How the US President is Elected

7/28/2019 How the US President is Elected

1/96


2/96

HOWTHE PRESIDENT

IS ELECTED

T H E U . S . G OV E R N M E N TT H E U . S . G OV E R N M E N TH OW I T W O R K SH OW I T W O R K S


3/96

T H E C E N T R A L IN T E L L IG E N C E A G E N C Y

T H E D E PA RT M E N T O F H O M E L A N D S E C U R IT Y

T H E F E D E R A L B U R E A U O F IN V E S T IG AT IO N

T H E H IS TO RY O F T H E D E M O C R AT IC PA RT Y

T H E H IS TO RY O F T H E R E P U B L IC A N PA RT YT H E H IS TO RY O F T H E T H IR D PA RT IE S

T H E H O U S E O F R E P R E S E N TAT IV E S

H O W A L AW IS PA S S E D

H O W T H E C O N S T IT U T IO N WA S C R E AT E D

H O W T H E P R E S ID E N T IS E L E C T E D

T H E I M P E A C H M E N T P R O C E S S

T H E P R E S ID E N C Y

THE SENATE

T H E S U P R E M E C O U RT

T H E U . S . G OV E R N M E N TT H E U . S . G OV E R N M E N TH OW I T WO R K SH OW I T WO R K S


4/96

T H E U . S . G OV E R N M E N TT H E U . S . G OV E R N M E N T

HOWTHE PRESIDENT

IS ELECTED

H E AT H E R L E H R WAG N E RH E AT H E R L E H R WAG N E R

H O W I T WO RK SH O W I T WO RK S


5/96

How the President Is Elected

Copyright 2007 by Infobase Publishing

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any formor by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or byany information storage or retrieval systems, without permission in writing from thepublisher. For information, contact:

Chelsea House An imprint of Infobase Publishing132 West 31st StreetNew York, NY 10001

Library of Congress Cataloging- in- Publication Data Wagner, Heather Lehr.

How the president is elected / Heather Lehr Wagner.p. cm. (The U.S. government: how it works)

Includes bibliographical references and index.ISBN-13: 978-0-7910-9418-1 (hardcover)ISBN-10: 0-7910-9418-9 (hardcover)

1. PresidentsUnited StatesElectionJuvenile literature. I. Title.

JK528.W24 2007324.60973dc22 2006102365

Chelsea House books are available at special discounts when purchased in bulkquantities for businesses, associations, institutions, or sales promotions. Please callour Special Sales Department in New York at (212) 967-8800 or (800) 322-8755.

You can nd Chelsea House on the World Wide Web at http://www.chelseahouse.com

Text design by James Scotto-LavinoCover design by Ben Peterson

Printed in the United States of America

Bang NMSG 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

This book is printed on acid- free paper.

All links and Web addresses were checked and veried to be correct at the time of publication. Because of the dynamic nature of the Web, some addresses and links mayhave changed since publication and may no longer be valid.


6/96

1 Too Close to Call . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2 Electing a President . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

3 Electoral College . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

4 Party Politics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

5 Presidential Campaign . . . . . . . . . . . 54

6 Presidential Candidate . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Further Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

Picture Credits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

About the Author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

contents


7/96


8/96

7

Election Day, November 7, 2000: For the day on which Americans would choose their next president, it began in typical fashion. The two candidatesRepublicanGeorge W. Bush and Democrat Al Gorehad returnedto their home districts (in Texas and Tennessee, respec-tively) to cast their votes. Each had spent the past severalmonths crisscrossing the country in an effort to persuade

voters that he would be the best person to serve as theforty-third president of the United States.

The campaign had been a close one, with different pollsshowing one or the other candidate narrowly leading therace for the presidency. The two men had certain factors

in common. They both were the sons of famous politi-cians, for whom they had been namedAl Gores father,

1Too Close

to Call


9/96

Albert Gore Sr., had been an inuential Tennessee sena-

tor, whereas George W. Bush was the son of the forty-rstpresident, George H.W. Bush. Both men had grown upin powerful political circles. Al Gore spent much of hischildhood in Washington, D.C. His family had a pent-house there, in the Fairfax Hotel, where his father wouldmeet with presidents and policymakers. George W. Bushs

grandfather, Prescott Bush, had served as a senator fromConnecticut; before he became president, George H.W.Bush had served as a United Nations ambassador, direc-tor of the CIA, and vice president under Ronald Reagan.

Both of the candidates had attended top universitiesand graduate schools. Al Gore was a graduate of HarvardUniversity and had earned a law degree from Vanderbilt

University. George W. Bush was a Yale University gradu-ate and had earned an M.B.A. from Harvard. They wereclose in age: Al Gore was 52 years old at the time of theelection, whereas George Bush was 54. Finally, each mandeeply and strongly believed that he was the best man tobecome the next president of the United States.

There were important differences between the two men,however, and these differences divided the country duringthis election year. After graduating from college, Al Gorehad enlisted to serve in the war in Vietnam, despite hispersonal opposition to the conict, and had spent muchof the war working as an army journalist. At the age of 28,he ran for and was elected to the U.S. House of Represen-

tatives, the same position that his father had once held. After eight years, he was elected to the U.S. Senate.

8 HOW THE PRESIDENT IS ELECTED


10/96

As a senator from Tennessee, Gore focused on issuesinvolving arms control and technology. Unlike manyother Democrats, Gore supported President George H.W.Bushs decision to send troops to ght against Iraq in

Operation Desert Storm, as well as a military interven-tion in the conict in Bosnia. After his failed rst run for

The 2000 presidential race between Republican candidateGeorge W. Bush and Democratic candidate Al Gore wasone of the closest races in U.S. history. Even though moreAmericans voted for Al Gore, George W. Bush won themajority of the electoral votes, making him the forty-thirdpresident of the United States. In the photograph above,George W. Bush (right) shakes hands with Al Gore (left) before the rst presidential debate on Tuesday,October 3, 2000.

TOO CLOSE TO CALL 9


11/96

the Democratic presidential nomination in 1988, Gore

wrote a best-selling book that focused on environmentalissues, and he later served as vice president in Bill Clin-tons administration.

Gore had been a visible vice president, working closely with President Clinton. That closeness had become a li-ability when Clintons administration was caught up inquestions about fund-raising methods and scandals in-

volving Clintons personal life. Gore was also criticizedfor appearing wooden and dull in speeches and at pub-lic appearances.

Gores opponent, Texas governor George W. Bush, de-scribed himself as a compassionate conservative duringthe 2000 campaign. After a time in college during which

he was, in Bushs own words, young and irresponsible,he joined the Texas National Guard as a pilot. This wouldprove problematic during his campaign, with some sug-

gesting that the Bush family had used their connectionsto obtain a spot for George W. in the National Guard toprevent him from being drafted to ght in Vietnam.

After earning a masters degree in business administra-tion, Bush made money in the oil industry and boughta stake in a professional baseball team. He ran for Con-

gress, but was not elected. He did not seek further politi-cal ofce until after his fathers presidency. Then, he ranfor and was elected governor of Texas.

As governor, Bush made major improvements in the

states school systems, dramatically expanded Texassprison system, and opposed greater restrictions on gun



12/96

control. His presidential campaign focused in part on

poverty, education, and minoritiesnot traditional issuesfor a Republican presidential candidate.

The campaign was hard fought and seemed close throughElection Day. On that November 7, only about half of alleligible voters cast their ballots in the presidential election.Little did they know how important each vote would proveto be.

After polling booths closed on the East Coast, the televi-sion networks began airing predictions of the election re-sults based on polls of voters as they left the places wherethey had voted. The state of Florida was considered to bea key state for the presidential candidates, but early resultsindicated that the election there was too close to call. Then,

at 8:00 P.M., the television networks began to declare that Al Gore had won Florida. Many felt that this was a signthat the Democrat would become the next president.

Other states began to fall to the candidates as expected.Pennsylvania and Michigan were declared to have been

won by Gore; Ohio was a victory for Bush. Still, the Bushcampaign refused to give up on Florida. Bushs brother,Jeb Bush, was the governor of Florida, and the Bush cam-paigns own polls suggested that the state might prove a

victory for Bush rather than Gore.Two hours after the television networks declared that

Al Gore had won the state of Floridas electoral votes, net- work news anchors were forced to make an embarrassing

announcement: The declaration had been premature; theelection results in that state were too close to call.

