Government in the United States, National, State and Local

by James Wilford Garner

CHAPTER XV

THE PRESIDENCY: ORGANIZATION AND MODE OF ELECTION

The Presidential Office.—One of the weaknesses in the organization of the government under the Articles of Confederation was, as we have seen, the lack of an executive to carry into effect the resolutions of Congress and the treaties of the United States. There was no doubt, therefore, in the minds of the framers of the Constitution in regard to the desirability of providing for an executive department coördinate with the legislative department. It was accordingly declared that the executive power should be vested in an officer called the President of the United States.

Proposed Executive Council.—While the convention was practically unanimous in the view that the supreme executive power should be vested in a single person, a good many members looked with favor on a proposition to associate with the President an executive council which should share with him the exercise of the executive power in certain important fields. Most of the state constitutions then in force had provided such councils, and now that a national executive with far larger powers was being created there was all the more reason why it should be placed to some extent under the guardianship of a council. But the proposition was rejected, and in its place the Senate was charged with acting as an executive council to the President in negotiating treaties and the making of appointments, but in no other respects.

Qualifications of the President.—The Constitution requires that the President shall be a natural born citizen of the United States,[58] that he must have attained the age of thirty-five years, and must have been fourteen years a resident of the United States. The same qualifications are required of the Vice President.

The Presidential Term.—There was considerable discussion in the convention regarding the term of the President. It was first decided that the term should be seven years and the President made ineligible to a second term, but upon further consideration the convention decided to fix the term at four years and nothing was said in regard to reëligibility. The result is, the President may serve as many terms as the people may see fit to elect him. The following Presidents have been elected to two terms: Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, Lincoln, Grant, Cleveland, McKinley, and Wilson.[59] Cleveland, after serving one term, was renominated by his party but was defeated by the Republican candidate. He was then nominated for the third time by his party and was elected. Washington declined a third term and his example has been followed by his successors. The precedent thus established, that the President shall serve only two terms, has become part of our unwritten constitution, and but two attempts have ever been made to break the custom.[60]

Mode of Election.—No question consumed so much of the time of the convention as that relating to the method of choosing the President. Various schemes were proposed. A few members favored election by the people; others urged election by Congress. Against the method of popular choice it was argued that the people were not competent to choose a chief magistrate for the entire country, and besides, under such a system, they would be influenced by demagogues and scheming politicians. Again, the tumults and disorders, the "heats and ferments" of a popular election would convulse the community to the breaking point. Against the method of election by Congress, it was urged that the President would be a mere creature or tool of that assembly and would be under the temptation of making promises or entering into bargains with influential members in order to secure an election. Moreover, such a method was contrary to the great principle upon which all the members were agreed, namely, that the three departments of the national government should be kept separate and independent of one another.

The clause as finally adopted provides that the President shall be chosen, not directly by the voters, but by electors to be appointed in each state in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, each state to have as many electors as it has senators and representatives in Congress.

Breakdown of the Electoral Plan.—It was at first expected that the electors of the different states, composed of leading citizens presumably well acquainted with the qualifications of the candidates for the chief magistracy, would meet at the state capitals, discuss among themselves the strength and weaknesses of the several candidates, and then exercising their full judgment, cast their votes for the fittest. But the scheme quickly broke down in practice, and instead of a real choice by small bodies of men, we have a system which amounts to direct election by the masses of the voters, though the form of indirect election is still followed. As soon as political parties were thoroughly organized, the electors, who were intended to be men "capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the Presidential office," were reduced to the position of party puppets who no longer exercised their own judgment in choosing the President but merely registered, like automata, the will of their party. As Ex-President Harrison once remarked, an elector who should fail to vote for the nominee of his party would be the object of execration and in times of very high excitement might be the subject of a lynching.[61] So closely do the electors obey the will of their party that we always know at the close of election day, on Tuesday after the first Monday in November, when the electors themselves are chosen, who will be the next President, though in fact the electors do not meet in their respective states until the following January, formally to register the choice of the people.

Choosing Presidential Electors.—In the beginning the presidential electors of each state were chosen by the legislature, either by joint ballot of the two houses sitting together, or by concurrent vote. In the course of time, however, popular election of electors was introduced, South Carolina (1868) being the last state to choose its electors by the legislature.

