Party Like It’s 1824

 

Screen Shot 2016-05-06 at 7.28.51 AMThere were four candidates for president in 1824: Secretary of Treasury William H. Crawford, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams, Tennessee Senator Andrew Jackson, and House Speaker Henry Clay (L-R, above). Since none of them received a majority of votes in the Electoral College, the decision fell to the House of Representatives. According to the 12th Amendment, the House elects the president “… by states, the representation from each state having one vote.” Even though Jackson had won twelve states in the College as well as a plurality of the popular vote, thirteen states in the House — the slimmest possible majority at the time — selected Adams, who subsequently became our sixth president.

Flash forward to the present day and the near future. Say one of the Republican dropouts (or perhaps more than one) runs as a third-party candidate. Senator Bernie Sanders can run, too, to cannibalize the Hillary vote. None receives a majority when the Electoral College meets in December, so the House elects the president. According to the blessed 12th, the House must choose from among the top three Electoral College vote-getters, one of which could be a third-party ex-Republican.

Republican-controlled state delegations are a clear majority in the House now, and this would likely remain true even if the Republicans lost the House majority and the House vote didn’t occur until after the 115th Congress is sworn-in on January 3rd. Most Republican House members prefer someone other than Trump — and won’t even consider Hillary Clinton — so they would elect the other guy.

And, as if by magic, the Trump/Hillary choice is longer inevitable and we can all move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. Otherwise, we will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age.

Either that or the SMOD.

Published in Politics
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 42 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Casey Way Inactive
    Casey Way
    @CaseyWay

    Completely agree, jam up the Electoral College and send the vote to the House because given the opportunity they could vote for anyone of their choosing. I cut and pasted what I think is the successful strategy for such a “House Party” from other comments. It’s unconventional because in this race it has to be. The third party “House Party” must run the most popular statewide conservative in their respective state where the tendency is deep red voting AND Trump already lost in the primaries (ie Texas). This means multiple write in candidates across the nation but supported and promoted only where they already have popularity and name recognition. The other part is pushing Trump over the edge over Clinton in battlegrounds….

    The problem with a national third party run is enthusiasm and strength are spread thin. Plus this year the chance to coordinate nationally behind one alternative is gone. The efforts instead must be state specific isolated third party efforts to derail the crook and the blowhard; fostering federalism against Clinton and against Trump.

    It would only happen if Trump loses large conservative states to a popular state conservative write in candidate while at the same time Trump pulls off some upsets of Clinton in battlegrounds.

    The deep red states are going red, but do you think Cruz could win Texas over both Clinton and Trump write in? He has local name recognition and infrastructure. Could Haley or Scott win a write in campaign over Trump in SC? All of those previous presidential candidates have local appeal and a vote for the write in is a true way to stop Trump. Likewise if Trump beats up Clinton with cross appeal she is kept from the magic Electoral College majority. A few spoiler states in deep red territory and battlegrounds would lead to an Electoral College vote of state delegations where Republicans have an advantage.

    1. Tear down Clinton everywhere.

    2. Tear down Trump in the deepest red states where he’s already shown himself to be vulnerable.

    3. Support Trump where he can tear down Clinton (see 1).

    4. Give discontented voters a real shot of electing a conservative president with a locally popular protest vote while not supporting Trump and playing by existing rules (the Constitution).

    Spend the millions on this effort with conscience clean and no principles compromised. It might be one in a million chance, but with millions I’m saying there’s a chance.

    • #1
  2. Mendel Inactive
    Mendel
    @Mendel

    As much as I hate both Trump and Clinton, and would love to have another viable option, I think this is both an unrealistic and potentially dangerous scenario.

    The basic problem is this: the American people have come to expect that vote winner = election winner. Yes, most people understand the idiosyncracies of the Electoral College, but even then, the presumption among 99% of our society is that if one candidate has a substantial lead in votes and electors, that person wins.

    Obviously this is not the legal situation, but it is the dominant convention. And in many ways a convention trumps a law, since a law is merely a series of words without a critical mass of people willing to enforce it.

    So the only way for the House to have a legitimate chance in deciding the race is if the third (or fourth) party candidates can actually achieve electoral parity with the major party candidates. And at the moment, I see little chance of that happening.

    The only reasonable hope is for some type of truly disqualifying bombshells to emerge about either or both candidates between now and the election. And given how immune they both are to otherwise “disqualifying” traits, that seems like a long shot.

    • #2
  3. Roberto Member
    Roberto
    @Roberto

    drlorentz:Flash forward to the present day. One of the Republican dropouts (or perhaps more than one) runs as a third party candidate. Bernie can run too to cannibalize the Hillary vote.