TOO CLOSE TO CALL 11


13/96

As polling places closed across the country, each state

became increasingly critical. California, with its prized 54electoral college votes, went to Al Gore, as did Iowa. Thenetworksand the campaignstallied up the electoral

votes belonging to each candidate. Neither one had yetreceived enough electoral votes to be declared the win-ner. It all came down to one state: Florida. Whoever wonFlorida would win the presidential election.

Finally, 2 hours and 20 minutes after voting ended in Alaska, the television networks once again made an an-nouncement: Florida had been won by George W. Bush.This meant that he would become the forty-third presi-dent of the United States. Twenty minutes after the an-nouncement, Al Gore phoned George Bush to concede

(ofcially admit defeat) and congratulate his opponent on winning the election. After a long election night, many Americans went to bed believing that George W. Bushhad been declared the winner and that the election wasnow over. They were wrong.

UNCERTAINTY AND CHAOS

Shortly after phoning his opponent, Al Gore learned thatthe results of the election in Florida were so close thatstate law required an automatic recount of the votes. Thatstate was not yet ofcially granting its electoral votes toeither candidate and would not until the results of therecount were known.

Within 30 minutes of his rst call, Al Gore againphoned George Bush, this time to tell him that he was



14/96

withdrawing his concession. George Bush was shocked.

He had apparently already drafted his victory speech andcould not believe that his opponent was now withdrawinghis concession.

For the next month, the question of who would becomethe forty-third president of the United States went unan-swered. Attention focused on the state of Florida as indi-

vidual counties began the tedious process of recountingthe votes. In some instances, these votes were recountedmanually (by hand); lawyers then questioned whetherthese manual recounts were constitutional. There werereports of voting machines failing to accurately register a

vote, leaving voting ofcials to study the ballots to deter-mine whether or not a voter had attempted to vote for a

particular candidate.Once the courts had resolved the question of whether

manual recounts were constitutional and could proceed the legal ruling was that they couldother legal questionsarose. The Democrats challenged a deadline imposed bythe Florida courts for completing the recount process.Next came the deadline at which Florida was required bylaw to award its electoral college votesDecember 12.This, too, passed without a winner being declared.

Both Democrats and Republicans accused their oppo-nents of interfering with the election results. Republicanssuggested that Al Gore was simply being a sore loser,refusing to admit defeat. Democrats suggested that Re-

publicans were attempting to stop the recounts so thattheir candidate would be declared the winner.



15/96

The case was appealed to higher and higher courts as

the recounts proceeded and were periodically halted. TheFlorida Supreme Court had ruled that manual recounts

were allowed and that all questionable ballots in the stateshould be recounted by hand. The Bush campaign ap-pealed this decision, however. The case nally reachedthe U.S. Supreme Court.

It was an extraordinary legal moment. The U.S. SupremeCourt was, in a sense, being pitted against the supremecourt of the state of Florida. It was also going to be put inthe position, through its ruling, of having a direct impact on

who would become the next president of the United States.Like much of the country, the nine Supreme Court jus-

tices had divided opinions over whether or not the manual

recounts were constitutional. Seven of the nine justices,however, ruled that there were constitutional problems

with the recount as ordered by the Florida Supreme Court. Also, the Court ruled (in a narrower majority of ve to four)that there was no constitutionally acceptable procedurethat would allow a recount to take place before the dead-line at which the states electors had to be chosen (the pro-cedure by which the states electoral votes would ofciallybe awarded). The Supreme Court based this decision onits concern that different standards for the recounts werebeing used in the different counties, which might result inunequal treatment for the candidates.

The rulingwhich did not give the Florida court time

to x the situation by setting recount standards to beused across the statemeant that the recount process



16/96

was halted. Al Gore once again conceded, noting that he

disagreed with the ruling by the Supreme Court but urging Americans to support George Bush. After 36 days, the win-ner of the 2000 presidential election was nally declared.

THE RESULT

Votes were cast in the 2000 presidential election on No- vember 7, but it was not until December 13 that George W.Bush could publicly claim the presidency. I was electednot to serve one party but one nation, he announced inhis long-postponed victory speech.

In the end, the question of who would become thenext president hinged on a few hundred votes in Florida.The election would prove to be one of the closest in U.S.

history. It would also prove notable for another reason:George W. Bush was declared the forty-third presidentof the United States, even though more Americans had

voted for Al Gore.It was not the rst time that a candidate had become

president even though his opponent had received more votes. In 1824, 1876, and 1888, candidates won the presi-dency even though they had lost the nationwide popu-lar vote.

How can this happen? What is the process by whicha president is elected? Why are electoral votes more im-portant than popular votes, and what is the difference be-tween the two?

The election of a president is one of the most impor-tant events in American politics. The process of electing



17/96

presidents has changed since George Washington becamethe nations rst president. Political parties now play animportant role in the election process. Elections follow acycle, from the time candidates rst announce their in-tentions to run for the presidency, through the primaryseason, and on to the national election. Campaigns dra-matically impact voters impressions of the candidates.Election practices have changed over the more than 200

years of American history, as have the particular skills,background, and experience necessary to become the

president of the United States.

On January 20, 2001, George W. Bush was inauguratedas the forty-third president of the United States. In thephotograph above, Bush takes the oath of ofce from ChiefJustice William Rehnquist in Washington, D.C.



18/96

17

2Electing a

President

W hen the members of the Constitutional Convention gathered in Philadelphia in 1787, they were faced with a nearly overwhelming challenge: How should thenew nation be governed? The decisions made by thosedelegates shaped the U.S. government, which was di-

vided into three branchesthe executive, the legislative,and the judicial. These decision makers also determinedhow the men and women who served in those branches of

government would be chosen.The executive branch of government sparked particu-

larly intense debate. Most delegates were clearest aboutthe form of leadership they did not want: Only recently,

they had successfully fought and won their liberty fromEngland, and they wanted to be sure not to create another


19/96

monarchy. Some delegates favored the idea of an execu-

tive branch formed of several people, each with a differentarea of expertise. Others supported an executive branchthat reported to Congress, with Congress deciding whattasks the executive would handle and how many people

would be needed to handle those tasks.Eventually, however, under a proposal known as the Vir-

ginia Plan (authored, most believe, by James Madison), thedelegates began to consider the idea of a single chief execu-tive or president, who would serve for a specic period of time. Under the Virginia Plan, the president was to be cho-sen by Congress and would serve one seven-year term.

The idea of having a president chosen by Congress wastroubling to some of the delegates, however. It seemed to

contradict the original reason for creating three separatebranches of government: to guarantee a balance of powerand a certain amount of independence for each divisionof the government. By having one of the branches (theexecutive) appointed by another (the legislative), the bal-ance of power would shift and place too much power inthe hands of Congress.

The delegates wanted to ensure that the president wastruly a representative of the people. This was a good rea-son for the president to be selected by the peoples rep-resentatives (Congress). The idea of having the presidentchosen by popular vote of all American citizens did notseem practical to the delegates; in those days, before

instant communication and political campaigns, they worried that citizens would not have the information



20/96

necessary to assess the strengths and weaknesses of thecandidates. In addition, the size of the country and thedistances between the states made it difcult to overseeand determine the results of a national election.

After much debate, the delegates decided to create anelectoral collegea group of representatives from eachstate who would meet and vote for a particular candidate.Under the original plan, the candidate who received themajority of the votes from the Electoral College would be

elected president. The one with the second highest total would become vice president.

In 1787, 55 delegates from several states convened inPhiladelphia for the Constitutional Convention. It was therethat they drafted a document that would be the basis for

the government of the United States. Today, this painting byHoward Chandler, Scene at the Signing of the Constitution, hangs in the United States Capitol.

ELECTING A PRE SIDENT 19


21/96

ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION

When the Constitutional Convention ended, its delegateshad drafted a document that formed the basis for the gov-ernment of the United States. As the country evolved, so,too, has the Constitution, and amendments have beenadded to reect the demands of a changing nation andits people.