Choice by General Ticket.—When the system of popular choice of electors was adopted, two different methods were followed: choice by districts, and choice on general ticket from the state at large; but by 1832 all the states except Maryland had adopted the general ticket method, and now there is no state which follows the district method.

Representatives in Congress, as we have seen, are elected by districts, and hence the delegation in Congress from a particular state is often divided between Democrats and Republicans. But not so with Presidential electors; usually the party in the majority in the state, however small the majority, chooses all the electors. Thus when the Democratic party carried New York by a majority of hardly more than 1,000 votes in 1884, the entire electoral vote was counted for Cleveland.[62]

Among the results of the rule which gives the entire electoral vote of the state to one of the candidates, notwithstanding the size of the vote polled by the other candidate, is that each party concentrates its efforts in the large "pivotal" states whose votes are decisive, and thereby bribery and fraud in such states are powerfully stimulated.

Candidates for the office of elector are nominated usually by the state conventions of each party. No senator or representative or any person holding an office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States is eligible to the office of elector. Congress, under the Constitution, has power to fix the day on which the electors shall be chosen, and it has fixed the day as Tuesday after the first Monday in November.

Electoral and Popular Vote.—Generally the candidate for President whose electors receive the largest popular vote will also receive the largest electoral vote; but this has not always happened, and usually there is only a rough correspondence between the popular vote and the electoral vote. Thus in 1860 Lincoln received only about forty per cent of the popular vote, though he received a substantial majority (about fifty-nine per cent) of the electoral vote. Again, in 1864 he received only about fifty-five per cent of the popular vote, but ninety-one per cent of the electoral vote. In 1912 Wilson received forty-two per cent of the popular vote, and eighty-two per cent of the electoral vote. Such discrepancies are due to the fact that the entire electoral vote of a state is usually cast for the candidate who receives a plurality of the popular vote of the state, however small it may be. A party, therefore, may carry enough states by small margins to secure a majority of the electors and yet be in a minority so far as the popular vote of the entire country is concerned.

Choice of the President by the Electors.—The electors, on the second Monday of January following their election, assemble in their respective state capitals for the purpose of choosing the President.[63] The Constitution as it now stands requires the electors to vote by ballot for President and by a distinct ballot vote for Vice President, and make separate lists of all persons voted for as President and of all persons voted for as Vice President.

The Original Method.—The Constitution as originally adopted did not require the electors in casting their ballots to indicate the person for whom they were voting as President and whom for Vice President, or to prepare distinct lists. The one who received the highest vote (if a majority) was to be President, and the one receiving the next highest number (whether a majority or not) was to be Vice President. The result of this method of choosing the President was that as soon as political parties were formed and the electors came to vote strictly on the basis of party there would be a tie between the two persons highest on the list, and as there was nothing to show on the record which was intended for President and which for Vice President there would be no election. This happened in 1801, when Jefferson and Burr each received seventy-three electoral votes, and the choice between them had to be made by the house of representatives as the Constitution provides.

Twelfth Amendment.—To remove the difficulty, the Twelfth Amendment was adopted in 1804, requiring the electors in preparing their ballots to indicate their choice for President and their choice for Vice President so that the person intended for the latter office could not be confused with the person intended for President. The amendment also requires a majority of the electoral vote to elect the Vice President as well as the President.

Restrictions on the Electors.—In casting their votes the electors are prohibited from voting for candidates for both offices from the same state as themselves. The purpose of this provision is to prevent the electors from one state—if any state should ever become powerful enough—from choosing both the President and the Vice President from that state. This does not mean, however, that both the President and the Vice President could not be elected from the same state, since the electors of the other states are not prohibited from voting for two candidates from the same state.

Formalities and Precautions.—The Constitution requires the electors of each state to sign, certify, seal, and transmit to the president of the United States senate, a list of the votes cast for President and Vice President. The statutes also require two additional lists to be prepared, one to be sent to the president of the senate by special messenger, and the other to be deposited with the nearest United States district judge. These extra precautions are taken to prevent the loss of the state's votes through accident or otherwise. This done, the office of the Presidential elector expires and the electoral colleges cannot be again summoned to correct errors or to make a new choice in case the President elect should die before inauguration.

