Alternate Electoral Maps III

The Hague's 82 councillors are elected through open party list PR, with the city's twelve boroughs serving as constituencies, ranging in size from four to thirteen seats.

Few seats changed hands in the 2022 City Council election. The local populist party Heart for The Hague remain the largest party, winning most of its seats in the poorer neighbourhoods in the city's southwest as well as the southeastern suburbs. Progressive The Hague, the local branch of the Progressive People's Party, came second, winning the majority of its seats in the Centre and Escamp boroughs. The Democrats gained four seats, winning support in the more affluent northern boroughs. The Liberals and the Greens lost two each, while the Christian Democrats stagnated. In the Centre borough, the Party for the Animals won its first ever City Council seat.

The Progressive-Democratic-Liberal-Green coalition, which had been in power since 2019, retained its majority and agreed to continue another term in office. With the Progressives now the senior government party, the city's mayoralty went to its leader Martijn Balster.

Den Haag GR22.png
 
Since I was thinking about it, I decided to spend this evening on a little project: the last Dutch election with a different form of PR. Instead of OTL's system where the whole country is one province, I used the data on results by province to allocate the Tweed Kamer's 150 seats to each province proportionally and have these elect members by the D'Hondt method, aside from the Caribbean Netherlands which elect one member by FPTP. (So as I realised partway through, basically the Netherlands with the Belgian or Spanish electoral system.)

The basemap is from the incomparable AJRElectionMaps.

1656288965272.png

I was expecting it to be a bit more majoritarian than it really was, but every party that won more than one seat retains its representation in this system, which is quite impressive. Given how unusual 2021's result was, I'm tempted to try doing this with some other Dutch elections too.

The last seats in Zeeland and last seat in Overjissel are debatable- they could have gone to a second VVD member and a third CDA member respectively as they got the same percentage share and I don’t have the numbers, but I gave them to the PVV and Labour respectively in the interests of pluralism.
 
Since I was thinking about it, I decided to spend this evening on a little project: the last Dutch election with a different form of PR. Instead of OTL's system where the whole country is one province, I used the data on results by province to allocate the Tweed Kamer's 150 seats to each province proportionally and have these elect members by the D'Hondt method, aside from the Caribbean Netherlands which elect one member by FPTP. (So as I realised partway through, basically the Netherlands with the Belgian or Spanish electoral system.)

The basemap is from the incomparable AJRElectionMaps.

View attachment 753847
I was expecting it to be a bit more majoritarian than it really was, but every party that won more than one seat retains its representation in this system, which is quite impressive. Given how unusual 2021's result was, I'm tempted to try doing this with some other Dutch elections too.

The last seats in Zeeland and last seat in Overjissel are debatable- they could have gone to a second VVD member and a third CDA member respectively as they got the same percentage share and I don’t have the numbers, but I gave them to the PVV and Labour respectively in the interests of pluralism.
Very nice. How did you calculate the apportionment among provinces and the seat distribution per province? When I try to reproduce it, I arrive at slightly different results.
 
Very nice. How did you calculate the apportionment among provinces and the seat distribution per province? When I try to reproduce it, I arrive at slightly different results.
Thanks! The apportionment was at a rate of roughly 116,051 residents per seat (I basically divided 17, 407, 585, the population of the Netherlands in 2020, by 150 and set aside one seat for the Caribbean), so if you're using electorate instead or have a different figure for the population total that may be where the difference comes from. Any errors in the distribution of seats to the parties are more likely due to errors in my calculations as I'm not super used to the d'Hondt method. :p I'd be interested to see what results you got to see the difference!
 