Several sections of the Constitution deal with the pres-idency and how a president is selected. Article II, Sec-tion 1, states: The executive power shall be vested in aPresident of the United States of America. He shall holdhis ofce during the term of four years. . . . It speciesthe system for choosing the presidentthe Electoral Col-legeand the qualications necessary to be president:

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Con-stitution, shall be eligible to the ofce of President; neithershall any person be eligible to that ofce who shall nothave attained to the age of thirty ve years, and beenfourteen Years a resident within the United States.

This basic framework has served as a solid foundationon which the American presidency is shaped. Over the

years, however, additional amendments have been addedto the Constitution to reect changes in the system forelecting the president.

In 1804, the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution was adopted; it signicantly changed the system used for

electing the president. This amendment was a responseto the difculties surrounding the presidential election of



22/96

1800. In that election, an equal number of votes were cast

in the Electoral College for Thomas Jefferson and AaronBurr, in an effort to ensure that they were elected presidentand vice president, respectively. The result, of course, wasa tie. The House of Representatives was forced to decidethe outcome of the election, and it took several days and36 ballots before Jefferson was elected president.

The Twelfth Amendment requires separate votes forpresident and vice president, a change from the previoussystem, in which the person receiving the second-highestnumber of votes for president became vice president. Theamendment also states that when they vote, the electorsmust choose a president and a vice president from differ-ent states. It is for this reason that, even today, presiden-

tial and vice presidential candidates are never from thesame state.

The Fifteenth Amendment (1870) made it clear thatrace could not be an issue in denying citizens the right to

vote. It stated: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United Statesor by any state on account of race, color, or previous con-dition of servitude.

With the Nineteenth Amendment (1920), the right to vote was extended to women. In the amendments lan- guage, The right of citizens of the United States to voteshall not be denied or abridged by the United States or byany state on account of sex.

Finally, the Twenty-sixth Amendment (1971) loweredthe age for citizens to vote from 21 to 18: The right of



23/96

In the presidential election of 1800, Thomas Jefferson tiedwith his opponent, Aaron Burr, for the most votes. Thedecision went to the House of Representatives and Jeffersonbecame the third president of the United States. Following

this controversial election, the Twelfth Amendment wasadded to the Constitution.



24/96

citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age

or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by theUnited States or by any state on account of age.

THE FIRST ELECTION

The Founding Fathers envisioned that the members of the Electoral College would be educated, wealthy, andprominent, and that they would carefully study and de-bate the qualications of the various candidates beforedeciding which one would make the best president. Thecreation of political parties, the increase of public par-ticipation in an election, and the advent of conventions,campaigns, and public scrutiny of candidates has dra-matically transformed what was intended to be a careful,

deliberative process into what can, at times, seem likea carnival.

This was clearly not the case when the Constitution was written. Even as the delegates to the ConstitutionalConvention outlined their plans for the new governmentand the ofce of the presidency, it became evident thatGeorge Washington, president of the Constitutional Con-

vention and victorious general in the Revolutionary War, would be the obvious choice for the nations rst presi-dent. Washington was certainly not the last president who

would owe his election to success on the battleeld, but itis to his credit that, as the nations rst president, he alsoremains one of its best.

Although Washington was the unanimous choice forthe rst American president, it is interesting to note that

ELECTING A PRESIDENT 23


25/96

he was not the only candidate to receive votes. In the

somewhat awkward system initially conceived for elect-ing the president, members of the Electoral College neededto cast two votes for president; as mentioned earlier, theman receiving the second highest number of votes was

George Washington was the unanimous choice of the electorswho cast their ballots in the presidential election of 1789theonly president to be elected unanimously. At the time, mem-bers of the Electoral College were required to vote twicethecandidate who received the most votes would become presi-dent, and the second-place candidate would become vicepresident. A total of 69 electors voted for president in 1789.

Candidates Electoral Votes Received*

George Washington 69John Adams 34John Jay 9John Rutledge 6Robert Harrison 6John Hancock 4George Clinton 3Others 7

* The Electoral Count for the Presidential Election of 1789. The Pa-pers of George Washington. Available online. URL: http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/documents/presidential/electoral.html

THE E LECTION OF 1789



26/96

then chosen as vice president. George Washington re-

ceived one vote from every member of the Electoral Col-lege, for a total of 69 electoral votes. Other candidatesreceiving votes included John Adams of Massachusetts(whose 34 electoral votes qualied him to serve as vicepresident), John Jay of New York, John Rutledge of SouthCarolina, Robert Harrison of Maryland, John Hancock of Massachusetts, and George Clinton of New York. Wash-ington remains the only president ever to be elected unan-imously by the Electoral College.

George Washington took his oath of ofce in New YorkCity on April 30, 1789. New York served as the capital of the United States for 18 months, before the capital wasrelocated to Philadelphia. This provided Washington with

yet another distinction from the presidents who wouldserve after him: He is the only president never to live in

Washington, D.C., during his presidency.There was much about the concept of the presidency

that was new at the time, and much about the ofce that was permanently shaped by George Washington. Wash-ington was actively involved in both foreign and domesticpolicy. He condently assumed the title of commander-in-chief of the military. He decided to serve no more than twoterms as president, although it is likely that he could haveremained as president for life, had he chosen to do so.Future presidentswith the exception of Franklin D. Roo-sevelt, who was elected to four terms as presidentwould

follow his example, and the Twenty-second Amendmentto the Constitution, ratied in 1951, limited presidents af-ter Roosevelt to no more than two terms.



27/96

Washington, as the rst president, would remaina model for others who would be elected to the ofce.

Military service would be viewed as an asset for manyfuture presidents. Four of the nations rst ve presidents

George Washington was the rst president of the United

States. Elected in 1789, Washington served two terms aspresident until 1797. The Twenty-second Amendment (1951)to the Constitution limits presidents to only two terms.



28/96

would all be, like Washington, from Virginiathe excep-

tion was John Adams, who had been Washingtons vicepresident. Washington also lobbied hard for the nationsnew permanent capital to be located conveniently nearhis home, Mount Vernon, in Virginia.

IMPORTANT ELECTIONS

Other elections have affected how future presidents arechosen. As mentioned earlier, in the election of 1800,Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr tied for the presidency.This was caused by the efforts of electors who were mem-bers of the Democratic-Republican Party. Eager to ensurethat their party controlled both the presidency and vicepresidency (and to force John Adams and his Federalist

Party out of ofce), the Democratic-Republican electorscast an equal number of votes for Jefferson and Burr. Theelection was then given to the House of Representatives todecide. Jefferson was ultimately chosen as president andBurr as his vice president, and the Twelfth Amendment,passed in 1804, ensured that separate votes would be castfor president and vice president in the future.

The House of Representatives decided a presidentialelection once more, in 1824: Following the election, nocandidate had won a majority of the electoral votes. At99 votes, Andrew Jackson had received the most, whereasJohn Quincy Adams had 84, William H. Crawford 41, andHenry Clay 37. By 1824, electors were being chosen in 18

of the then-24 states by popular vote, and Jackson alsoled in the popular vote.

ELECTING A PRESIDENT 27


29/96

Because no candidate had received a majority, the

House of Representatives was ordered to choose the win-ner. According to the Twelfth Amendment, only the topthree contenders would be considered, which meant Jack-son, Adams, and Crawford. But Crawford, who had servedas secretary of the treasury under President James Mon-roe, had suffered a serious illness, which made it unlikelythat he would be able to effectively serve as president.This narrowed the Houses choice down to twoJacksonand Adamsand meant that whoever won the support of Clay would gain his electoral votes and the presidency.