Counting the Electoral Vote.—The Constitution directs that the votes transmitted to the president of the senate shall be opened in the presence of both houses of Congress and that the votes shall then be counted. The Constitution does not say who shall count the votes. Apparently the framers believed that the process of counting would never involve anything more than a simple act of addition. But in the course of time disputed returns began to be sent in, and then the process of counting came to involve the more difficult task of determining what should be counted. Thereupon the question was raised, who shall count? Was the president of the senate to count and the two houses act merely as spectators, or was the president of the senate to open the votes and the two houses do the counting? For a long time, when the disputes were not serious enough to affect the result, the president of the senate was allowed to count the vote and proclaim the result.[64] In 1865 by a joint rule Congress assumed the right to count the electoral vote, thus taking the power away from the president of the senate.

The Disputed Election of 1876.—In 1876 a serious election dispute arose, involving the presidency. Both Hayes and Tilden claimed to have been elected, and the result depended upon which of two conflicting lists of votes from Florida, Oregon, South Carolina, and Louisiana should be counted. Under the joint rule mentioned above, either house could reject a questionable vote. One of the houses was Democratic and the other Republican, and because of the great excitement over the matter, it was feared that the votes of many states might be rejected for trivial reasons. After much discussion, in the course of which many ugly threats were made, Congress agreed to the creation of an electoral commission, to decide the disputed votes. The commission was to consist of five senators, five representatives, and five justices of the Supreme Court. As finally constituted it was composed of eight Republicans and seven Democrats, and by a strict party vote the commission decided in favor of Hayes in every case, thus insuring his election. The minority accepted the result, but not without protest and criticism.

The Act of 1887.—After this decision, Congress took up the task of devising permanent rules for counting the electoral vote, and finally in 1887 it passed an elaborate act which now regulates the electoral count. In brief, it places the responsibility so far as possible on the state authorities, and provides that the determination of each state as to how its electoral vote was cast shall, under certain conditions, be final. If, however, a state neglects to settle its own election contests, and double returns are transmitted to the president of the senate, the two houses of Congress sitting separately must determine how the votes shall be counted. But if the two houses fail to agree, as they did in counting the vote of 1876, then the vote of the state is lost. The day fixed by Congress for opening and counting the vote is the second Wednesday in February.

Election by the House.—In case no candidate receives a majority of the electoral votes, the choice devolves upon the house of representatives. But in that case the house votes by states, each state having one vote, irrespective of its number of representatives, and the choice is made from the three candidates standing highest on the list.[65] A quorum for the election of a President by the house consists of a member or members from two thirds of the states, and the vote of a majority of all the states is necessary to a choice.

Objections to Election by the House.—The objections to this method of choice are obvious. It is undemocratic, because the house on which the choice would devolve in any case would be, not the new house chosen at the recent election, but the old house, which might indeed, as has often happened, be in the hands of the political party defeated at the late election. In the second place, under such a scheme, New York with a population over 100 times as great as that of Nevada would have no larger share in choosing the executive. In 1873, for example, had the choice devolved upon the house, it would have been possible for 45 members (being a majority of the representatives of nineteen states) to determine the choice in spite of the wishes of the other 247 members. Finally, the state delegations in the house might be equally divided politically, and hence fail to elect.[66]

Instances of Choice by the House.—Twice has the electoral college failed to make a choice, thus giving the election to the house of representatives.

In 1801, there was a tie between Jefferson and Burr, each having the vote of a majority of the electors. There were then sixteen states, of which eight voted for Jefferson, six for Burr, and two were evenly divided. On the thirty-sixth ballot the two divided states voted for Jefferson and he was elected, as the electors had originally intended.

The second instance occurred in 1825, when the electoral vote stood as follows: for Jackson 99; for Adams 84; for Crawford 41; and for Clay 37, no one having a majority. Under the Twelfth Amendment Clay was dropped from the list and the choice was confined to the three highest candidates. There were then twenty-four states, and of these the representatives of thirteen voted for Adams, seven for Jackson, and four for Crawford.

Election of the Vice President by the Senate.—The Constitution also provides that if no candidate for Vice President receives a majority of the electoral vote the choice shall devolve upon the senate, in which case the election shall be made from the two highest on the list. Two thirds of the senate constitute a quorum for this purpose, and a majority of the whole number is necessary to a choice. Only once has the choice devolved upon the senate, namely, in 1836, when Richard M. Johnson, candidate for Vice President on the ticket with Mr. Van Buren, failed to receive a majority of the electoral vote. He was promptly elected by the senate.

