Objectives
Objectives of the unit will include having students critically examine some fundamental concepts of the theory and practice of democracy as these concepts were explored in our Yale National Initiative seminar The Theory and Practice of Democracy led by Ian Shapiro, Sterling Professor of Political Science at Yale. Particulars will include examining the emergence of federalism and party politics, comparing the demographics and qualifications of suffrage over time, exploring constitutional issues regarding the electoral process, investigating the role of the courts in the electoral process, critiquing the Electoral College system, and exploring novel ways to improve democratic participation, such as Deliberative Polling. The knife-edge elections of 1800 and 2000 serve as the historical framework for this unit.
Activities in this unit will include having students read about and discuss constitutional changes in the electoral process. Additional activities will include critically reading select primary and secondary source material about democratic theory and practice based upon seminar readings and resources gathered during the 2008 Yale National Initiative. Additionally, through the introduction of principles regarding contested and deliberative models of democracy, students will explore the conditions that hold democracy together in the face of knife-edged elections. Ultimately, I want the unit to be an effective tool for my students and me that will encourage our developing a critically informed understanding of democracy and how it has been practiced in America from times in the early republic until present.
One measure of legitimacy for a democracy is whether it can sustain peaceful transfers of power from one government to another. Modern political theorists such as Joseph Schumpeter and Samuel P. Huntington have advocated that the true test of a democracy is a country's surviving not one but two peaceful transfers of power. 6 While the number of countries fashioning themselves as democracies has risen dramatically in the last century, a significant number have experienced difficulty in passing this test or have miserably failed this test. In On Democracy, Robert Dahl points out that at least 70 of the new democracies founded in the 20 th century faltered and succumbed to more coercive authoritarian forms of government. 7 Examples include Sub-Saharan African countries such as Nigeria and Zimbabwe which have consistently struggled with securing elected governments over military or dictator rule. Most currently, Zimbabwe's presidential election has been subject to widespread international scrutiny due to violent oppression of the opposition. 8 Latin American countries such as Argentina and Mexico have also historically struggled. The close Mexican presidential election of 2006 was criticized for wide-scale corruption at the polls. Additionally, government officials such as the head of the Mexican police force have recently been the victims of assassination. 9
Violence has also plagued large powers such as Russia and China as they have attempted democratic reforms. China has successfully repressed democratic challenges to its status quo. Russia has experienced more dramatic moments. In 1991 Boris Yeltsin survived a coup attempt. In the 1993 constitutional crisis, he used the military to bomb opponents out of the Russian White House. 1 0
Given the poor historical record against peaceful transfers of power around the world, the consistency of the United States as a democracy is impressive. Nonetheless, knife-edge elections and crisis elections can threaten even the most stable governments. Why did the crisis elections of 1800 and 2000 not lead to a breakdown of the system?
Students will explore this question in the context described before investigating answers. In accordance with Lord Acton's maxim that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely", most governments are loath to surrender power once power has been achieved. This makes the elections of 1800 and 2000, which are two precariously close and complicated elections, that much more interesting to study.
Professor Shapiro suggests that answering, "Why didn't the system break down?" might lead my students' and my exploration toward four areas of interest: law, cross cutting cleavages, wealth, and problems of recurrence.
The first concerns the realm of law. As mentioned, one of Alexis de Tocqueville's observations of democracy in America was that questions over politics more often than not have ended up as judicial matters. In the election of 1800 and more specifically the election of 2000, concerned parties turned to the law and specifically the courts in 2000 to resolve deadlock.
Second, I want my students to demonstrate understanding of the importance of cross-cutting cleavages as an incentive to keep election losers as loyal opposition. Critics of democracy beginning with Plato pointed out that majority rule can be tyrannically unfair to the losers. Given this point, how can democracy best be structured in order to keep loyal opposition? Reading and discussing the evolution of Madison's ideas of factions will allow us to see the point that winner-take-all politics leaves no incentive for political losers to stay loyal to the democratic system.