Thanks! The apportionment was at a rate of roughly 116,051 residents per seat (I basically divided 17, 407, 585, the population of the Netherlands in 2020, by 150 and set aside one seat for the Caribbean), so if you're using electorate instead or have a different figure for the population total that may be where the difference comes from. Any errors in the distribution of seats to the parties are more likely due to errors in my calculations as I'm not super used to the d'Hondt method. :p I'd be interested to see what results you got to see the difference!
Ah yes, I did use electorate. When I then apportion seats using the largest remainder method and calculate the seat distributions using d'Hondt, I get the following:
VVD: 43 seats (+9)
D66: 28 seats (+4)
PVV: 19 seats (+2)
CDA: 19 seats (+4)
PvdA: 10 seats (+1)
SP: 8 seats (+1)
GL: 7 seats (-1)
FvD: 6 seats (-2)
CU: 4 seats (-1)
PvdD: 2 seats (-4)
SGP: 2 seats (-1)
Volt: 1 seats (-2)
JA21: 1 seats (-2)
DENK: 1 seats (-2)
 
Didn't exactly put a ton of thought into this, but just an idea of what a 1976 electoral map could look like if Birch Bayh ran against Ford instead of Carter. He does significantly better than Carter in the Midwest and the Pacific states, but loses big in the South. Ultimately, he does about the same as Carter did in the election, but with a very different regional balance.
Screenshot 2022-06-28 231705.png
 

Deleted member 145219

Didn't exactly put a ton of thought into this, but just an idea of what a 1976 electoral map could look like if Birch Bayh ran against Ford instead of Carter. He does significantly better than Carter in the Midwest and the Pacific states, but loses big in the South. Ultimately, he does about the same as Carter did in the election, but with a very different regional balance.
View attachment 754393
Great Map! In your view, would Bayh have won reelection in 1974 without Watergate?
 
Great Map! In your view, would Bayh have won reelection in 1974 without Watergate?
Hm, I doubt it. Considering how slim his victory margin was in a world *with* Watergate, how thoroughly Lugar wiped the floor with Vance Hartke in '76, and the fact that Indiana is an INCREDIBLY Republican state (the last times we went blue were 2008 and 1964), I don't think Bayh stands much of a chance without Watergate, unfortunately.

Though now that I think about it, Bayh losing in 1974 and having more time to plan a 1976 presidential campaign could be a good divergence for a Bayh'76 timeline.....
 
Well, it's been a long time since I did a US ATL, but I've been thinking it might be fun to do a 'WI Lincoln was never assassinated' one since I never have before.

*
1658016946359.png

1868: Lincoln/Sherman (Republican) 257 EVs, 56.6%, Johnson/Blair (Democratic) 37 EVs, 43.4%

After the close of the Civil War and the beginning of the peacetime presidency of Abraham Lincoln, immediately the country was plunged into a conflict over Reconstruction. Most prominently, the President and Vice-President clashed fiercely over the prospect, as it became clear Vice-President Andrew Johnson, a Democrat before joining the ‘National Union’ ticket formed for Lincoln’s re-election, was steadfastly opposed not only to Reconstruction but to the Fourteenth Amendment itself. While the Democrats were significantly sandbagged by the barring of ex-Confederates from voting, they managed to prevent the Republicans making particularly large gains in the 1866 midterms, and Johnson took this as a mandate to resign as Vice-President and plot a path to leading the opposition.

While Johnson and his running mate Francis P. Blair Jr. of Missouri’s status as War Democrats meant they could avoid being labelled traitors, they ran a flagrantly racist campaign that tried to paint the election as a referendum on Reconstruction and Reconstruction as a process of enforcing black supremacy onto the South. By contrast, Lincoln’s campaign for re-election focused on trying to calm the nation, as he made it clear he would allow reconciliation and re-enfranchisement of former Southern rebels going forward and picked the moderate Ohio Senator John Sherman, who was friendly not only with the Radicals but with Johnson on a personal level, as his running mate.

While Johnson received steadfast support from anti-Reconstructionists, which translated into massive wins in a handful of Southern states like Georgia and Kentucky, Lincoln defeated him nationally by a landslide. Prominent Radical Republicans like Charles Sumner disparaged Lincoln; Sumner described him as having ‘a mandate to offend nobody’; but his legacy as the most revered President of the 19th century was very much secure.

1658016897607.png

1872: Grant/Frelinghuysen (Republican) 210 EVs, 49.6%, Hancock/Bayard (Democratic) 156 EVs, 49.2%

During his final term, Lincoln was forced into more radical action regarding Reconstruction on numerous issues. Most notably, he passed the Fifteenth Amendment that blocked franchise restriction on the basis of ‘race, colour or previous servitude’ (though this would not have as large an impact on preventing Democratic voter restriction as hoped by the Republicans) and the Ku Klux Klan Act to suspend habeas corpus in order to suppress the violent white supremacist movement emerging in the South.