Both sides lobbied hard to win Clays support, but it was John Quincy Adams who won the support and the votes in the House. Jackson was outraged by the results,

believing that, since he had received more electoral andpopular votes, he should have been chosen as president.He hinted that some sort of deal had been made between

Adams and Clay, a charge that seemed accurate when,shortly after the election was nalized, Adams appointedClay as his secretary of state. The charge of election rig-

ging against his opponent would help increase Jacksonspopularity and propel him into the White House four

years later.The election of 1836 offers another example of how the

system for electing the president is continuously changing.In that election, the Whig Party decided to run differentpresidential candidates in different parts of the country,

with the idea that each candidate could win votes forthe Whig Party in the region where he was the strongest



30/96

candidate. The Whig electors would then choose the best

candidate to serve as president, or the election could bedecided in the House of Representatives. As a result, Wil-liam Henry Harrison ran as the Whig candidate in mostof New England, Daniel Webster was the Whig candidatein Massachusetts, and Hugh White (from Tennessee) wasthe Whig candidate in the South. It would have been aninteresting strategy had it proved effective, but the onlyresult of this divide-and-conquer plan was that the Demo-cratic nominee, Martin Van Buren, was able to capture amajority of the electoral votes.



31/96

30

3Electoral

College

O n four different occasions, the man who was electedpresident of the United States lost the popular vote.How is it possible that a candidate can receive fewer votesthan his opponent, yet still win the presidency?

The reason for this is the system of voting known asthe Electoral College. The Electoral College was rst pro-posed during the 1787 Constitutional Convention as thebest solution to the problem of how the president shouldbe elected. The idea of a popular vote, in which citizenschose the president, did not seem practical; in those early

years of a scattered population, it seemed unlikely thatcitizens would be familiar with all of the candidates, and

so would vote for the candidate they knew best, giving anadvantage to candidates from heavily populated states.


32/96

The Constitutional Convention appointed 11 of their

delegates to a special committee, designed to solve theproblem of how best to choose the president. This Com-mittee of 11 proposed a compromise: A college of elec-tors would be formed. (In this context, college meanssimply an organized group of people.) Each state wouldbe granted a certain number of electors, based on the to-tal number of senators (for all states two) and representa-tives (varying by state). Each state would determine howits electors would be chosen. A presidential candidate

would need to win a majority (one more than one-half)of the votes in the Electoral College; if he failed to do so,the election would be decided in the House of Represen-tatives (initially the Committee of 11 felt it should be de-

cided in the Senate, but this was changed to the House of Representatives), with each state given one vote.

With the Electoral College, even the smallest states were given a role in deciding the outcome of presidentialelections. They would have at least three electoral votes two for their senators and one for each representative. Thesystem also gave the individual states great power in de-termining how and when their electors would be chosen.

Many experts agree that the drafters of the Constitutionbelieved that most presidential candidates after George

Washington would fail to win a majority of the ElectoralCollege votes. According to this view, the Electoral Col-lege would provide an initial weeding out of candidates;

when none of them won a majority of the votes, the topve candidates would be considered in the House of

ELECTORAL COLLEGE 31


33/96

Representatives. Each state would be given one vote,

which would ensure that each state, regardless of its size, would have an equal say in the election.

Other steps were taken in the creation of the ElectoralCollege to ensure fairness and balance. To avoid onebranch of the government becoming too powerful, mem-bers of Congress and employees of the federal governmentcould not serve as electors. Each states electors were tomeet in their individual states, rather than in a large cen-tral gathering of all electors; this provision was designedto prevent secret deal making or outside inuence on anelection. Each elector was required to cast two votes forpresident, and one of those votes had to be for someonefrom a different state. This was done to prevent electors

from voting only for candidates from their own states. Thebelief was that the eventual choice as president would of-ten be the second choice of many of the voters. The elec-toral votes from each state would be sealed and deliveredto the president of the Senate, who would then appearbefore a joint meeting of the Senate and House of Repre-sentatives and read the results.

THE SYSTEM CHANGES

Created before political parties and campaigns, the Elec-toral College was conceived as a system where educated,thoughtful delegates would meet and carefully debate thequalications of a candidate before casting their votes.

The election of 1800 forced a change in the system, how-ever. The tie between Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr



34/96

had resulted in intense behind-the-scenes campaigning

and deal making and required 36 separate ballots beforea winner was determined. The tie had also been causedby the rising inuence of political parties; Democratic-Republican supporters of Jefferson and Burr were sodesperate to ensure that the Federalist candidates weredefeated that they had intentionally created a tie.

The secret maneuvering that nally resulted in Jeffer-sons election was precisely the kind of activity that theFounding Fathers had hoped to prevent with the creationof the Electoral College. With the Twelfth Amendment,the electoral college system was changed so that electors

voted separately for president and vice president.Other changes in the Electoral College took place that

altered it even further from the original idea of the Com-mittee of 11. Many of these changes were attributable tothe growing role played by political parties. The initialplan was for the members of the Electoral College to beamong the most distinguished citizens of each state. But

with the rise of political parties, delegates to the ElectoralCollege were increasingly chosen not for their prominencein their state, but for their loyalty to their political party.Today, the names of few delegates to the Electoral Col-lege would be recognized, even in their home states. Theyare not the free voters imagined by the Constitution, butinstead are expected to vote according to the regulations

governing electors in their individual states.

In a presidential election, when you cast your vote, youare voting not for the candidates for president and vice



35/96

president, but instead for the electors for that candidate.

The words electors for generally appear in small printbefore the names of the candidates for vice president andpresident. Whichever party ticket wins the most popular

votes in a state wins that states electors. This is true withonly two exceptions: Maine and Nebraska. In those twostates, two electors are chosen by statewide popular vote,and the remainder are chosen by popular vote within eachcongressional district.

This represents a signicant change in the electoral col-lege system as it was initially imagined. Instead of a bodyof prominent, independent citizens who thoughtfully con-sider the various candidates, it has instead become a sys-tem where unknown delegates automatically cast their

votes for a particular candidate based on the results of apopular election.

Another such change affected the idea that the ElectoralCollege would provide an initial screening or nominatingprocess for candidates, with the nal results of electionsbeing decided in the House of Representatives. Ratherthan being a routine part of the process, a nal decisionin the House became a procedure used only in emergen-cies; inevitably, it would lead to bitter disagreement, dealmaking, and division.

HOW ELECTORS ARE CHOSEN

The way in which electors to the Electoral College are cho-

sen has also undergone change since the rst presidentialelection. Initially, the system for choosing electors was left



36/96

to the individual states. In some cases, state legislatures

decided to choose the electors themselves. In other cases,a direct popular vote for electors was held, either by con-

gressional district or across the entire state. In all of thesecases, a list of different candidates to be elector was pre-pared, and the electors were chosen from that list.

In the 1800s, however, the system changed. By 1860,all states had determined to choose their electors by state-

wide popular election. Maine and Nebraska are the onlytwo remaining exceptions; they, as noted earlier, choosetwo electors based on statewide popular vote and the re-mainder by popular vote in each congressional district.

The Electoral College also gradually shifted to what iscalled a winner-take-all system for choosing electors.

This is the system in use today in the majority of thestates. A candidate who wins a states popular vote then

wins all that states electors.Similarly, the time for choosing electors has changed

over the years. For the rst 50 years, states were allowed tochoose their electorsin essence, hold their presidentialelectionsat any time within a 34-day period before therst Wednesday of December. This rst Wednesday wasthe day when electors were expected to meet in their indi-

vidual states and choose their candidate for president. Asthe country grew and our systems of communication de-

veloped, however, this election scheduling began to pres-ent problems. States could choose to hold their elections

late in the 34-day period, waiting to see how candidateshad performed in states that held their elections earlier.



37/96

In close elections, states that voted at the end might de-

termine the outcome, giving them an unfair advantage inchoosing the president.

In 1845, Congress addressed this problem by settinga standard day on which all states were to choose theirelectors: the Tuesday following the rst Monday in yearsthat can be divided by four. That date remains the dateon which all states hold their presidential elections. Eachstates electoral college meets on the Monday followingthe second Wednesday of December in their state capitalsand casts their electoral votesone for president and onefor vice president. This second step has become more of aformality in recent years, though. With modern communi-cation, the results of a popular election are quickly tabu-

lated and the number of electors for a particular candidateare publicized well before the Electoral College meets.

CHALLENGING ELECTIONS

There have been several elections in which the electoralcollege system contributed to confusion or dramaticallyaffected the outcome. The election of 1800 has alreadybeen discussed, as has the election of 1824, in which theHouse of Representatives ultimately chose John Quincy

Adams as president. The election of 1836, in which the Whig Party ran three separate candidates for presidentand lost to Democratic-Republican candidate Martin VanBuren, was also covered.