    Any plan requiring Sanders to mount a 3rd party challenge is simply dead on arrival. It has been noted before but bears repeating Sander’s campaign is really a progressive movement disguised as a political campaign. He is looking to change the party not to be President an risking an HRC loss on some moon shot 3rd party run would completely undermine all his efforts.

    • #3
  4. iWe Coolidge
    iWe
    @iWe

    Romney in Utah? Not big enough….

    • #4
  5. Lazy_Millennial Inactive
    Lazy_Millennial
    @LazyMillennial

    Roberto:

    drlorentz:Flash forward to the present day. One of the Republican dropouts (or perhaps more than one) runs as a third party candidate. Bernie can run too to cannibalize the Hillary vote.

    Any plan requiring Sanders to mount a 3rd party challenge is simply dead on arrival. It has been noted before but bears repeating Sander’s campaign is really a progressive movement disguised as a political campaign. He is looking to change the party not to be President an risking an HRC loss on some moon shot 3rd party run would completely undermine all his efforts.

    Agreed. He didn’t get in to win, he got in to raise his issues and drag Clinton left. He got that, and inspired a generation. His acolytes will be the ones running Dem campaigns from here on out. He’s gotten more than he ever could have hoped for. He won’t run 3rd party.

    • #5
  6. Mendel Inactive
    Mendel
    @Mendel

    Roberto: It has been noted before but bears repeating Sander’s campaign is really a progressive movement disguised as a political campaign. He is looking to change the party not to be President an risking an HRC loss on some moon shot 3rd party run would completely undermine all his efforts.

    What’s more, I think a lot of people who voted for Sanders did so safe in the knowledge that Hillary would win in the end. I know the Sanders supporters in my circles didn’t actually think he’d be a good general election candidate or president – they wanted to send a message, and knew they could do so without jeopardizing Hillary’s chances.

    Were he to actually try an outsider bid at the presidency, I think he would find many of his former voters giving him the cold shoulder.

    • #6
  7. CB Toder aka Mama Toad Member
    CB Toder aka Mama Toad
    @CBToderakaMamaToad

    I have no comment about present day, but thought you might enjoy this website which my history classes frequently use to look at election outcomes in US history. Select the general election year you want and see the electoral map. Fun!

    • #7
  8. Kozak Member
    Kozak
    @Kozak

    Dream on. The Bolsheviks have strict party discipline. If Bernie tries it he will suffer the fate of Trotsky.

    All you do is guarantee Hillary the throne.

    • #8
  9. CB Toder aka Mama Toad Member
    CB Toder aka Mama Toad
    @CBToderakaMamaToad

    1824 National Map of General Election Results for President

    This is 1824’s map. Quite a colorful jumble.

    • #9
  10. Rodin Member
    Rodin
    @Rodin

    If the OP has outlined a real strategy somebody better get cook’n. Ryan has said he won’t endorse Trump yet and if a real movement arose quickly, Ryan could use that to stall longer because if there were a real chance of a resolution in the House he would like to be seen as fair and independent as possible. (You know, “for the American people.”) But if this doesn’t pick up any steam in the next 30 days — fuggedaboutit.

    • #10
  11. drlorentz Member
    drlorentz
    @drlorentz

    Roberto:

    drlorentz:Flash forward to the present day. One of the Republican dropouts (or perhaps more than one) runs as a third party candidate. Bernie can run too to cannibalize the Hillary vote.

    Any plan requiring Sanders to mount a 3rd party challenge is simply dead on arrival. It has been noted before but bears repeating Sander’s campaign is really a progressive movement disguised as a political campaign. He is looking to change the party not to be President an risking an HRC loss on some moon shot 3rd party run would completely undermine all his efforts.

    Sanders is not needed for this plan. All you need is Trump, Hillary, and X, where X=some other Republican. If Trump and X can deny Hillary a majority in the EC, the scenario plays out. Only the top three EC candidates get considered in the House.

    Bernie would just be the icing on the cake that would virtually guarantee success if X outpolls the Bern.

    • #11
  12. drlorentz Member
    drlorentz
    @drlorentz

    Kozak:Dream on. The Bolsheviks have strict party discipline. If Bernie tries it he will suffer the fate of Trotsky.

    All you do is guarantee Hillary the throne.

    You are incorrect in assuming that Bernie needs to be part of this scenario.

    • #12
  13. drlorentz Member
    drlorentz
    @drlorentz

    Mendel: The only reasonable hope is for some type of truly disqualifying bombshells to emerge about either or both candidates between now and the election. And given how immune they both are to otherwise “disqualifying” traits, that seems like a long shot.

    Trump is a target-rich environment for disqualifying traits. Hillary is under investigation for some fairly serious charges. They are both disliked by the electorate. It’s a long shot but possible.