These actions compromised his popularity, as Radical Republicans felt he did not go far enough while Democrats saw him as trying to domineer the South. They have ultimately been praised by modern historians as helping protect the rights of African-Americans, though what has not faced reappraisal were the allegations of corruption by the Republicans emerging by this point, most notably the Gold Ring which embarrassed one of Lincoln’s old allies Ulysses S. Grant and briefly destabilized the US economy in the form of Black Friday 1869.

The Democrats sought to capitalise on this conflict by nominating Winfield Scott Hancock, who had served briefly as a Reconstruction general and was transferred to the plains due to his advocacy for the resumption of civilian government regardless of the potential suppression of African-Americans due to his advocacy of states’ rights. This, combined with his record as a war hero in the Mexican-American War and the Battle of Gettysburg, made him a very strong candidate compared to Grant, who won the Republican nomination by benefitting from Radical dissatisfaction with Lincoln.

A harsh campaign played out in which the Republicans were accused of ‘waving the bloody shirt’ by accusing the Democrats of being traitors seeking to take the country back to the pre-Civil War era. Hancock, meanwhile, attacked Grant fiercely for his involvement in Black Friday and accused the Republicans of seeking to control Southern politics by force, a charge which had significant weight since both Grant and his running mate Frederick Frelinghuysen were Radical Republicans and ardent anti-Confederates.

The presidential race would prove to be one of the closest in American history, with less than 35,000 votes separating Grant and Hancock overall and only Hancock’s narrow defeat in New York (of less than 0.5%) preventing him winning the Presidency. It was clear across the country that Reconstruction was not yet a settled issue, as the Republicans had won two elections despite it and yet the Democrats had regained much of their popularity by capitalising on opposition to it.
 
Last edited:
1658254246881.png

1876: Tilden/Hendricks (Democratic)214 EVs, 51.6%, Grant/Blaine (Republican) 155 EVs, 47.3%

The 1872-6 period was plagued with continued questions over Reconstruction, as despite Grant trying to continue to enforce it his intervention to protect Southern Republicans was met with severe backlash, particularly with Northern sympathy towards the cause falling after the radical government of Joseph Brooks refused to re-enfranchise former Confederates after being elected in controversial fashion and the violent crackdown on the Red Shirts in Mississippi and the Colfax massacre in Louisiana.

After the Democrats gained control of the House in 1874, Grant turned towards seeking to intervene peacefully, which allowed the Democratic state governments elected in many Southern states to start to implement laws weakening the protection of African-American voting rights provided for by the Fifteenth Amendment. In response, Grant passed the Civil Rights Act of 1875 to try to protect black access to public facilities, which in theory allowed for continued voting rights for African-Americans, but did little to quell violence and so could not prevent voter suppression by white Southerners.

Exacerbating these blows to Grant’s popularity was the Whiskey Ring, which found Treasury officials to be guilty of bribery by whiskey distillers. This gave voters the impression the Grant administration was rife with corruption, which proved an excellent springboard to his Democratic opponent, Samuel J. Tilden. Tilden was well-known as the Governor of New York, and was notable for his anti-corruption stance, breaking with Tammany Hall and prosecuting the Canal Ring during his Governorship, which he framed in stark contrast to Grant. He also stressed his support for the gold standard and tax cuts, though many of his supporters sought to end Reconstruction and despite his anti-slavery and pro-Union past Tilden did nothing to disavow them.

Despite being widely expected to lose, Grant fought a hard campaign. He emphasized the significant effort he and his Treasury Secretary Benjamin Bristow had put into breaking up the Whiskey Ring, used Tilden’s indifference to the violence of Southern Democrats to energise Republicans in the North to turn out, and replaced Frelinghuysen with the more moderate former Speaker James Blaine as his running mate.

Grant’s strong and well-funded campaign did allow him to turn a projected landslide for Tilden into a fairly competitive race, but he still became the first President since Martin van Buren to seek re-election and lose. Tilden, meanwhile, had retaken the White House for the Democrats for the first time since before the Civil War, though his term would be a deeply controversial one.

