Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nr4z6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-01T16:40:27.469Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Elbridge Gerry's Suspicions and the Presidential Election of 2012

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 June 2013

Michael L. Rosin
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Defenders of the Electoral College frequently assert that victory in the Electoral College requires a winning candidate to “produce a coalition of states with wide and diverse interests” thereby producing “a broadly based electoral victory.” These defenders never stop to consider the fact that in a close election the difference between the winning and losing coalition of states may depend on highly contingent factors. In a 2003 article in this journal Neubauer and Zeitlin demonstrated that George W. Bush's Electoral College victory in 2000 depended on the size of the House of Representatives. In this article I demonstrate that the outcome of the 2012 election could have depended on the 2012 Electoral College being based on the newly apportioned incoming House rather than the previously apportioned outgoing House. This is a statutory specification rather than a constitutional requirement. It could be changed by simple legislation. We have Elbridge Gerry's suspicions to thank for this statutory contingency!

Type
Features
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 46 , Issue 3 , July 2013 , pp. 587 - 590
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Annals of Congress. 1789. 1st Cong., 1st sess., vol. 1.Google Scholar
Annals of Congress. 1790. 1st Cong., 2nd sess., vol. 2.Google Scholar
Annals of Congress. 1791–1792. 2nd Cong. 1st sess., vol. 3.Google Scholar
Best, Judith. 1975. The Case against Direct Election of the President: A Defense of the Electoral College. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Billias, George Athan. 1976. Elbridge Gerry, Founding Father and Republican Statesman. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Congressional Record. 1891. 51st Cong. 2d sess. vol. 22, pt. 2.Google Scholar
Farrand, Max, ed. 1937. The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787. 4 vols. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
House Journal. 1790. 1st Cong. 2nd sess., vol. 1.Google Scholar
House Journal. 1791–1792. 2nd Cong. 1st sess., vol. 1.Google Scholar
Madison, James. 1962–1991. The Papers of James Madison, 17 vols. eds. Hutchinson, William T. and Rachal, William M.E.. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Neubauer, Michael G., and Zeitlin, Joel. 2003. “Outcomes of Presidential Elections and the House Size.” PS: Political Science and Politics 26 (4): 721–25Google Scholar
Ross, Tara. 2012. Enlightened Democracy: The Case for the Electoral College. Dallas, TX: Colonial.Google Scholar
Sayre, Wallace S., and Parris, Judith H.. 1970 Voting for President: The Electoral College and the American Political System. Washington, DC: Brookings.Google Scholar
Senate Journal. 1790. 1st Cong. 2nd sess., vol. 1.Google Scholar
Senate Journal. 1791–1792. 2nd Cong. 1st sess., vol. 1.Google Scholar
Thorpe, Francis Newton, ed. 1909. The Federal and State Constitutions, Colonial Charters, and Other Organic Laws of the States, Territories, and Colonies Now or Heretofore Forming the United States of America. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Uhlmann, Michael M. 2001. “As the College Goes, So Goes the Constitution.” Claremont Review of Books (Winter).Google Scholar