AHC: Direct Elections for US President included in the post-Civil War Amendments

[octaviuz]

There was no way to elect the president directly before the Civil War. Not only would it have been a technical challenge but the absence of the 3/5ths clause would have underrepresented slave states (well, it'd have represented them fairly, which they'd have taken as an outrage snd possibly a slur on their collective honor).
So how can we get direct election included as one of the several clauses in the 14th amendment (or another one but 14 is the one that addresses the widest range of topics).

 

[Lalli]

I think that it is possible only just after WW2. So earliest wold be something like 22nd - 25th Amendment.

But perhaps one or few other elections end to Congress and it is realised that such system is too unviable. Or then make 2000 election even more messier so it is decided to push abolishment of electrotal collegio. Or then there should be so severe scandal that whole system is discredited greatly.

 

[Well]

There was no way to elect the president directly before the Civil War. Not only would it have been a technical challenge but the absence of the 3/5ths clause would have underrepresented slave states (well, it'd have represented them fairly, which they'd have taken as an outrage snd possibly a slur on their collective honor).
So how can we get direct election included as one of the several clauses in the 14th amendment (or another one but 14 is the one that addresses the widest range of topics).

I think you're right that raw popular vote was unviable pre-Civil War, but I believe the Jacksonians were proposing a single-elector district version of the electoral college, which is probably the closest you're going to get. If that were adopted in the 1830s, it might be a natural step to go to direct election after some alt-Civil War.

 

[octaviuz]

I think you're right that raw popular vote was unviable pre-Civil War, but I believe the Jacksonians were proposing a single-elector district version of the electoral college, which is probably the closest you're going to get. If that were adopted in the 1830s, it might be a natural step to go to direct election after some alt-Civil War.

Thanks, I wasn't even aware that there had been any discussion of anything similar to direct election pre war.
I'd picked the 1860s because 1) the path was open to amend the constitution, 2) there was an interest in improved representation and perhaps most importantly 3) transcontinental telegraph and railroad (before that it would have been impossible to compile the votes ib sny reasonable time frame)

 

[FALightFighter]

I don't think you'll get direct election of POTUS before direct election of senators, and that was 1913. Was it ever even floated, much less seriously proposed?

 

[dfl_90]

I think you're right that raw popular vote was unviable pre-Civil War, but I believe the Jacksonians were proposing a single-elector district version of the electoral college, which is probably the closest you're going to get. If that were adopted in the 1830s, it might be a natural step to go to direct election after some alt-Civil War.

This is probably the closest you're going to get in the 19th century. That was the original intent of the Constitution, but electoral politics in the very early 19th century drove states to consolidate their electors into a statewide winner takes all system. The Jacksonians often deferred to the Founding Fathers on Constitutional issues, so it's not unthinkable that they might being will to embrace something along these lines given it's strong support by Madison and Jefferson. Maybe if we see another "Corrupt Bargain" in 1828 and Jackson is somehow denied the presidency again despite nationwide success, maybe this looks like an attractive cause.

 

[Hugh Third of Five]

Maybe the mess of the 1876 election could lead to it, but I think the Bayh-Cellar amendment is your best bet, rather than anything in the 19th century.

 

[octaviuz]

I don't think you'll get direct election of POTUS before direct election of senators, and that was 1913. Was it ever even floated, much less seriously proposed?

Nothing in my cursory search suggests that the question was ever meaningfully raised. There still hadn't been a real reversal yet (the Corrupt Bargain was a bit more complex than just second place wins).
I'm a bit odd in that I feel like direct election of senators was a step back. Id prefer to have had a House of Lords solution but electoral legitimacy meant the Senate couldn't be sidelined.

 

[NHBL]

I can see a reason, though I think it unlikely:
In the aftermath of the civil war, IIRC, northern states had less restrictive voting rights. So, when the South is being forced to accept new amendments to be readmitted, a direct election of presidents amendment is passed. That encourages states to widen the franchise, because more voters give more influence to the state.

 

[Don Corleone]

That era carries too much risk of frickery. The South would have started returning lopsided votes for their favored candidate. You also had the city machines with dead people voting, or the old trick of voting with a long beard in the morning and cleanshaven in the afternoon.

The feds had zero ability to control this, so it was better to let the Electoral College act as a cap on any one state.

You'd also need the President to have more control over our day to day lives in order to make the issue worth the effort. That means the Wilson years at the earliest and post WW2 at the latest.