0
   

Twelfth Amendment

 
 
gollum
 
Reply Fri 25 Nov, 2016 05:49 pm
I believe 1824 was the U.S. presidential election when the Twelfth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was invoked and accordingly the U.S. House of Representatives voted to elect the next president.

Pursuant to the Twelfth Amendment each State (not each Representative) received one vote.

If the representatives of a given State where not agreed on their choice for president, how was the State's vote determined?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 0 • Views: 1,101 • Replies: 9
No top replies

 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Nov, 2016 06:16 pm
@gollum,
Interesting subject.
https://olddominionlibertarian.wordpress.com/2016/01/14/how-the-constitution-could-let-the-house-stop-both-clinton-and-trump/
gollum
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Nov, 2016 06:39 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter-

Thank you.

In 1824, in those States where there was an even number of Representatives and where the vote of these Representatives is tied, how was the State's vote in the full House of Representatives determined?
Sturgis
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Nov, 2016 07:01 pm
@gollum,
I would figure that in the case of a Contingent Election such as was the case for the 1824 (The House voted in February 1825), that it could be determined according to who the majority of Congressional reps within the State vote for.

For example if a state had 10 representatives and 3 went for Jackson, 3 for Crawford and 4 for Adams, then it would go to Adams. (Note: Clay was less of a factor as he had joined up with Adams for a promised Cabinet position)

Looking forward to anyone who will offer us a more definitive answer.
gollum
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Nov, 2016 07:05 pm
@Sturgis,
Sturgis-

Thank you.

What if the vote was 5 to 5?
Sturgis
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Nov, 2016 07:08 pm
@gollum,
I would figure they'd have to negotiate, most likely would come down to political perks or possibly go according to seniority.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Nov, 2016 02:44 am
It was the intent of the committee which created the Electoral College that some--most, in fact--elections would end up in the House. It was one of the two mechanisms--the other being the Senate, with it's sole sovereignty powers--by which states with small populations were reassured that they would not be overwhelmed by mere numbers. It was assumed that the voters would know the electors and select those whom they most trusted, and that these electors would assemble in each state to choose among themselves who would receive electoral votes. The system intended, in fact, that the choice would most likely be referred to the House, where each state would cast a single vote, to determined by a caucus of the representative of each state. Political parties did not exist at that time, and no one at the convention foresaw the rise of political parties and the power that they would wield. People concerned with the political philosophy of this new republic condemned "faction," which is as close to saying political party as you could get in those days.

The irony is that the Federalists became the first political party, as they were supporters of the ratification of the constitution, and wanted federal government for the United States. So, in the Federalist paper #68, Alexander Hamilton wrote: "Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption." An amazingly naïve and innocent remark--but it is important to remember that political parties were truly unknown in the world at that time. The terms left and right to denote political philosophies only arose in the National Assembly in France late in 1789 or early in 1790. The terms liberal and conservative to denote political philosophies only appeared for the first time in England in 1830 at the time of the first parliamentary reform bill. It is almost inconceivable to us, but the world truly was innocent of the ramifications of political parties.

It is almost a political world you cannot understand. In Connecticut, Delaware, New Jersy, New York, Rhode Island, South Carolina and Vermont the electors were appointed by the state legislatures, without a popular vote. In Kentucky, Maryland, North Carolina and Virginia, the state was divided into electoral districts, and voters elected the elector in each district by popular vote. Only Georgia and Pennsylvania had statewide, open voting for the electors. (Keep in mind that you voted for the elector, not for the candidate.) Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Tennessee all had different combinations of popular vote and appointment by the legislature. John Adams won the presidency by two electoral votes (70 were needed, he got 71), and Thomas Jefferson became Vice President with 68 electoral votes. What the 12th amendment did, and all that it did, was to make the election of President and Vice President separate votes by the electors, and to reduce from the top five to the top three the number of those for whom the House would bot in the event that no one got a majority of electoral votes.

In the 1796 election, there were seven Federalist candidates, and four who are usually called Democratic-Republicans (even though that party was not formally founded until 1799). In 1800, as was intended when the Electoral College was created, the House chose who would be President and who would be Vice President, as Jefferson and Burr both received 73 electoral votes. It took six days and 36 ballots for the House to choose Jefferson, with Alexander Hamilton frantically urging Federalists to vote for Jefferson on the basis of having a man with wrong principles (Jefferson) rather than a man with no principles at all (Burr). (Hamilton subsequently lobbied against the election of Burr as governor of New York, eventually leading to the duel in which Burr killed Hamilton--politics were certainly lively in those days, so to speak.)

The United States effectively became a one party state, In the election of 1808, Madison buried his Federalist opponent, 122 to 47. In 1812, the Federalist candidate got ZERO electoral votes. That was Rufus King, who made a more respectable showing in 1816, but James Monroe buried him 183 to 34 electoral votes. In 1820, Monroe got every electoral vote save one, when a feckless elector voted for J, Q. Adams, who was from the same party--the Democratic Republicans. The Federalist didn't even put up a presidential candidate.

In 1824, Jackson was intended to be the President, and John Quincy Adams Vice President. Jackson got the most electoral votes, but not a majority. The election was thrown into the House. The Speaker of the House, Henry Clay, had also been a candidate, but he came in fourth and therefore could not be considered in the House vote. Clay threw his support to Adams, because he despised Jackson, saying: "I cannot believe that killing 2,500 Englishmen at New Orleans qualifies for the various, difficult, and complicated duties of the Chief Magistracy." When Adams appointed Clay Secretary of State, Jackson supporters cried foul, calling it the "Corrupt Bargain." In fact, Clay was opposed to Jackson's proposed policies, and he and Adams agreed on all major policies.

Campaigning for the 1828 election began almost immediately. Jackson, a superb political organizer, began creating the Democratic Party, the first modern political party, and the first one you would recognize. (When Democrats call themselves the Party of Jefferson, they're blowing smoke.) Knowing the Democratic-Republicans were dead, Adams created the National Republicans, but Jackson won the popular vote with 56%, and the Electoral College with two- thirds of the electoral votes. Since 1824, most states have chosen their electors on a winner-take-all basis, based on the popular vote. Only Maine and Nebraska, today, do not use the winner-take-all system.
gollum
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Nov, 2016 03:51 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta-

Thank you.

You are very knowledgeable. I wonder if there is some source that you consulted and I could consult.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Nov, 2016 08:15 pm
@gollum,
gollum, Setanta is very knowledgeable about history, so you can rest assured what he posts is accurate.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Nov, 2016 07:27 pm
@gollum,
It's called historical synthesis--knowing a great deal about a great many subjects and being able to put them together coherently. I've been reading history since 1957. Just think, in a mere sixty years, you could do this for yourself
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Twelfth Amendment
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/28/2022 at 05:24:44