In 1872, Republican president Ulysses S. Grant ranfor reelection. His challenger was Democratic candidate



38/96

Horace Greeley, a prominent journalist who had made fa-

mous the phrase Go West, young man! The problemarose when Greeley died in the period between the popu-lar election that chose electors and the December meetingof the Electoral College. The electors pledged to Greeley

were then faced with the awkward situation of determin-ing whether or not to cast their electoral votes for a deadman. Strangely enough, three electors did. The others casttheir votes for several other Democratic candidates. Theoutcome was not really signicant, because Grant had

won a majority of the electors, but still, it was a strangechallenge to the electoral college system.

The election of 1876 presented another set of prob-lems. In that election, Republican candidate Rutherford

B. Hayes ran against Democrat Samuel Tilden. The ini-tial results suggested that Tilden had won; he had strongsupport in Southern states and had also gained the votesof Indiana, New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey. Til-den led in the popular vote by more than 250,000 votes.Questions soon arose, however, about the votes in SouthCarolina, Florida, and Louisiana. In the period betweenthe popular vote and the meeting of the electors in eachstate, supporters of the two candidates intensely lobbiedthe states electors. In the end, each state delivered twosets of electoral votes, one set for Tilden and the other forHayes.

Congress appointed a special 15-member commission

to determine how each of the three states electoral votesshould be awarded. Again, intense lobbying and deal



39/96

Famous journalist and newspaper editor Horace Greeleyran for U.S. president in 1872 against incumbent Ulysses S.Grant. Greeley, pictured above in a campaign poster, died

before electoral votes could be cast. Ulysses S. Grant wonthe election and remained in ofce for a second term.



40/96

making followed, and in the end, the commission awarded

each of the three states electoral votes to Hayes. As a re-sult, Hayes was elected president, with 185 electoral votesto Tildens 184. In 1887, Congress passed special legisla-tion designed to determine how to handle electoral votesin the event of a dispute, to ensure that the events of the1876 election could not be repeated.

The election of 1888 offers an example in which a presi-dential candidate lost the popular vote by a signicantmargin and yet, because of votes in the Electoral College,

won the presidency. In that election, President GroverCleveland, a Democrat, won a large majority of the votesin the 18 states that supported him. Republican BenjaminHarrison won 20 states, but only by very narrow margins.

Yet Harrisons 20 states gave him 233 electoral votes toClevelands 168, and so he became president.

HOW THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE WORKS TODAY

The Electoral College has evolved as a result of these chal-lenges and changes, yet it is still the system by which ourpresidents are chosen. Today, each state is given a certainnumber of electors based on its senators (always two) andthe number of its U.S. representatives. This second num-ber varies by state and can change if a states populationchanges signicantly.

Major political parties choose their electors eitherthrough state party conventions or through state party

leaders appointing the electors. The political parties ineach state then give to their states chief election ofcial



41/96

the list of electors who are pledged to vote for their partyscandidate for president. This list is equal to the number of electoral votes a state has been given.

On the Tuesday following the rst Monday in Novem-ber in years that can be divided by four, the people casttheir votes for the electors for a particular candidate forpresident and vice president. Whichever party wins themost popular votes in a state wins the electors of the state

(with the exceptions of Maine and Nebraska, as notedearlier). On the Monday after the second Wednesday in

The Electoral College consists of ofcials from each state who votefor the president and vice president of the United States based onhow their states electorate voted. The map above displays thenumber of electoral votes distributed to each of the 50 states.



42/96

December, each states electors meet and cast their votes

for president and vice president.The electoral votes are then sealed and transmitted

to the president of the Senate, who opens them on Janu-ary 6 and reads them before both houses of Congress.The candidate with the most electoral votes (it must bean absolute majority, or at least one more than half of the total) is declared president. If no one receives anabsolute majority of the votes, the House of Represen-tatives selects the candidate from among the top threecandidates. Each state receives one vote; the candidatemust receive an absolute majority to be elected. Thepresident and vice president are then sworn into ofceat noon on January 20.

Although the Electoral College was initially intendedto address the concern of smaller states that their voicesmight not carry weight in presidential elections, the realityis that certain heavily populated states are considered keyto elections and receive intense focus during presidentialcampaigns. At 55, California has the largest number of electoral votes. Other states with large numbers of elec-toral votes include Texas (34), New York (31), Florida (27),Illinois and Pennsylvania (both with 21), and Ohio (20).The total number of electoral votes in the United States is538; a candidate needs at least 270 electoral votes to wina presidential election.



43/96

42

4Party

Politics

The election of George Washington was a relativelystraightforward process. As the unanimous choice of the Electoral College, Washington took ofce with littleconict or disagreement. This cooperation in regard tothe nations leadership would not outlast the nations rstpresident, however. Within Washingtons cabinet weretwo men who disagreed strongly about the ways in whichthe new nation should be governed. Secretary of StateThomas Jefferson favored greater power for the states, andSecretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton believed

America should have a strong central, or national, gov-ernment. The two men differed on many other issues, in-

cluding whether a bill of rights should be added to theU.S. Constitution, how debt from the Revolutionary War


44/96

should be handled, and what Americas position should

be in foreign conicts.Both Jefferson and Hamilton were politically powerful

men. Each had many friends who shared their views. Fromthese differences emerged the rst political parties in theUnited States. Supporters of Hamilton became known asFederalists; supporters of Jefferson were known as Repub-licans (and later as Democratic-Republicans). From theelection of 1800 forward, political parties would play animportant role in selecting nominees for the presidency.

Jeffersons Democratic-Republican Party relied heavilyon Jeffersons ideals for the U.S. government. Before theelection, Jefferson wrote many letters to supporters aroundthe country, explaining his vision and why he believed

his ideas were best for Americas future. Democratic-Republican supporters were encouraged to form networksof others who thought as they did. This ultimately formedthe basis of a party structure.

The Federalist Party did not survive beyond 1816, andalthough it boasted the membership of the nations rsttwo presidents (Washington and Adams), it would neveragain reclaim the White House. Jeffersons Democratic-Republicans, however, would become the party we knowtoday as the Democratic Party.

NOMINATING PRESIDENTS

In order to ensure that the party continued to occupy the

White House when Jefferson chose to step down aftertwo terms, Democratic-Republican leaders in Congress

PARTY POLITICS 43


45/96

decided to form a committee to select the partys nomineefor the presidency. This early version of a party caucus

gave Congress the power to choose the nominees for thepresidency. Supporters of various nominees would lobbyhard for their favorites. The system was informal; there

was no xed time when these caucuses would meet, nor

were a set number of representatives required in order tochoose a nominee.

The image above depicts George Washington and hiscabinet, including Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson andSecretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton. Jefferson andHamilton disagreed on how to run the nation. Jefferson wasin favor of states having greater power, and Hamilton believedthat a strong central government was best.



46/96

In the rst three decades of presidential elections, the

men who were chosen as their partys nominees shareda certain common heritage. They had all played a rolein the Revolution; many had served at the ConstitutionalConvention. They had contacts, inuence, and name rec-ognition based on the role they had already played inshaping American government.

By 1824, political candidates no longer had the statusof those who had preceded them; their names were notrecognized nationally. A new generation of politicians hadarisen, politicians who had become prominent becauseof what they had done on a local or regional level. Theirsupport came from their individual states. A system in

which individual states nominated their favorite choices

proved as unworkable as a system in which Congressio-nal leaders chose the nominees, however. State-basednominations would produce too many nominees, none of

whom could muster enough support to win a majority of the electoral votes. A new system was needed, one that

would be national, but representative.

PARTY CONVENTIONS

The rst political party to hold a convention to nominateits candidate for president was the Anti-Masonic party.This small party had no representatives in Congress, sothere was no Congressional caucus that could choose thepartys nominee. The party decided instead to hold a gen-

eral meeting, and so, in 1831, 116 delegates from 13 statesattended the partys gathering at a saloon in Baltimore.

PARTY POLITICS 45


47/96

Those present selected that partys nominee for the presi-

dencyWilliam Wirtand prepared a speech to outlinethe partys positions on the important issues of the day, aforerunner of the party platform.