    • #13
  14. drlorentz Member
    drlorentz
    @drlorentz

    CB Toder aka Mama Toad:I have no comment about present day, but thought you might enjoy this website which my history classes frequently use to look at election outcomes in US history. Select the general election year you want and see the electoral map. Fun!

    I love that website and refer to it often.

    • #14
  15. Kozak Member
    Kozak
    @Kozak

    drlorentz:

    Kozak:Dream on. The Bolsheviks have strict party discipline. If Bernie tries it he will suffer the fate of Trotsky.

    All you do is guarantee Hillary the throne.

    You are incorrect in assuming that Bernie needs to be part of this scenario.

    So you plan to split the conservative/ Gop / independent vote between Trump and X, and expect not to lose oh, 45 to 48 states?

    • #15
  16. drlorentz Member
    drlorentz
    @drlorentz

    Kozak:

    drlorentz:

    Kozak:Dream on. The Bolsheviks have strict party discipline. If Bernie tries it he will suffer the fate of Trotsky.

    All you do is guarantee Hillary the throne.

    You are incorrect in assuming that Bernie needs to be part of this scenario.

    So you plan to split the conservative/ Gop / independent vote between Trump and X, and expect not to lose oh, 45 to 48 states?

    Three points:

    1. Some Trump voters are said to come from the ranks of Dems. The idea that Trump voters are all conservatives or standard-issue GOP is false.
    2. Candidate X would need to have a strong base in select places, e.g., Texas and the mountain states.
    3. Bernie is an ideologue. I don’t accept the thesis that he wouldn’t run. He does not like Hillary.
    • #16
  17. Casey Way Inactive
    Casey Way
    @CaseyWay

    Three points:

    1. Some Trump voters are said to come from the ranks of Dems. The idea that Trump voters are all conservatives or standard-issue GOP is false.
    2. Candidate X would need to have a strong base in select places, e.g., Texas and the mountain states.
    3. Bernie is an ideologue. I don’t accept the thesis that he wouldn’t run. He does not like Hillary

    1. If that’s the case where is that effect most likely to be realized? Previously manufacturing powerhouse states or rust belt battlegrounds. Push Trump by bashing Clinton in those states. That chips away at the projected 242 already in the blue column and contests the toss-ups.

    2. The third party candidate or write in must already be known and popular in order to out draw the party nominees in spite of established party infrastructure. Texas is key. If the election is more 2000 than 2012 Electoral College-wise, the 38 electoral votes are huge. Other potential targets are where Trump lost. Then focus there. Resources will be tight for any third party. Why waste money going national when a small block of states maximizes impact and has the same effect?

    3. Democrats will come home to roost. They had their fling with Bernie but now that Trump is the opposition they will go back to Hillary or just result in low turnout which helps in battlegrounds. Don’t hold your breath for Bernie. Remember that “historic electoral” firsts are like cocaine for Dems.

    The most unconventional part of my plan is run multiple write in candidates depending where they are known. I don’t think you need one person if your impact is to be local and your message is singularly focused. The message is screw the parties, write in to get out of these horrible party picks. If the House votes, the ultimate majority is dependent upon the Tea Party members. You voted for them to make changes and rebuke the party, here’s your chance.

    • #17
  18. Casey Way Inactive
    Casey Way
    @CaseyWay

    So you plan to split the conservative/ Gop / independent vote between Trump and X, and expect not to lose oh, 45 to 48 states?

    No, you would have to fully expect to lose between 44-47 states but win the right ones including Texas to prevent 270 from either side. The third party is not about winning, it’s about making both sides lose. That is where the leverage in a successful third party lies. Then the vote goes to the House where I think 33 state delegations are majority Republican… that is quite the majority.

    • #18
  19. Son of Spengler Contributor
    Son of Spengler
    @SonofSpengler

    My daughter is taking her AP US History exam today, and has been studying very hard. Over breakfast, I mentioned that many conservatives are considering voting for Gary Johnson.

    “No! Please no! For the sake of future APUSH students, not another President Johnson!”

    I explained that the goal wasn’t necessarily to elect him, but to use him as a spoiler to win a few key states and thrown the election to the House of Representatives.

    “Terrible idea! That never ends well.” Worse than the alternatives? “A deal to end Reconstruction. Hamilton ends up dead. Jackson takes revenge by blowing up the financial system. Who knows what they’d do to make a deal this time?”

    I had no answer to that.

    • #19
  20. David Knights Member
    David Knights
    @DavidKnights

    Dream on.

    I am no Trump fan, but I do note all of the folks who would be expecting Trump voters to suck it up and to vote for Cruz (my candidate)if Cruz had been the nominee but are unwilling to do the reverse.

    Bottom line.  We have two awful candidates.  One or the other will be President. Pick one.

