It was the "corrupt" bargain of 1824 in which Henry Clay threw his support to John Quincy Addams, as opposed to Andrew Jackson. A result that in retrospect probably made Jackson an even worse President after being elected in his own right in 1828. I know I'm swimming up stream by considering him not one of the greats but so be it. In that case no candidate received the requisite majority of electoral votes, there were four candidates and Jackson received a plurality of the popular votes. The election was settled in the house where Clay who was also a candidate supposedly was speaker. After Adams won he made Clay Sec. of State. An office much more coveted than VP in those days as a stepping stone to the Presidency.
The only other time anything like this happened was in 1876 where several states, (I forget how many), had contested vote counts. Without them neither candidate would have an electoral majority. This of course once again threw the election into the house. A complex deal was worked out that put the Republican in the White House and ended reconstruction, and military occupation of the former Confederacy. As usual it satisfied no one and we are dealing with the repercussions to this day. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > In a message dated 2/5/2008 11:19:17 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Let's use the democrats as an example, since I actually know a couple of > their names. > In the present campaign then, the primaries would be determining if Obama or > Clinton would be the candidate in the real election, which isn't really an > election since some other electing body (the Electoral College?) actually > elects the president based on lord only knows what criteria? > > I think my eyes are bleeding. > > Gads, I suppose I should just google this. > > William Robb > > ============ > Technically. But I think only two times in history (okay, maybe a few more > but I'd have to look it up), has the popular vote and the electoral vote > differed. The thing that's throwing you is that one of those times was the > Gore/Bush election, but that was the first time since I don't know when, > ages ago. > Gore had more popular votes and Bush had more electoral votes. (Someone > really > wants to get precise about it, feel free to jump in.) > > That part is a bit Byzantine, I agree. And periodically people get steamed > up about doing away with the electoral college. But to date, it hasn't > happened. > > The historical roots for that are that originally only white men could vote > (not women, not blacks, etc.) and they didn't trust the unwashed masses and > wanted to limit the power of the popular vote. Of course, now it's one > person, > one vote, and I think we could well do away with the electoral college. > Smaller states with low population though like it because it gives them more > say. > > Sure you could, re google, but heck we can give you the Reader's Digest > version. :-) > > The thing is what a big country we are, it slows everything down. And it > costs a lot these days to win an election, so it all takes time. But I > wouldn't > mind it being a tad quicker. > > The other confusing thing is political pundits (and ordinary people) will > discuss someone's future election chances years before the primaries even > roll > around. It doesn't mean the election has started, it just means we are > always > talking about future elections, four and eight years down the road too. They > were talking about Hillary's chances years and years ago. So all of that > future speculation also makes it look longer than it really is. It really > takes > about a year, but that included prep time, not the primaries. Primaries to > general vote take less than a year (and if someone wants to be specific > about > that, jump right in.) Bit late here and my brain is a bit fogged. > > HTH, Marnie > > > > --------------------------------------------- > Warning: I am now filtering my email, so you may be censored. > > > > > **************Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music. > (http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp003000000025 > 48) > > -- I am personally a member of the Cream of the Illuminati. A union with the Bavarian Illuminati is contemplated. When it is complete the Bavarian Cream Illuminati will rule the world -- Anonymous -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
