In the Ross Perot-inspired discussion of the Electoral College, as in many history books, the election of 1824 plays an important role. In that election, so the story goes, Andrew Jackson won the popular vote, but because four people were running, he lacked a majority in the Electoral College. In the House vote that followed, Henry Clay threw his support to John Quincy Adams, who then won. Jackson campaigned straight through the next four years, complaining about the corrupt bargain that stole the election from him.

The story is common knowledge, but a myth. Until Jackson, there was no concept that the presidential choice should reflect the overall national popular vote. In a standard reference on the subject, the recording of presidential returns begins in 1824. Before then no one cared enough to maintain the records.

Poor John Quincy Adams! He had played the game by the rules laid down in the Constitution and he had won. The House vote was supposed to be part of the process. Many of the framers of the Constitution had expected House votes to be a frequent occurence. It was by no means a Constitutional crisis.

But Jackson's extreme poor sportsmanship in the aftermath has been canonized by the history books as Jacksonian Democracy.

So let's look at Jackson's claim that he won the popular vote.

Jackson did win the popular vote in the states that had a popular vote. But at the time, in 6 of the 24 states, the legislature picked the electors. This included New York (36), South Carolina (11), Georgia (9), Vermont (7), Louisiana (5) and Delaware (3) (numbers in parentheses are electoral votes). So about 25% of the electorate didn't even express a preference.

Then there was the voting process. Jackson wasn't on the ballot anywhere in New England. Adams didn't appear in Kentucky or North Carolina. Crawford and Clay were represented still less. There simply was no national poll of the candidates.

The number of voters varied tremendously. Ohio, with 16 electoral votes, cast 50,000 votes. Virginia, with 24 electoral votes, cast just over 15,000 votes. More people voted in Indiana (5 electors) than in Virginia. With a wide variation in participation, the total poll numbers have little meaning. Naturally, Jackson's base was in the newer states, where the franchise was broader and where voting for electors was more common.

There is also matter of the vote margins that Jackson had. In overall voting, he led John Quincy Adams by 38,149 votes. But in Tennessee, Jackson carried the state with 98% of the popular vote, a margin of 19,885. In Pennsylvania, Jackson had 76% of the vote and a margin of 30,295. Alabama gave Jackson 69% of the vote and a 7,007 margin.

John Quincy Adams had similar results, like 73% of Massachusetts (24,071 vote margin) and 94% in New Hampshire (a vote margin of 8,746).

In short, the campaign and election of 1824 was nothing at all like today's. It was a campaign for Electoral College votes, not popular votes. The claim that the House "thwarted the will of the people," is revealed as nothing but Jacksonian propaganda, concocted after he lost the House vote. Only Jackson had conducted the campaign as a contest for the popular votes.

Nevertheless, Jackson's claim has been very effective. The concept of a national poll, ignoring the actual constitutional mechanism of the Electoral College, has become the measure by which some people, including Ross Perot, wish to judge the Electoral College.