District System in 1824 - Who Comes Third?

In 1821, a constitutional Amendment narrowly failed in the HoR, which would, if adopted, have mandated that States choose all but two of their Presidential Electors in Congressional Districts rather than at large.

So what happens in 1824? Afaics, Jackson and Adams will still be first and second (with neither getting a majority), but who comes third? OTL, Crawford edged out Clay by just four votes, but would he still? He could carry some districts in the Carolinas, but so could Clay in the West. OTOH Crawford might lose a few in Virginia and Clay in Ohio.

Could Clay come third, and go on to maybe win in the House?
 
1) do you have a link to that?
2) what was the actual text?
3) assuming it passed the HoR (as you say), what would make it pass the Senate and the required number of States?
 
1) do you have a link to that?
2) what was the actual text?
3) assuming it passed the HoR (as you say), what would make it pass the Senate and the required number of States?


The text of the proposed Amendment is in the House Journal, online at
https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:mad:field(DOCID+@lit(hj0147)):

While the details of the eventual vote on it are at
https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:mad:field(DOCID+@lit(hj01456)):

As I understand it, Amendments to this effect passed the Senate several times between abt 1815 and 1823, but all failed in the House. So had the House passed this one, there is every likelihood that the Senate would have concurred.

As to ratification, just two large states, PA and VA, provided a majority of the nays. So if submitted to the States, its chances of ratification were probably quite good.

The text of the Amendment was as follows

Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, That the following amendment to the Constitution of the United States be proposed to the legislatures of the several states, which, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the states, shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution:
Page 24 | Page image
That, for the purpose of choosing Representatives in the Congress of the United States, each state shall, by its legislature, be divided into a number of districts, equal to the number of Representatives to which such state may be entitled. The districts shall be formed of contiguous territory, and contain, as nearly as may be, an equal number of persons entitled by the Constitution to be represented, or of persons qualified to vote for members of the most numerous branch of the state legislature. In each district, the persons qualified to vote shall choose one Representative.
That, for the purpose of choosing Electors of President and Vice President of the United States, the persons qualified to vote for Representatives in each district shall choose one Elector. The two additional Electors, to which each state is entitled, shall be appointed in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct. The Electors, when convened, at the time and place prescribed by law for the purpose of voting for President and Vice President of the United States, shall have power, in case any of them shall fail to attend, to choose an Elector, or Electors, in place of him, or them, so failing to attend. The division of states into districts, as hereby provided for, shall take place immediately after this amendment shall be adopted, and immediately after every future census and apportionment of Representatives under the same; and such districts shall not be altered until a subsequent census shall have been taken, and an apportionment of Representatives under it shall have been made.
 
If I understand well, the vote is split according to congressional districts with the 2 remaining votes being decided by usual method.

If it's that, there shall be to look at results for each congressional district.
 
Well, extrapolating with results from each state and congressional 1824 elections and basing on the hypothesis I made above, after some hours, I come out with new electoral result for all but 29 electors (New York and Ohio) I'm about 75% sure.



Jackson lose some electors to Crawford in North Carolina and some votes in Indiana and Maryland to either Clay (IN) or Crawford and Adams (MD), but picks some in New York and Ohio.
Crawford picks some electors in North Carolina and New York.
Adams picks some electors in Maryland and Ohio, and seems losing ground in New York, but I've still 15 undetermined electors in my search, so we can still think New York goes mostly for him.
Clay stays stable but he lose big with Ohio votes split, 6 electors at least.

As I said, I couldn't have extrapolated with enough certitude 15 electors from New York and another 9 from Ohio, mostly because my extrapolations are based on congressional elections and that I couldn't distinguish the relative strength of Adams and Clay partisans in these states.
611px-PresidentialCounty1824.gif


I did only find that map about county results, but it's incomplete. Looking at it, we can figure without too much doubt that most of Ohio would go to Clay, either 11 out of 16 electors.
New York is harder to figure since the electors weren't directly elected, but aside of the 4 electors received IOTL by Clay, I think that proximity to New England makes it more likely to go for Adams, so I can take (let's say): 10 of these electors for Adams and the other 5 to Clay.

So, we have :
Andrew Jackson : 95 EVs
John Q Adams : 76 EVs
William Crawford : 55 EVs
Henry Clay : 35 EVs


As you see, Crawford is the big winner here.

Here, Jackson and Crawford are about 75-85% sure, Adams and Clay only 50-60 % sure.
And that study is only worth something if I understood the amendment correctly (one popularly chosen elector per congressional district plus another two chosen in any way the state legislature sees it fit, meaning either direct or indirect).
 
This thread made wondering if that system could work, but applying to another disputed election as 2000, I arrive with 282 EVs for Bush and 256 EVs for Gore.
I don't think it would be a good one.
 
Thanks.

Sounds like 1824 stays pretty much as OTL, and probably not a lot changes until possibly 1836, which might get thrown into the HoR, as could (less probably) 1856.

