nor does it necessarily make them wrong--but that's another issue all together. Second, and this may be the harder one to bring about, is that we need to leave the two party system. Hearkening back to our earliest days, many of the founders (including George Washington) did not want there to be political parties. From a personal standpoint, I find that only having two parties lessons our discourse. When there are only two sides to every issue, everything agreed upon is never discussed, and everything disagreed upon is automatically polarized. Until we have more than two parties, we will only ever have two sides to every argument, and avoid the savagery of this election.
Then again, history will probably sweep most of this under the rug, and remember this as a fairly calm, normal election. Isn't history fun?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)