Wealth as a factor is the third area of interest. Democracy appears to work best in wealthier countries where losing power in political contests does not preclude one from being successful in other areas of society. In poorer democracies where winning political office results in control of a country's scarce resources, much more is at stake regarding the quality of life between the winners and losers.
The fourth area for my students and I to consider is the danger of recurrence. Just as repeated trauma to the body can result in permanent injury or death, a democratic system, exposed to the direct and indirect effects of repeated knife-edged, crisis elections may invariably not be able to survive. We may want to look for examples that demonstrate periods of adjustment or recovery that are meant to ease trauma from crisis.
I am content to let our study of the issues involving the resolution of crisis elections shape our concept of democracy. However, if time permits I may seek to augment my unit activities with some exploration of democratic theory as presented through our seminar readings and discussion. Selections include John Stuart Mill's On Liberty, Plato's Republic, Robert Dahl's On Democracy, and/or Joseph Schumpeter. Two of my colleagues in seminar, Jesse Senechal and Megan McGowan deal more specifically with the issue of what are the conditions of democracy in America. Their work may be useful in drawing out student responses directly on the conditions that define a democracy. Additionally, while this is an election year, I hope the unit will stimulate interest in the issues, candidates, and outcome of the presidential election. Since the 2008 election itself is not the focus of this unit, the work of my colleagues, Adam Kubey and Lisa Lee may be useful in generating or focusing interest in the election as it draws near.
The Elections of 1800 and the Election of 2000 will offer my students insight into the electoral process when knife-edged elections test the integrity and strength of our democratic system. I have selected these elections as fence posts in the rich electoral history of the United States. However, examples of other elections might be added for excellent comparison. The two other elections probably most worth examining are the Election of 1824 and the Election of 1876, the latter of which occurs in the nation's centennial year. Arguably a strong case can be made that these two presidential knife-edge elections along with the Election of 1800 and the Election of 2000, were the most threatening challenges to completing elections in accordance to the framework outlined in the Constitution. The Election of 1800 produced a tie between candidates from the same party and could not be immediately resolved by the House of Representatives as prescribed by the Constitution. The House of Representatives was called on in the Election of 1824 when none of the four major candidates (John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson, Henry Clay, and William Crawford) received a majority. John Quincy Adams won the election when Henry Clay threw his support to Adams. Clay's "corrupt bargain" as the Jackson camp later called it, enabled the first instance of a president being elected who had not won the popular vote or the electoral vote. In 1876 no candidate again received a majority of the electoral vote. After deadlock in the House of Representatives, the House set up a special Electoral Commission which included members of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court intervened in the Election of 2000 when it stopped hand recounts in Florida and allowed the election to be certified for George W. Bush. The Election of 2000 not only proved that knife edged elections could still happen in contemporary modern society, but that the Supreme Court as a body could be a deciding factor in determining the election. The four elections demonstrate the wide range of possible outcomes when knife-edge elections test strength of the electoral process. They also reveal the strengths and/or good fortune of our system's survival.
The turmoil produced by a knife-edged election almost derailed the nation's political process in 1800. As one might suspect, close elections often accompany turbulent times. The works I have consulted suggest that the fledgling democracy of the United States faced a myriad of challenges in the decade leading up to the Election of 1800. These challenges culminated in a potentially lethal crisis election in 1800. In "The Presidential Election of 1800: A Story of Crisis, Controversy, and Change", Joanne Freeman characterized the decade of the 1790's as fraught with mounting crisis. Trouble started in 1790 with debate over relocating the nation's capital and with controversy over Hamilton's economic plans. In 1792, division among George Washington's administration threatened to divide government and country. In 1793, "Citizen" Genet's agitation for support of the French Revolution further stoked division. Washington suppressed agrarian revolt by putting down the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794. Then he experienced the angry public protests to the Jay Treaty of 1795. Not surprising he decided to save himself from re-election in 1796 and retired from politics. The uneasiness of electing a president other than Washington was soon overshadowed by further challenges and controversies. John Adams' administration faced the disrespect of the XYZ Affair, the Quasi-War with France, the Alien and Sedition Acts, Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, Fries Rebellion, and Washington's death in 1799. 1 1
The new capital in Washington D.C. in the late 1790's became a dubious setting as factional politics began to challenge the status quo. Division within the Federalist party between moderates under President Adams and more aggressive Federalists, who subscribed to Hamilton's ideas, worsened as issues in dealing with the French and English became manifest. Republican denunciation of Adams' policies, particularly the Alien and Sedition Acts further diminished Adams' presidency and fueled speculation and undoubtedly ambition toward political change.