*
1658254386069.png

1880: Grant/Blaine (Republican) 253 EVs, 52.3%, Tilden/Hendricks (Democratic) 116 EVs, 45.5%

Tilden’s administration saw significant change in government policy in a more conservative direction. While he had been a ‘Barnburner’ Democrat who opposed slavery, he acquiesced to the Democratic Congress’s pushes to repeal the Ku Klux Klan Act, Enforcement Acts and related anti-racism legislation, On economic matters he was even more conservative, opposing allowing silver money in favour of the gold standard and using federal troops to quell the Great Railroad Strike of 1877, in what remains the deadliest conflict between workers and strike-breakers in American history.

Not surprisingly, these actions evoked intense opposition which the Republicans sought to capitalise on despite many of them shifting to be more conservative themselves in some areas. They successfully won back control of the House in the 1878 midterms, and during the following two years Tilden’s health began to falter significantly, further damaging Democratic morale.

The Republican nomination battle was at first favoured to see Blaine made the nominee, but former President Grant had rebuilt his reputation after his 1876 defeat by making a world tour to meet with leaders internationally, most prominently in Europe and Asia. When he returned to the US in September 1879, he was met by cheering crowds and significant news coverage, which helped convince his old ally Roscoe Conkling to urge him to seek the nomination again.

While Grant was reluctant at first due to his previous defeat and the emerging conflict between anti-civil service reform and pro-civil service reform Republicans (the so-called ‘Stalwarts’ and ‘Half-Breeds’; Conkling belonged to the former faction, Blaine to the latter), the delegates saw him as the best candidate to unite the party around. Grant made Blaine his running mate once again, making this election the first time in American history that the two parties nominated the same presidential and vice-presidential candidates back to back.

Despite aggressive voter suppression in the South, the third-party campaign of the Greenbacks, who nominated James Weaver, helped the Republicans to build up strength in the region by fighting Democratic attempts at suppression. Grant also funded supporters across the country rather than concentrating his funds in the swing states, which he was able to do since his campaign had more money to use than Tilden.

Grant won a second term comfortably, and managed to narrowly carry Florida and North Carolina, which was considered to justify his inclusion of campaigning in the Southern states rather than conceding them to the Democrats and would be a major factor in the way civil rights programmes would develop in the 1880s.
 
1658444778941.png

1884: Lincoln/Lynch (Republican) 222 EVs, 50.1%, Cleveland/Thurman (Democratic) 179 EVs, 48.3%

Ulysses S. Grant’s landmark third term would prove to be a difficult one dominated by two issues, one of which he proved very proactive and influenced greatly in the long-term, while the other would be extremely damaging to his reputation in the short-term. The former of these was his action on civil rights, as he managed with the help of Roscoe Conkling to shepherd through the Hoar Bill that introduced the secret ballot nationwide and permit supervision and verification of voting processes. Despite the fierce opposition of Democrats, this was successfully passed, though unfortunately numerous parts of the Civil Rights Act 1875 were compromised by Supreme Court decisions that claimed the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments did not allow Congress to outlaw racial discrimination by private individuals.

The latter was the contentious issue of civil service reform. The ‘Stalwart’ faction of the Republicans to which Grant belonged was fiercely opposed to these reforms- Conkling nicknamed them ‘snivel service reform’ due to his belief that the spoils system was integral to Republican strength and supporting reform would compromise the party’s upper ranks. Pressure to renege on this grew amongst the public throughout the early 1880s, and after Republican losses in the 1882 midterms and since both he was ageing and his health was waning, Grant was ultimately forced to acquiesce to the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act. This led Conkling to break with Grant and resign from the Senate, inadvertently ending his career.

Despite the personal toll the civil service reform had taken on the party, it managed to soften the intense opposition the Republicans were suffering at this point. It also weakened the presidential ambitions of Lincoln’s Vice-President James Blaine, who had vocally opposed the Pendleton Act but was unpopular with the public as his long period in the public eye meant many scandals were associated with him. Consequently, the party sought other candidates to try to distance themselves from him, with the nomination ultimately going to Robert Todd Lincoln, the son of Abraham and Secretary of War who had built up a positive image for himself by quelling the Cincinnati Riots in March 1884. His running mate was an unexpected and rather controversial choice- John R. Lynch, an African-American Congressman from Mississippi whose political career had effectively been saved by the Hoar Bill and who had temporarily chaired the Republican National Convention, the first African-American ever to do so.

On the Democratic side there was an obvious frontrunner. Like the party’s last president, Grover Cleveland was a reforming but conservative Governor of New York, and he emphasized his efforts in fighting the graft of Tammany Hall. His running mate was altogether different in political character; former Senator Allen G. Thurman of Ohio had been an ardent opponent of Reconstruction and civil rights and the Democrats hoped his support would rally enough Southern whites around the ticket to win them the election while Cleveland could secure the confidence of the North by painting the Republicans as a corrupt party who had happened to choose a figure distant from the civil service reform debate, acquiring the nickname ‘Grover the Good’ among his supporters.

While Cleveland was initially ahead, in July the Republicans managed to find an issue which damaged his reputation; they claimed Cleveland had fathered an illegitimate child while a lawyer in Buffalo. Cleveland’s campaign emphasized a truthful and apologetic response to the issue, admitting he had paid child support to a woman who he had had ‘an illicit connection’ with and who claimed to have fathered his child, but claiming the child’s paternity was uncertain and by supporting it Cleveland was merely doing his duty. The response deflated the crisis of confidence in Cleveland somewhat, but Cleveland’s lead dissipated and by Election Day the race was judged to be a tossup.

The race would prove to be quite close, but more noticeably than that a distinct defiance of the traditional voting patterns of the time, and a demonstration of the influence of the Hoar Bill. The Republicans managed to narrowly carry four former Confederate states, but suffered significantly in the Midwest, with Sherman’s home state of Ohio flipping against them by a surprisingly large margin, and the party’s internal conflicts slackened turnout in New England that allowed Cleveland to come close to snatching Connecticut. Had he won that state, Iowa and Michigan, all of which he lost by under 2% of the vote, he would have won the Presidency.

As it was, however, Lincoln was President and Lynch was the first African-American Vice-President. Not surprisingly, Democrats were up in arms, and Lincoln knew he would have a difficult job living up to the legacy of his father.
 

1658581546895.png

1888: Lincoln/Alger (Republican) 309 EVs, 52.3%, Hill/Gray (Democratic) 92 EVs, 44.1% (oth 3.5%)

Lincoln’s first term had in many ways been controversial, but he made several major decisions which were well-received at the time. He granted a pension to Union veterans of the Civil War with Congress’s support, kept a protectionist economic policy which opposed the growing advocacy of tariff reform by the Democrats, appointed former New York judge James Campbell Matthews to replace Frederick Douglass as deeds register of Washington D.C. after Douglass’s resignation, passed the Dawes Act seeking to convert Native American tribes from land tenure to private property in an attempt to naturalise Native Americans and protect their property, and allowed the Chinese Exclusion Act to not be extended (though his acquiescence to the Scott Act preventing their return and the consequences of the Dawes Act mean they are widely seen as racist legislation by historians).

The Democrats once again went for their Governor of New York, namely David B. Hill, Cleveland’s successor. Hill ran on a platform which was somewhat less conservative than Cleveland, most notably by supporting bimetallism, seen as a way to strengthen the party’s support in the West and South despite its unpopularity in the North, as well as labour reforms and regulation of tenement housing. Despite this, he also supported reducing the tariff and taxes, which made the party machine amenable to him; some would say too amenable, due to his sympathy to patronage emerging as an issue during the campaign. His running mate was Isaac P. Gray, Governor of Indiana and a former Republican, a choice which was hoped might allow him to reach across the aisle.

Despite the Democrats’ hopes, Hill was nowhere near as strong a candidate as Cleveland or Tilden had been. Lincoln’s campaign attacked his association with machine politics in New York, which undercut the traditional anti-corruption appeal of the Democrats and damaged support for the ticket among their voter base, and accused him of being sympathetic to Britain and opposed to Irish-Americans. Gray also faced attacks within his party for stances he had taken as a Republican that were unpopular with his contemporary Democratic colleagues.