Three months later, a second party convention was heldin Baltimorein fact, at the same saloon. There, a groupof delegates opposed to President Andrew Jackson, whocalled themselves National Republicans (they would laterbecome known as Whigs) also nominated a candidate,Henry Clay, and chose a platform.

The following year, the Democratic-Republicans alsochose Baltimore as the location for their convention. Al-though Jackson, the incumbent president, was clearly thechoice as nominee, Jackson wanted to hold the convention

to ensure popular support for his candidacy and also to guarantee that his choice for a running mate, Martin VanBuren, would be elected. Four years later, Jackson againchampioned the idea of a party convention in Baltimore,this time to guarantee the selection of his choiceVanBurenas his successor.

These party conventions have little resemblance to theconventions major parties hold to nominate their presi-dential candidates today. In the days before television andcarefully scripted speeches scheduled for prime-time cov-erage, the conventions were informal and often rowdy.

The general public played only a minimal role in thesecon ventions. Party leaders chose the delegates to the con-

ven tion, decided the agenda for the conventions, and were instrumental in selecting the presidential and vice-



48/96

presidential nominees. The kind of negotiation involved

in determining who the nominees would be and on whatissues the party would focus was largely carried on insecret, behind the scenes.

Since the 1970s, primaries have replaced party conven-tions as the principal way in which presidential nomineesare selected. Today, conventions provide a forum for par-ties to highlight their platforms and celebrate their nomi-nees, but they rarely offer surprises. This has not alwaysbeen the case. Three conventionsall held in Chicago show how these party gatherings once directly affectedthe presidential election.

For the 1860 presidential election, the RepublicanParty held its convention in Chicago. The choice would

prove fateful. It was only the second presidential convention held since the party was formed, and there weremany contenders for the nomination. The location of theconvention, however, provided a boost to the candidatefrom Illinois: Abraham Lincoln. The convention waspacked with supporters from Illinois, who cheered loudlyfor their local candidate. At the time the convention washeld, Lincoln was considered as a possible vice-presiden-tial nominee at best, but with the loud and boisteroussupport of the Illinois faction, Lincoln became the presi-dential nominee.

Another Republican convention, in 1912, showed theinuence of former presidents on the nominating process.

Four years earlier, President Theodore Roosevelt had wholeheartedly supported the candidacy of his friend

PARTY POLITICS 47


49/96

and former secretary of war, William Howard Taft. Roo-

sevelt had campaigned for Taft and helped ensure thatTaft would be his successor and continue Roosevelts pro-

gressive agenda. What a difference a presidential termcan make, though. Roosevelt grew dissatised with Taftspolicies, and at the Republican convention of 1912, Roo-sevelt not only refused to support Taft, he actually chal-lenged him for the nomination. When it became clear thatRoosevelt would not succeed in his effort to wrestle thenomination away from Taft, Roosevelt stormed out of theconvention, followed by his supporters, formed his ownpartythe Progressive Partyand ran as its nominee forthe presidency. The split between supporters of Taft andRoosevelt divided the Republican Party and ensured that

the Democratic nominee, Woodrow Wilson, would winthe election.

The Democratic Party Convention of 1968, held in Chi-cago, has become infamous as one of the most chaoticconventions in American history. It is perhaps not sur-prising that, after that election, primaries began to replaceconventions as the principal path to naming the presiden-tial nominee. Three menEugene McCarthy, Robert Ken-nedy, and Hubert Humphreyall vied for the Democraticnomination that year. Kennedy was assassinated after

winning the California primary. McCarthy represented a wing of the party opposed to the war in Vietnam. Hum-phrey, then vice president under Lyndon Johnson, had

entered the race late, when President Johnson announcedhis decision not to seek reelection. Humphrey was then



50/96

saddled with answering questions about the Johnson ad-ministrations war policies.

Protestors gathered outside the convention and quicklyentered into violent confrontation with the Chicago po-lice. Inside the convention hall, supporters of McCarthyand Humphrey clashed over what the partys positionshould be on the war in Vietnam. The violence inside and

outside the Democratic Party convention helped ensure aRepublican victory that year.

Protests and violent outbreaks characterized the 1968Democratic Party Convention in Chicago, making it one ofthe most infamous conventions in U.S. history. A man burnshis delegate card on the oor of the convention (above).

PARTY POLITICS 49


51/96

PRIMARY SEASON

The process of choosing a partys nominee increasinglyhas become a function of the primary election. Throughthe primary, voters are given the opportunity to directly

As part of their campaign for the 2008 presidential election,candidates explored new ways to communicate their messageto voters, particularly younger voters. Taking advantage of Websites like MySpace, Facebook, and YouTube, presidential can-didates began posting blogs, photos, and video, all in an effortto provide prospective voters with exposure to their ideas.

In March 2007, MySpace.com launched Impact, a Website designed to serve as a gateway to information about thecandidates for the presidency. While much of the informa-tion provided about candidates was available through othermedia, there were interesting details that voters might notnd elsewherefor example, that Republican candidate JohnMcCains favorite television show is 24, or that one of Demo-cratic candidate John Edwards favorite books is Into Thin Air .YouTube also provided a forum for candidatesand their sup-portersto post videos.

Through the candidates Web sites and pages on onlinenetworking sites, voters had an opportunity not simply tolearn more about the candidate, but also to interact withother supporters, read blogs from the candidate and cam-paign staff, send messages to the candidate, or contribute

to the campaign.

NEW WAYS OF CAMPAIGNI NG



52/96

elect convention delegates who support the candidate of

their choice within their party.The primary is a product of the twentieth century. The

rst presidential primary election was held in Florida in1904; by 1912, 13 states were holding primaries. In 1913,President Woodrow Wilson publicly urged the creation of a national primary system as a way for voters, rather thannominating committees or conventions, to select presi-dential candidates.

Real growth in the primary system did not take placeuntil later in the twentieth century. Generally, most stateshold either primaries or caucuses. A primary is much likea general election: voters go to a polling place and casta vote for the candidate of their choice, usually within

the political party to which the voter is registered. A caucus is more like a mini-convention: party membersmeet and listen to speeches in a public place before

voting for delegates to represent a candidate at the na-tional convention. In some states, only voters registeredto a particular political party can vote in that partysprimary. In other states, voters can vote for a candidatein another party. In all states, voters can participate inonly one primary.

Presidential primaries and caucuses are usually heldfrom February to June of an election year. Republicanand Democratic primaries and caucuses are usually heldon the same day. The rst caucus is held in Iowa, and

the rst primary is held in New Hampshire. Pressurehas been placed on the Democratic and Republican par-ties to change the schedule for primaries, however. It is

PARTY POLITICS 51


53/96

argued that the schedule gives certain statessuch as

Iowa and New Hampshirean unfair advantage in choos-ing presidential nominees. Because of the expense of apresidential campaign, candidates will often test the watersin these early primaries. If they do not receive sufcientsupport, they will pull out of the primaries before voters inmost states have had a chance to cast their ballots.

THE ROLE OF THIRD PARTIES

Although the Republican and Democratic parties play adominant role in presidential elections, third parties haveinuenced the political process throughout our history.

America is often described as having a two-party politi-cal system, because presidential elections have generally

focused on the candidates from two parties.These parties have changed throughout our history. In

Americas earliest elections, the presidential race pittedFederalists against Anti-Federalists or Democratic-Repub-licans. Later, the Whigs emerged to challenge Democratsand, in the mid-1800s, the Republican Party was formed.In our recent history, presidential electionsand indeedmost local and state elections, as wellhave focused onDemocratic and Republican candidates.

Smaller, so-called third parties have played a role inmany presidential elections. These third parties are usu-ally formed when a group of people becomes alienatedfrom the major political parties, often over a single issue.

They split off and form their own party, and so through-out American history we have had candidates from the



54/96

Anti-Masonic Party, the Free Soil Party, the Constitutional

Union Party, the Populist Party, the Progressive Party, theStates Rights Party, the American Independent Party, theReform Party, and the Green Party (among many others)

waging campaigns for the White House.Parties formed around a single issue seldom succeed in

winning enough nationwide support to capture the presi-dency. Often, as concern about that single issue fades,support for the party fades. In addition, when a thirdparty champions a particular issue that seems to appealto a large number of voters, that issue is often stolen orpicked up by one or both major parties and becomes apart of their platform.