Jefferson biographer R.B. Bernstein characterized the time period between May and October 1800 as a disintegration for the Federalists. During that time, Adams confronted Hamilton about meeting and advising the cabinet behind Adams' back. In response, Hamilton meant purposely, yet quietly to secure Federalist support for Charles Pinckney for the upcoming election. When his derogatory pamphlet "A Letter from Alexander Hamilton, Concerning the Public Conduct and Character of John Adams, Esq., President of the United States" which was meant for the only leading Federalists to read, fell in the hands of the newspapers in the fall of 1800, the effect damaged Adams, Hamilton, and the Federalist en masse. Moreover, it mobilized the Republicans to stay united. 1 2
The Election of 1800: What do I want my students to know?
To capture the essence of these events students will need to become familiar with the names, characteristics of, issues, and candidates of the federalists and republicans. They will also need to demonstrate orally and in writing characteristics of the process of the election of 1800. Characteristics will include: who could vote, how the vote was carried out, and what role the electoral system played in the election. Students will also need to be able to describe orally and in writing the circumstances that led to deadlock in the House of Representatives and how the deadlock was broken. Lastly, students will need to examine how the election revealed a constitutional flaw and how the flaw was remedied through constitutional amendment.
Candidates for the election of 1800 included Federalists John Adams, Charles Pinckney and John Jay as well as Republicans Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr. The outcome of the ballots cast by the Electoral College resulted in one vote for John Jay, 64 votes for Pinckney, 65 votes for Adams, 73 votes for Burr, and 73 votes for Jefferson. 1 3 Subsequently, and as defined by the Constitution, breaking the tie between Jefferson and Burr passed to the House of Representatives. On the 36 th vote, the deadlock was broken when Federalists from four states led by James Bayard of Delaware, cast blank ballots and threw the election in Jefferson's favor. 1 4
The crisis caused by the inability of the Constitution's contingency plan to resolve an election tie after the Electoral College ballot ultimately led to Constitutional change. Hamilton's proposal to have Presidential electors cast separate ballots for President and Vice President was eventually passed in the form of the 12 th Amendment before the Presidential election of 1804. 1 5
The election also demonstrated the dubious freedom of state legislation's ability to choose proportional representation or winner take all in casting their electoral votes.
"Given that each state followed a different electoral schedule, returns from the states dribbled into the press through the summer and fall of 1800. In key states, Federalist and Republicans each sought to erode the other side's likely victories, suggesting that the state legislatures divide their state's electoral votes in proportion to the Federalist or Republican strength in that state, or, by contrasts, lump their votes in a "winner-take-all" system in states where their political strength was dominant." 1 6
Today technology has expedited the election process to where election results can be gathered and reported in a day. However, as the election of 2000 has shown, inconsistencies in the type of voting methods from state to state and even within voting districts within states need to be addressed. Additionally, changes in voting technology have not alleviated questions about the Electoral College System. Moreover, changes in voting technology may actually contribute to closer elections where popular vote majority and electoral college majority becomes precariously thin.
The Election 2000: What do I want my students to know?