    • #20
  21. Austin Murrey Inactive
    Austin Murrey
    @AustinMurrey

    People are getting screwy.

    While this isn’t anyone sane’s dream election we have a choice before us: Trump or Clinton. Hillary Clinton.

    You have two impactful options if you’re voting for president: Vote for Trump. Vote for Clinton.

    There will be no mythic rescue candidate riding in on a white horse to save the day, and no, your voting Libertarian isn’t going to get them across the 15% threshold.

    You don’t have to like this reality but you do have to live in it.

    • #21
  22. RyanFalcone Member
    RyanFalcone
    @RyanFalcone

    The country is barely governable now and becoming more politically violent by the week. The current administration has an established track record for despising the rule of law. I fear the consequences of this outcome.

    Whoever the winner would be, they would be destroyed before the midterms.

    All this brings to mind two questions. We are called the United States. What actually unites us in anymore? What is the point of all this?

    • #22
  23. The King Prawn Inactive
    The King Prawn
    @TheKingPrawn

    I can’t imagine any scenario where a third party candidate gets enough of the popular vote in any state to take that state’s electors. We have the two candidates the people of this nation want (and deserve for wanting them.)

    • #23
  24. Umbra Fractus Inactive
    Umbra Fractus
    @UmbraFractus

    You’re leaving out what happened in 1828.

    Jackson came back with the proverbial vengeance, Adams got annihilated, and Jackson is remembered as one of the most popular and influential presidents in history. He is the only president other than Reagan to push his VP into office without dying or resigning.

    1824 proves it’s possible, but 1828 proves the backlash will be mighty.

    • #24
  25. Whiskey Sam Inactive
    Whiskey Sam
    @WhiskeySam

    The much more likely scenario is the 1912 election where the GOP candidate (Taft) wound up with 8 electors, the third party candidate (Roosevelt) got 88, and the Democrat (Wilson) slaughtered them with 435.  1824, because of its unique circumstances where four candidates from the same party (that was in the process of breaking up), all split the vote.  Every other instance of a third candidate receiving any serious consideration has resulted in that candidate pulling support from one of the two main parties while the other wins in a romp.

    • #25
  26. Kozak Member
    Kozak
    @Kozak

    Austin Murrey:People are getting screwy.

    While this isn’t anyone sane’s dream election we have a choice before us: Trump or Clinton. Hillary Clinton.

    You have two impactful options if you’re voting for president: Vote for Trump. Vote for Clinton.

    There will be no mythic rescue candidate riding in on a white horse to save the day, and no, your voting Libertarian isn’t going to get them across the 15% threshold.

    You don’t have to like this reality but you do have to live in it.

    TRump Grief

    • #26
  27. Kozak Member
    Kozak
    @Kozak

    Casey Way:So you plan to split the conservative/ Gop / independent vote between Trump and X, and expect not to lose oh, 45 to 48 states?

    No, you would have to fully expect to lose between 44-47 states but win the right ones including Texas to prevent 270 from either side. The third party is not about winning, it’s about making both sides lose. That is where the leverage in a successful third party lies. Then the vote goes to the House where I think 33 state delegations are majority Republican… that is quite the majority.

    And so the Republican majority rejects the Republican candidate.

    Brilliant.

    • #27
  28. iWe Coolidge
    iWe
    @iWe

    Cute graphic.

    I am not going anywhere yet. But our passports are up to date. I have one kid in College in Texas, another going to Montreal… advance parties. And, should I want to go live under a Muslim mayor, I can always move back to London.

    For me the history lesson is clear: Jews who are sure that any government will always be tolerant do not survive.

    • #28
  29. Kozak Member
    Kozak
    @Kozak

    iWe:Cute graphic.

    I am not going anywhere yet. But our passports are up to date. I have one kid in College in Texas, another going to Montreal… advance parties. And, should I want to go live under a Muslim mayor, I can always move back to London.

    For me the history lesson is clear: Jews who are sure that any government will always be tolerant do not survive.

    Canada will be full of the likes of l Al Sharpton, Miley Cyrus and Cher. Permanent residency permits will be tight.  I suggest you look at New Zealand.

    • #29
  30. iWe Coolidge
    iWe
    @iWe

    Kozak: Canada will be full of the likes of l Al Sharpton, Miley Cyrus and Cher. Permanent residency permits will be tight. I suggest you look at New Zealand.

    I am aware that you think this is all funny. To me, it is not.

    If the country can pursue openly selective policies based on race or belief, it can (and eventually will) ban or expel its Jews. That means me.

    This is no joke. The Constitution protects the rights of minorities; that is part of its genius. An America without its Constitution will be a place where I will not be welcome, sooner or later.

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.