PARTY POLITICS 53


55/96

54

The race for the presidency is more like a marathon thana sprint. It has not always been this way. In the earli-est presidential elections, candidates announced their de-sire to become president in the year in which the election

was held. In fact, it is only recently that candidates havebegun their campaigns sometimes more than two yearsbefore an election is actually held.

In the 1952 election, Dwight Eisenhower, the Repub-lican candidate (who would go on to win the presidencythat year), announced his candidacy on June 4, 1952 only 33 days before the Republican convention washeld. Nearly 40 years later, Democrat Bill Clinton an-

nounced his candidacy on October 3, 1991, a full 284days before the convention. Clintons challenger in the

5Presidential

Campaign


56/96

primaries, Paul Tsongas, had declared that he would

be a candidate on April 30, 1991440 days before theDemocratic convention.

The campaign season, whether short or long, has tra-ditionally given candidates the opportunity to presentthemselves to voters. It has also transformed presidentialelections into a kind of entertainment, in which candi-dates are packaged almost like a product to be sold to

voters. Candidates identify themselves with a particu-lar image, a particular phrase or event, or even anotherpolitical gure, in order to explain to the voter who theyare and what they stand for. Television has further trans-formed presidential campaigns. Now candidates must beattractive and telegenic, conveying their ideas and plans

in quick, colorful scenes, usually in beautiful or interest-ing settings, with enthusiastic crowds applauding.

Whether candidates are staged before the camera oruse slogans and imagery, however, presidential campaignshave provided voters with an opportunity to better under-stand the individuals running for presidentor at leastto get a better understanding of the image the candidates

wish to project.

OLD HICKORY AND LOG CABINS

In the early years of presidential elections, campaigningfor the ofce was considered undignied. Those seekingthe presidency were nominated by their peers. These peo-

ple had been instrumental in shaping the country Amer-ica would become. Many had participated in the decision

PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN 55


57/96

for America to declare its independence from Britain; they

had served in the Revolutionary War or in the Continen-tal Congress, and later had helped craft the Constitutionthat would provide the framework for the American gov-ernment. They were well known to those who would votefor or against them. Their positions were clear and wereillustrated by their party afliation.

Andrew Jackson was one of the rst to actively cam-paign for the presidency, using his image and dynamicpersonality to demonstrate to voters his tness for ofce.The Jackson campaign in the election of 1828 marked anew era in politicsan end to the dignied pursuit of theofce and a beginning of efforts to appeal directly to vot-ers emotions. The Jackson campaign held parades and

rallies. Jacksons military career was highlighted andused to describe him as a new Washington or second

Washington. He was depicted as a man of the people, afrontiersman, a man with little formal education and thenickname of Old Hickoryimages used to contrast him

with the aristocratic John Quincy Adams. In fact, the OldHickory nickname became a focal point for the campaign:Hickory poles were put up alongside roads and in the cen-ter of towns by Jackson supporters. It was this campaignthat marked the real beginning of the use of a candidatesimage as part of the campaign. Voters were not support-ing a party or a philosophy, but a specic man, wantinghim to serve as their president.

The election of 1840 featured another military hero ascandidateGeneral William Henry Harrisonwhose



58/96

supporters wisely copied many of the strategies that had

brought Andrew Jackson to the White House. Harrison was the candidate for the recently formed Whig Party. He was challenging the incumbent, President Martin Van Bu-ren, in his bid for reelection.

Harrison was presented to voters both as a militaryhero and as a farmer who lived on the frontier in a logcabin and was happiest drinking a cup of hard (alcoholic)cidera drink associated with the West. Harrison wascompared to George Washington when supporters spokeof his career in the military. Campaign ads focused onhis generosity, suggesting that the military hero waited inhis log cabin to welcome other veterans and offer them acup of cider. The ads contrasted him with President Van

Buren, who was depicted as an elitist snob who would behappier sipping champagne.

This image making was astonishingly effective, if glar-ingly inaccurate. Harrisons home, depicted as a humblelog cabin on the Western frontier, was actually a 16-roommansion in Ohio. He had grown up on a wealthy Virginiaplantation, the son of a signer of the Declaration of Inde-pendence, whereas the aristocratic President Van Bu-ren, his opponent, had actually grown up in very humblecircumstances.

The Log Cabin and Hard Cider campaign sparked tre-mendous public enthusiasm for Harrison and his runningmate, John Tyler. The public eagerly supported Tippe-

canoe and Tyler Too (Tippecanoe was a reference toHarrisons 1811 victory against the Indians in the Battle



59/96

of Tippecanoe). A weekly newspaperthe Log Cabin printed stories of Harrisons heroic actions in battle, his

generosity to the men who had fought with him, and hishospitality to strangers who came to visit his cabin, as

well as details of campaign rallies and the enthusiasticcrowds who attended. The Whig Party organized cabinraisings, in which supporters gathered, bringing logs fromtheir farms, and built a cabin, which became the Whigparty headquarters. Miniature cabins were carried in pa-rades, and barrels of hard cider were provided at every

gathering.The campaign was successful both at promoting Har-

rison and at inspiring men (for it was only men at thattime) to vote. Voter turnout was higher in that election

In this woodcut used as an advertisement during the presidentialelection of 1840, General William Henry Harrison is shown in frontof his log cabin, greeting a soldier and offering some hard cider.During the campaign, Harrison was depicted as a generouseveryman who enjoyed drinking cider and greeting fellow veterans.



60/96

than in any previous election; Whigs won the popular

vote and captured 79 percent of the electoral vote.

THE ROUGH RIDER

Certain themes emerged from the Log Cabin campaignthat would permanently alter the way candidates pur-sued the White House. For one, campaigns began to fo-cus on telling a story about a candidatea story that

would appeal to voters, perhaps providing him with abackground that struck a chord, depicting the candidatein an idealized light, or focusing on a particular elementof his history or experience.

For much of the nineteenth century, many presiden-tial candidates would be portrayed as ideally from some

humble background, having spent some or all of theirchildhood in a log cabin. Abraham Lincoln, runningfor the presidency in 1860, was certainly one of thesecandidates. He was depicted as Honest Abe, who had

grown up in a log cabin on the frontier and worked split-ting rails. In fact, Lincolns image as a rail splitter becamea gimmick; thousands of rails were distributed while he

was campaigning, each one supposedly split by Lincolnhimself.

Theodore Roosevelts candidacy marked a new era inpresidential campaigningone in which voters chose acandidate for his personality as much as for his policies.Roosevelt had been a hero, popular for his exploits as leader

of the volunteer Rough Riders during the 1898 Spanish- American War. Roosevelt became governor of New York,



61/96

then was nominated for vice president on the Republican

ticket with incumbent President William McKinley. McKin-ley had won his rst term using a front-porch campaign;instead of traveling across the country to meet with vot-ers, the voters came to him. Formally dressed, he wouldemerge from his home several times a day to welcome

groups of admiring visitors, all of whom had been care-fully prescreened, who had scheduled their appointments

well in advance, and who, before their visits, had presentedMcKinleys team with the issues they wanted to discussand a copy of any remarks they intended to make.

McKinley won the ofce using this stately style of cam-paigning, so he had little incentive to leave the WhiteHouse to campaign for a second term. He left that to his

vice-presidential nominee, and Teddy Roosevelt took tothe campaign trail with vigor and enthusiasm. Rooseveltdelivered ery speeches that inspired his listeners as hecrisscrossed the country, visiting 567 towns in 24 states,making 673 speeches, and spending 2 months campaign-ing in the West.

Roosevelt assumed the presidency when McKinleydied in ofce. He hit the campaign trail with energy andenthusiasm again in 1904 and 1908 to win two additionalterms. Roosevelts campaigns were positive, focusing onthe candidate almost as a larger-than-life gure. One cam-paign gimmick, highlighting Roosevelts trademark grin,

was an item called Teddys Teeth, a whistle in the shape

of Roosevelts wide smile that could be used as a noise-maker at rallies. Another trademark still survives to this



62/96

Theodore Roosevelt (above) changed the way people votedfor president of the United States. Aside from his politicalpolicies, Roosevelts personality, charisma, and charm playeda huge role in his campaign. He toured the nation giving

inspiring speeches and winning votes based on his publicpersona.