Although Al Gore conceded the election of 2000 after the Supreme Court halted the hand re-count in Florida districts, he could have listened to a number of reasons why he should not have conceded. First was the fact that he had won, although narrowly, the popular vote. Second he could have continued to question the balloting in other Florida districts and in other states. His not doing so arguably saved our political system from the potential specter of illegitimacy which plagues many newly democratized countries particularly in developing countries. To better understand the backdrop for the election, students will become familiar with the names, characteristics, issues, and candidates of the democrats and republicans in the election of 2000. They will be able to describe orally and in writing the process of the election of 2000 and how it differed from the process of electing president in 1800. Students will be able to demonstrate an understanding of the role of the Electoral College in this election and contrast it with the role of the Electoral College in the election of 1800. In addition, students will describe the crisis in Florida and how the Supreme Court's decision ultimately ended calls for hand recounts. Students will be able to describe the controversy over different types of ballots, cast votes, and voting machine flaws. Lastly, students will analyze the efficacy of the Electoral College system in electing president.
The presidential election of 2000 was not resolved until mid-December 2000 when the Supreme Court issued a controversial decision to stop recounts in some Florida counties. Prior to the court's decision, neither George Bush nor Al Gore could be declared a winner of the presidential election. Without Florida's electoral votes, neither candidate had the sufficient number of electoral votes to be declared a winner. Florida's 25 electoral votes were needed to tip enough electoral votes toward the necessary majority of 270 electoral votes.
Unfortunately, Florida's vote had failed to show a conclusive winner and fell within the parameters of necessitating a recount. Controversies over hand recounts, machine recounts, and interpreting ballots resulted in legal action taken to the Florida Supreme Court. Ultimately, the United States' Supreme Court intervened and ordered a halt to all ballot recounting within a couple hours of the statutory deadline to certify the Florida election results. Subsequently, George W. Bush was declared the winner of Florida and as a result, he received the necessary votes cast by the Electoral College to be declared the winner of the 2000 election. 1 7
As the Electoral College figures into the election of president, its form and function may need to be discussed with students. Below is some information to clarify any questions that may come up in discussing elections.
How and why does the Electoral College function?
Article 2 of the Constitution designates electors chosen through the states to elect the president in a federal (not national) election. When a citizen casts his or her vote for president in the popular vote, he or she is really voting for the ballot of electors who will actually participate in the federal election. The slate of electors will vote for the president in a federal election. However, not all states require electors to vote for a specific candidate. Moreover there is no Constitutional amendment that specifies that electors must vote for a certain candidate. Currently, 24 states do not require the electors to vote in favor of the candidate who has won the state. This leaves 26 states, including Connecticut, which do require electors to vote for a specific candidate. It is uncommon of electors to vote contrary to their states' popular vote. Ninety-nine percent of the electors have voted as pledged in the history of the United States. 1 8
All but two states, Maine and Nebraska, allocate votes on a "winner take all system". If candidate A receives a simple majority (50.1% or greater) of the state's vote then all of the states electoral votes go to candidate A. In Maine and Nebraska, a system of proportional allocation is practiced. The total number of electoral votes may be split among candidates based upon how the states structure their districts and/or allocate "at-large" votes. 1 9
The number of electoral votes allocated for each state is three or more. The total number for each state includes one elector for each senator and representative. Yet, no elector may be a senator or representative. The Twenty-Third Amendment allows the District of Columbia to have three electoral votes despite D.C.'s not having any elected representatives or senators. 2 0
The total number of electoral votes is 538. In order for a winner to be declared in the federal election for president, a candidate must receive at least a majority (270 or more) votes. Article 2 prescribes that if no candidate receives 270 or more votes then the House of Representatives will cast ballots for president among the three candidates receiving the most electoral votes. This election is held by giving each state one vote. The election of 1800 and the election of 1824 are the only instances where a presidential election has been turned over to the House of Representatives. 2 1
Comments: