1888:
Cleveland Blunders His Way
Out of a Job
The election of 1888 plays a starring role in any discussion of the Electoral College. In that election, so the story goes, Democrat Grover Cleveland won the popular vote, but Benajmin Harrision stole the election in the the Electoral College. Is the story accurate?
The real reason
was Cleveland's lopsided vote tallies in the South.
The 1888 vote in six
southern states went to Cleveland with margins of 2/3 or
more. So in 1888, the Electoral College did what it was
designed to do. It prevented a candidate
from winning the White House on the basis on one
region's support, somewhat suspect support, at that.
The Electoral College was designed
to discourage sectional candidates. In 1888 Cleveland took
positions favored only in the South. He lost.
1888: Harrison(R) vs. Cleveland(D)
Six Southern states gave Cleveland
margins of 2/3 or more
Harrison Cleveland % Margin
Alabama 57,177 117,314 67% 60,137
Georgia 40,499 100,493 71% 59,994
Louisiana 30,660 85,032 73% 54,372
Mississippi 30,095 85,451 74% 55,356
South Carolina 13,736 65,824 83% 52,088
Texas 88,604 232,189 72% 143,585
TOTAL 260,771 686,303 72% 425,532
Source: Congressional Quarterly,
Presidential Elections (via public library)
(This resource is not available on the Internet, so far as I am aware,
without a subscription.)
Cleveland won the popular vote by a mere 90,596 out of a
national total of 11,383,320 votes cast. His 425,000 vote
margin in six Southern states was the reason Cleveland
won the popular vote. In the other 32 states taken together,
Cleveland lost by over 300,000 votes.
(Harrison had a lopsided margin in just one small state,
Vermont, with 71% of the vote and a margin of
28,000 votes. No other states had margins above 60%.)
Could the vote totals for these states have been legitimate?
The argument has been that the "Solid South" voted heavily Democratic
as a result of resentment against Reconstruction.
But in 1888, other Southern states were much closer: Virginia gave
Cleveland 50%, North Carolina 52%, Tennessee 52%. Perhaps there was
some mysterious factor that made Cleveland's popularity or resentment
against Republicans rise dramatically when you crossed the South
Carolina border. But tallies in excess of 2/3, up to 5/6 in the
case of South Carolina, are very suspect.
Judith Best
has suggested a political explanation. Cleveland made
tariffs an issue in 1888. Lowering the tariff was an issue that
the South favored, while high tariffs were a basic Republican tenet.
Tariff reform boosted Cleveland support in the south, while it
drove away reform-minded Republicans in the North who had supported
him in 1884. Since he could not win with Southern support alone,
Cleveland's decision to push the tariff issue
was a major political blunder, like running the football toward
your own goal posts.
Regardless of the reason for the lopsided votes,
the electoral college had been
specifically designed to discourage sectional candidates.
A candidate cannot "run up the score" with popular votes in
one region and ignore the rest of the country. Cleveland
had taken posititions favored only by the South. He lost.
In a close election, the Electoral College system ensures
that the distribution of the popular vote is taken into
consideration, not just the total.
Was the will of the people thwarted? Certainly not the
will of the people in the other 32 states, who had voted
decisively for Harrison, but with plausible tallies (except in
tiny, ever-Republican Vermont).
The anti-Electoral College
forces imply that the EC could produce results contrary to the
popular vote just by accident. The 1888 election suggests just the
opposite. It took huge landslides in one region to produce a narrow
popular vote victory. Whatever the cause, the 1888 results were no
accident.
In 10 close elections since 1888, small shifts in the popular vote
could have given the U.S. a runner-up President.
Yet there has
not been another case where the popular loser was the Electoral College
winner. The "accidental" president remains a myth.
Six Southern states gave Cleveland margins of 2/3 or more | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Harrison | Cleveland | % | Margin
| Alabama | 57,177 | 117,314 | 67% | 60,137
| Georgia | 40,499 | 100,493 | 71% | 59,994
| Louisiana | 30,660 | 85,032 | 73% | 54,372
| Mississippi | 30,095 | 85,451 | 74% | 55,356
| South Carolina | 13,736 | 65,824 | 83% | 52,088
| Texas | 88,604 | 232,189 | 72% | 143,585
| TOTAL | 260,771 | 686,303 | 72% | 425,532
| Source: Congressional Quarterly,
Presidential Elections (via public library) | (This resource is not available on the Internet, so far as I am aware, without a subscription.) | |||||
Cleveland won the popular vote by a mere 90,596 out of a national total of 11,383,320 votes cast. His 425,000 vote margin in six Southern states was the reason Cleveland won the popular vote. In the other 32 states taken together, Cleveland lost by over 300,000 votes. (Harrison had a lopsided margin in just one small state, Vermont, with 71% of the vote and a margin of 28,000 votes. No other states had margins above 60%.)
Could the vote totals for these states have been legitimate? The argument has been that the "Solid South" voted heavily Democratic as a result of resentment against Reconstruction.
But in 1888, other Southern states were much closer: Virginia gave Cleveland 50%, North Carolina 52%, Tennessee 52%. Perhaps there was some mysterious factor that made Cleveland's popularity or resentment against Republicans rise dramatically when you crossed the South Carolina border. But tallies in excess of 2/3, up to 5/6 in the case of South Carolina, are very suspect.
Judith Best has suggested a political explanation. Cleveland made tariffs an issue in 1888. Lowering the tariff was an issue that the South favored, while high tariffs were a basic Republican tenet. Tariff reform boosted Cleveland support in the south, while it drove away reform-minded Republicans in the North who had supported him in 1884. Since he could not win with Southern support alone, Cleveland's decision to push the tariff issue was a major political blunder, like running the football toward your own goal posts.
Regardless of the reason for the lopsided votes, the electoral college had been specifically designed to discourage sectional candidates. A candidate cannot "run up the score" with popular votes in one region and ignore the rest of the country. Cleveland had taken posititions favored only by the South. He lost. In a close election, the Electoral College system ensures that the distribution of the popular vote is taken into consideration, not just the total.
Was the will of the people thwarted? Certainly not the will of the people in the other 32 states, who had voted decisively for Harrison, but with plausible tallies (except in tiny, ever-Republican Vermont).
The anti-Electoral College forces imply that the EC could produce results contrary to the popular vote just by accident. The 1888 election suggests just the opposite. It took huge landslides in one region to produce a narrow popular vote victory. Whatever the cause, the 1888 results were no accident. In 10 close elections since 1888, small shifts in the popular vote could have given the U.S. a runner-up President. Yet there has not been another case where the popular loser was the Electoral College winner. The "accidental" president remains a myth.