In addition to this, since Lynch wished to stand down as Vice-President due to intense racial hatred he had been subject to during his tenure, Lincoln replaced him with former Governor of Michigan Russell A. Alger, whose founding of a veterans home in Grand Rapids was marked as a stark contrast to the Democrats’ opposition to pensions for Union veterans.

Most striking of all, however, was the ‘Murchison letter’ written to Sir Lionel Sackville-West, the British Ambassador to the United States, the reply to which suggested Hill was the preferred candidate of the British. This severely alienated Hill’s supporters, particularly in the North.

The election saw the biggest Republican victory since 1868, with most of Hill’s victories being concentrated in the South. The only states to vote for him which hadn’t been part of the Confederacy were California, thanks to his bimetallism and a well-orchestrated Democratic campaign out west, and the consistently Democratic-inclined border states of Delaware and Kentucky. While Lincoln’s margin wasn’t as titanic in the popular vote, something which was noticeable from his voteshare being lowered by third parties in many states he won, it was still a commanding win that emboldened him going into his second term.

He would need this emboldening to get through the conflicts that would emerge in his second term.
 
Last edited:
View attachment 760774
1888: Lincoln/Harrison (Republican) 309 EVs, 52.3%, Hill/Gray (Democratic) 92 EVs, 44.1% (oth 3.5%)

Lincoln’s first term had in many ways been controversial, but he made several major decisions which were well-received at the time. He granted a pension to Union veterans of the Civil War with Congress’s support, kept a protectionist economic policy which opposed the growing advocacy of tariff reform by the Democrats, appointed former New York judge James Campbell Matthews to replace Frederick Douglass as deeds register of Washington D.C. after Douglass’s resignation, passed the Dawes Act seeking to convert Native American tribes from land tenure to private property in an attempt to naturalise Native Americans and protect their property, and allowed the Chinese Exclusion Act to not be extended (though his acquiescence to the Scott Act preventing their return and the consequences of the Dawes Act mean they are widely seen as racist legislation by historians).

The Democrats once again went for their Governor of New York, namely David B. Hill, Cleveland’s successor. Hill ran on a platform which was somewhat less conservative than Cleveland, most notably by supporting bimetallism, seen as a way to strengthen the party’s support in the West and South despite its unpopularity in the North, as well as labour reforms and regulation of tenement housing. Despite this, he also supported reducing the tariff and taxes, which made the party machine amenable to him; some would say too amenable, due to his sympathy to patronage emerging as an issue during the campaign. His running mate was Isaac P. Gray, Governor of Indiana and a former Republican, a choice which was hoped might allow him to reach across the aisle.

Despite the Democrats’ hopes, Hill was nowhere near as strong a candidate as Cleveland or Tilden had been. Lincoln’s campaign attacked his association with machine politics in New York, which undercut the traditional anti-corruption appeal of the Democrats and damaged support for the ticket among their voter base, and accused him of being sympathetic to Britain and opposed to Irish-Americans. Gray also faced attacks within his party for stances he had taken as a Republican that were unpopular with his contemporary Democratic colleagues.

In addition to this, since Lynch wished to stand down as Vice-President due to intense racial hatred he had been subject to during his tenure, Lincoln replaced him with former Governor of Michigan Russell A. Alger, whose founding of a veterans home in Grand Rapids was marked as a stark contrast to the Democrats’ opposition to pensions for Union veterans.

Most striking of all, however, was the ‘Murchison letter’ written to Sir Lionel Sackville-West, the British Ambassador to the United States, the reply to which suggested Hill was the preferred candidate of the British. This severely alienated Hill’s supporters, particularly in the North.

The election saw the biggest Republican victory since 1868, with most of Hill’s victories being concentrated in the South. The only states to vote for him which hadn’t been part of the Confederacy were California, thanks to his bimetallism and a well-orchestrated Democratic campaign out west, and the consistently Democratic-inclined border states of Delaware and Kentucky. While Lincoln’s margin wasn’t as titanic in the popular vote, something which was noticeable from his voteshare being lowered by third parties in many states he won, it was still a commanding win that emboldened him going into his second term.

He would need this emboldening to get through the conflicts that would emerge in his second term.
I'm really liking this series so far!
 