I speculated on the effects in soc.history.what-if back in 2006:

***

I don't think that the amendment would have made much of a change in
presidential elections in the 1820s through the 1840s. (It is just
possible that it would have led to the 1836 presidential election going
into the House, but I doubt it; Harrison would certainly pick up some
electoral votes in New York and Pennsylvania and Connecticut, and Hugh
White might do so in some southern states; but this would be balanced by
Van Buren picking up electoral votes from Harrison in Ohio and New Jersey,
and from White in Georgia and perhaps Tennessee.
http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/u/usa/pres/1836.txt In any event,
Van Buren would still win in the House if the election went there. I'm
not sure what the effect would be in 1848: perhaps Van Buren would have
carried more congressional districts than in OTL--indeed, I'm not sure he
carried any--if it were thought that he had a chance to send the election
into the House. But the odds are pretty strong against his actually being
able to do so.) But it would obviously greatly affect the rise of the
Republican Party in the 1850s. Such a party--with practically no support
in the South, and substantial opposition in much of the North--would have
much less chance than in OTL of an Electoral College majority for many
years (though it would have a better chance with the district system than
it would with a strictly proportional division of each state's electoral
votes). In 1860, Lincoln might carry *one* district in a southern state
(Frank Blair's St. Louis, Missouri district); but this would be far
outbalanced by all the districts he would lose in states he carried like
Illinois, Indiana, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. (See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty-seventh_United_States_Congress for all
the Democrats elected to the House from these states in 1860. To be sure,
some districts that narrowly voted for a Democratic Representative may
have narrowly voted for Lincoln, but the list is at least suggestive.)
Furthermore, attempts to form anti-Lincoln fusion tickets might succeed in
some congresional districts in states where such attempts failed on a
statewide level in OTL. The race would probably go into the House, where
each state delegation would have one vote, and where Lincoln's chances of
victory would be slim.

(One thing I am wondering about: would the district system have sent the
1856 presidential election into the House?
http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/u/usa/pres/1856.txt Fillmore
certainly would have done better, since he presumably carried several
congressional districts in southern states like Kentucky, Louisiana,
Tennessee, and Missouri, where Buchanan won fairly narrow victories; and
perhaps in North Carolina and Georgia as well. And Fremont would have
gotten some electoral votes in Buchanan states like Illinois, Indiana, and
perhaps Pennsylvania. Furthermore, it is possible that attempts at a
Fremont-Fillmore fusion in the North, which in OTL failed on a statewide
level, might have been implemented in some individual congressional
districts in, say, Pennsylvania or New Jersey. OTOH, Buchanan would have
picked up votes in relatively close Fremont states like Ohio and possibly
Connecticut and New Hampshire (and even in the one state Fillmore carried,
Maryland) and probably in New York, so maybe he would still have gotten a
majority in the Electoral College...)
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.history.what-if/VG0dvMkIOsI/fduIHi1JwXsJ

***

Rich Rostrom, later in that thread, disagreed with me about it not having much short-run effect, arguing that it would for example give states an additional incentive to gerrymander and might lead to Congress cracking down on gerrymandering.; that it might lead to a consolidation of congressional and presidential election days earlier than in OTL; that the parties might be less inclined to nominate candidates from states rich in electoral votes; etc. See https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.history.what-if/VG0dvMkIOsI/9GPFXFz5YhcJ for my reply:

"It may be that I underestimated butterfly effects of adopting the district
system, but I am still not convinced that the basic workings of the
Jacksonian party system would have been changed that much. (Also, remember
that this would not be a pure district system: two electors would still
be chosen at large from each state, so carrying *states*--not just
congressional districts--would still be important in political strategy.)"
 
But it would obviously greatly affect the rise of the Republican Party in the 1850s. Such a party--with practically no support in the South, and substantial opposition in much of the North--would have much less chance than in OTL of an Electoral College majority for many years


I suppose the big question is what the Northern wing of the Know-Nothings do. OTL they were quickly absorbed by the Republicans, but here that will be more problematic, as it doesn't offer a way to the White House.

Do they try to reach a deal with their Southern wing? Or do you get two "American Parties", North and South?
 
The results on the 1824 election might depend partly on how people feel about that amendment. However, it's likely that most of the votes in the 1824 presidential election would go about the same as the votes in OTL, and people won't feel strongly about the matter.

Come 1830 when politicians are drawing new districts, the people will feel more strongly about how the districts are drawn, because the presidency is at stake and not just the congressional elections. Perhaps the American people will start to push for more accountability in the designing of congressional districts.
 
Come 1830 when politicians are drawing new districts,

In quite a few states it would have to be done right away, as CT, GA, NH and NJ elected their Representatives at large, which would no longer be permitted. Also NY and PA each had several plural districts which would similarly have to go.



the people will feel more strongly about how the districts are drawn, because the presidency is at stake and not just the congressional elections. Perhaps the American people will start to push for more accountability in the designing of congressional districts.
It might also affect the timing of Congressional elections. In those days, and for long after, many states didn't elect their Congressmen until the year after the Presidential election, ie closer to the time when the new Congress would actually meet. However, if the same districts choose both Congressman and Presidential Elector, there might be an inclination to economise by doing both on the same day - or Congress might even legislate to that effect.

(Apologies to David T. I forgot that he's already mentioned that.)

This might result in Zachary Taylor having a firmly Whig HoR, if all or most of its members had been elected with him. Could have significantly affected the events leading up to the compromise of 1850.
 
Last edited:
Top