63/96

day: the Teddy Bear, originally manufactured in response

to a story in which President Roosevelt, on a hunting tripin 1902, was presented with a young bear to shoot. Roo-sevelt reportedly refused to shoot a bear that had alreadybeen captured, and stuffed bears named after him weresoon being sold as a political symbol.

Roosevelt used the presidency as a stagea bully pul-pit, in his words. He left ofce in 1909 but continued tocapture public attention with a highly publicized big-gamehunting trip he took to Africa. Dissatised with the policiesof his Republican successor, William Howard Taft, Roo-sevelt determined to challenge Taft for the Republican nom-ination in 1912; when Taft won the nomination, Rooseveltformed his own party and ran for the presidency as the

Progressive Party candidate.

CHANGING TECHNIQUES

The technological changes of the twentieth century dra-matically impacted how candidates campaigned for thepresidency. Changes in transportationthe developmentof railroads, automobiles, and airplanesmade it easy forcandidates to travel across the country to present theirprograms directly to the voters. Changes in communica-tionthe development of lm, radio, telephones, televi-sion, and the Internethave all inuenced the ways in

which candidates are presented and how presidentialcampaigns are conducted.

At one time, campaigns relied on political rallies,friendly newspaper coverage, songs, buttons, and tokens



64/96


65/96

ags in the background, with rolled-up sleeves chatting

informally with a group of workers, in a classroom with young children, or relaxed at home surrounded by lovingfamily members. Music is also an important element of political commercials; it may be ominous or somber in an

A successful presidential campaign team involves many differentpeople with a wide range of skills and areas of expertise. The follow-ing are among the key players in a presidential campaign:

campaign manager : The campaign manager helps raise money,creates a budget for the campaign, hires staff, handles the press,

schedules appearances, and helps determine the issues on whichthe campaign will focus.

fund-raisers : The fund-raisers are friends and supporters of thecandidate who help raise the vast sums of money necessary for apresidential campaign. The fund-raisers convince people to contrib-ute money to the campaign; they need to be persuasive and mustalso be connected to people who share the candidates vision for the

country. They use phone calls, meetings, mailings, and Web sites toraise campaign money.

press secretary : The press secretary takes some of the pressure offthe candidate by answering questions posed by reporters. The presssecretary also helps teach the candidate how to answer these ques-tions and how to stay on messagekeeping the focus on whatever top-ic the candidate wants to discuss on a particular day. A press secretary

needs to be loyal, poised, educated, and quick. Being funny is a plus.

THE CAMPAIGN TEAM



66/96

ad criticizing an opponent, or patriotic and uplifting when

promoting a candidate. The central issue of the commer-cial is generally condensed into a few key phrases, some-thing like: Candidate X: Can You Really Trust Him? orCandidate Y: Working for a Bright Future.

pollsters : Pollsters conduct national surveys to determine how acandidates vision for America matches up with the needs and con-cerns of voters. Based on the results of these surveys, a candidatecan then develop a winning campaign strategy. Pollsters might ask aselect group of Americans what issues matter to them, or what im-

pressions they have of the candidate. Answers are then broken downby gender, age, geography, race, and other categories. Candidatesuse this information to determine where support is strong and withwhich groups a campaign needs to communicate more effectively.

volunteers : Volunteers are unpaid, enthusiastic supporters of thecandidate who donate their time to help a campaign. They set upcampaign headquarters in every state to spread a candidates mes-

sage. They help energize crowds who attend rallies, speeches, andother public events. They make phone calls to encourage voters tosupport their candidate, stuff envelopes, research news articles, andeven go door-to-door to hand out campaign iers and provide infor-mation about a candidate.*

* Heather Holliday. Look for Innovation in a Campaign Manager. Scholastic,Election 2004: How to Run for President. Available online. URL: http://teacher.scholastic.com/scholasticnews/indepth/election1/team/.



67/96

Certain commercials have been particularly notewor-thy in presidential campaigns. In 1964, a television ad(the Daisy Girl ad) made for the reelection campaignof President Lyndon Johnson showed a little girl plucking

the petals off a ower, replaced by images of a nuclear ex-plosion, implying that if Johnsons opponent, Republican

In this 1976 photograph, Democratic candidate JimmyCarter stands in a mound of peanuts at the Carter PeanutWarehouse in Plains, Georgia. Jimmy Carter emphasized hisbackground as a peanut farmer far more than his experience

as governor of Georgia to appeal to the American public.



68/96

Barry Goldwater, was elected, he might start a nuclear

war. In 1976, commercials featuring Democratic candi-date Jimmy Carter nearly always depicted him dressedcasually, usually in a rural setting, emphasizing his back-

ground as a Georgia peanut farmer and his status as a Washington outsider.

In 1984, television commercials for President RonaldReagans reelection campaign told voters Its morningagain in America and reminded them that the country

was prouder, and stronger, and better than it had beenfewer than four short years ago. In 2000, when domesticissues were the focus of the presidential campaign, onefascinating ad from then-governor George Bush warned

voters a year before the September 11 attacks: We live

in a dangerous world of terror, madmen, and missiles. Ata time when few Americans were focusing on the threatof terrorist attacks, it is interesting that the candidatepromised to rebuild our military and promote a for-eign policy with a touch of iron. Four years later, politicalcommercials for both President Bush and his challenger,Democratic senator John Kerry, focused on the ideas of changing times and the need for a safe America.

SECRETS OF A WINNING CAMPAIGN

Modern presidential candidates generally have on theirstaffs multiple people responsible for the various stagesof a campaign. Among these is usually at least one me-

dia consultant, who provides advice and expertise onthe kinds of commercials to create, the issues on which



69/96

to focus, and the image of the candidate that should

be presented.In order to win an election, candidates have two basic

challenges: to develop a message that appeals to voters,and to deliver that message effectively. Modern pollingtechniques enable candidates to learn which issues mat-ter to voters so they can target those issues with appear-ances and commercials. These issues may vary state bystate or even from one town or city to another, which is

why presidential candidates may focus on issues like guncontrol when speaking to one group of voters and stemcell research when speaking to another.

Media advisors are well informed on issues that appealto voters who watch certain television programs, and they

will place specic commercials focusing on those issuesduring those programs. If you become familiar with a par-ticular candidates political advertising, you will noticethat a different commercial might appear during a newsprogram, a sports event, or a morning talk show. Each of these ads might focus on a different issue or present thecandidate in a different way.

Financing for television commercials can be the mostexpensive part of a presidential campaign. For this rea-son, candidates will also use televised campaign events covered for free by the mediaas an opportunity topromote their message and appeal to a specic groupof voters.



70/96

69

I f someone were to craft a want ad for a modern presi-dential candidate, it might look something like this: Wanted: Attractive, energetic, enthusiastic candi-date for president of the United States. Must be

willing to commit up to two years to campaign.Must be willing to travel extensively, smile con-tinually, and chat comfortably with workers, cor-porate executives, small children, senior citizens,and men and women of different ages and ethnic

groups, generally in the same day. Must developa message that appeals to all Americans and de-

liver it, without mistake, every day. Must be will-ing to greet supporters and handle hecklers. Must

6Presidential

Candidate


71/96

never appear ustered, uncomfortable, confused,

or tired. Must speak condently of your qualica-tions to lead an entire nation. Must inspire oth-ers to share your vision for America. Must be a

good fund-raiser and an excellent public speaker.Must be neither too slick nor too unpolished.Must have some political experience yet not bea political insider. Must understand Washingtonpolitics and yet be willing to criticize Washingtonpolitics. Must be in excellent health. Must havea past free of any trouble or scandal, and musthave a loving and supportive family. Must be atleast 35 years of age, and must be a natural-borncitizen of the United States.

When voters are asked about their ideal presidentialcandidate, they often mention things like honesty, energy,moral character, ability to be calm under pressure, expe-rience, and ideas for addressing the nations problems.Some might stress that a candidate should be youngerthan a

Documents

How the US President is Elected