1658963374907.png

1892: Palmer/Bland (Democratic) 263 EVs, 45.6%, McKinley/Reid (Republican) 143 EVs, 41.8%, Gresham/Kyle (Populist) 38 EVs, 10.3%

1892 would prove to be quite an exciting election, with six states voting for the presidency for the first time, an open contest caused by President Lincoln’s choice not to follow his father’s unusual decision to seek a third term, and above all a deeply contentious political conflict as its backdrop.

During Lincoln’s second term, the Republicans had introduced a tariff, known as the McKinley Tariff after William McKinley, the Congressman who endorsed it, to raise the import duty to almost 50% in order to protect domestic industry from foreign competition. This had been part of the Republican platform in 1888, but was very controversial with the public and contributed to the Baring crisis, a severe financial recession. This and their unified opposition to the tariff allowed Democrats to capitalize and win a strong victory in the 1890 midterms.

Additionally, a major conflict had emerged over the monetary system the US should use, on which both parties and the public were split. The gold standard, by which the dollar was convertible to a fixed quantity of gold, was advocated by fiscal conservatives to try to keep the American economy balanced, while bimetallism, which would see silver brought into circulation with a fixed exchange rate with gold, was advocated by more liberal groups to try to increase the supply of money, stabilize prices and facilitate exchange rates.

Most Republicans, including those close to President Lincoln, opposed bimetallism. One of the few exceptions was Indiana Senator Benjamin Harrison, who ran for the nomination on a platform more sympathetic to the system, but was unpopular with the public for his association with the incumbent administration and with the Republican base for starting to speak out against its policy agenda. Consequently, it instead nominated McKinley, who had become a martyr to the pro-gold standard Republicans. He selected Ambassador to France Whitelaw Reid as his Vice-Presidential nominee in part out of the hope that he might swing his home state of New York away from the Democrats.

The Democratic contest for the nomination saw a fierce battle between its pro-gold standard wing, with former Governor of New York and 1884 presidential candidate Grover Cleveland spearheading it, and its pro-free silver wing, the main advocate of which was Iowa Governor Horace Boies. The latter wing was popular with the congressional party and membership, but not with the leadership. Ultimately a compromise was arranged; Illinois Senator John M. Palmer, an advocate of the gold standard, was made the nominee, benefitting from a lack of baggage from previous defeat that Cleveland had, and Missouri Congressman Richard P. Bland was made his running mate as a prominent advocate of bimetallism.

The adamant advocacy of the gold standard by both parties’ candidates and the rise of labour advocacy strengthened the view that a new party should emerge. This would lead to the formation of the People’s Party or Populists, partly caused by collaboration between The Grange and the Knights of Labor. Securing a surprise success in the 1890 midterms on an agrarian and populist platform, the Populists chose to form a presidential candidacy of their own instead of endorsing one of the major parties. It selected as its candidate Walter Q. Gresham, a former Republican with agrarian sympathies who ironically had unsuccessfully agitated for Grover Cleveland to win the Democratic nomination. His running mate James H. Kyle helped strengthen Populist support in the rural west; as a Senator from one of the newly admitted states, South Dakota, he also gave the ticket the image that it would provide a marked change from the past and appealed to younger voters.

The unusual three-way campaign was hard-fought, with all three parties able to mount strong campaigns in certain regions- the Democrats dominated the South, the Republicans the Northeast and the Populists the West. The campaigns also directed their efforts into unexpected territory, with the Democrats trying to prise away immigrant voters in New York and its surrounding states, the Republicans fighting out west due to an anaemic Democratic campaign against the Populists, and the Populists seeking to break through in the poorer rural parts of the South.

Ultimately Palmer came out on top as expected, sweeping most of the Midwest, winning every Southern state despite the Populists’ hopes and even coming close to taking a handful of Northeastern states even with Reid’s influence on the Republican ticket. However, all three parties could claim some form of victory- the Republicans had performed better than expected after their 1890 Congressional rout and the Populists had managed a near-unprecedented breakthrough for a third party.

Palmer would be the first Democrat in the White House in 12 years and only the second since the Civil War, and with his party retaining its strong majority in Congress in the concurrent elections down-ballot there was much enthusiasm among the party as he entered office in March 1893. However, this would prove to be very much dampened by the continuing crises of the early 1890s.
 
Last edited:
Top