Methods of Nomination.—Neither the Constitution nor the laws of the United States make any provision in regard to the nomination of the candidates for President and Vice President. That is left entirely to the regulation of the political parties themselves. In the early history of the republic, before political parties had risen, no nominating machinery was devised, for none was needed.

Early Methods.—With the rise of political parties, however, the method of nomination by congressional caucus was introduced; that is, the members of Congress belonging to each political party assumed the power of selecting its candidate in secret conclave. In this way Jefferson was nominated by the Republican members of Congress in 1800 and 1804, Madison in 1808 and 1812, and Monroe in 1816 and 1820. In the same way the Federalist members put forward their candidates. In some cases, however, presidential candidates were nominated by state legislatures. In the course of time, strong opposition grew up against the method of nomination by members of Congress, and after 1824 the caucus system was never again resorted to. The new nominating machinery which took its place was the national convention, which came into use between 1831 and 1840.

The National Convention.—A national convention to nominate candidates for President and Vice President is composed of delegates from each state and territory in the Union, the number to which each is entitled being usually twice its number of senators and representatives in Congress.[67] Altogether the national convention consists of about 1,000 delegates. For each delegate there is an alternate who attends the convention and in case of the absence of the delegate, takes his place.

Formerly the four delegates-at-large of each party were chosen by the state convention, and the other delegates by congressional district conventions. When direct primary laws were introduced, some states provided that the latter delegates should be selected by the voters of each party at the primary, leaving the delegates-at-large to be chosen as formerly by the state convention. In 1912 a number of states passed what are known as "presidential preference primary" laws under which delegates to the national conventions of that year were chosen. Some of these laws permit the voters to choose their delegates to the national convention but without allowing them to indicate their preference for any presidential candidate; others allow a direct expression of the popular preference for presidential candidates but make no provision for binding the delegates to nominate the candidate preferred by the majority of the voters; some, however, provide both for an expression of the popular preference and for binding the delegates to the national convention. More than one third of the states now have laws of one or another of these three types.

The Time and Place for holding the national convention are fixed by the national committee. The date usually falls in the latter part of June or early in July of the year the President is to be elected, and the place is usually some large city centrally located.

Procedure of a National Convention.—The convention is usually held in some spacious building especially erected for the purpose. Besides the delegations of the states, there are the alternates, hundreds of politicians who are not delegates, newspaper reporters, and thousands of spectators from all parts of the country, for all of whom accommodations are needed.

Organization of the Convention.—The convention is called to order by the chairman of the national committee, and the secretary of the committee reads the call for the convention. Next come the choice of a temporary chairman, and the appointment and report of committees on credentials, on permanent organization, on rules, and on resolutions much as in the state conventions described on pp. 153-155.

The Platform is a series of resolutions commending the national administration, or denouncing it, as the case may be, and setting forth the position of the party on the political issues of the day. Declarations are often made in the platform to attract or conciliate large masses of voters, sometimes when there is no real intention of carrying them out. The platform is usually adopted by the convention as reported by the committee on resolutions, but sometimes important changes are made on the floor after a spirited contest.

The Nominations.—After the adoption of the platform, the nomination of candidates for President is in order. The clerk calls the roll of the states in alphabetical order so that each is given an opportunity to present the name of its choice. The vote is then taken by a roll call of the states, the chairman of each state delegation usually announcing the vote of the state. Under the rules of the Republican party the delegates vote as individuals, so that the vote of a state is often divided between two or more candidates, unless the conventions which appointed the delegates have instructed them to cast the vote of the state for a particular candidate. According to the "unit rule" of the Democratic party, the state delegations vote as units and not as individuals, so that there is no division of a state's vote; the majority of each delegation determines how the votes of the state shall be cast.[68] The rules of the Democratic and Republican parties also differ in the majority necessary to nominate a candidate.

The Vote Necessary to Nominate.—According to the rules of the Republican party, a majority of the delegates is sufficient to nominate, but under the rules of the Democratic party the concurrence of two thirds of the delegates is required. Thus if there are 1,000 delegates in the convention, 501 may nominate under the Republican rule, while 667 would be required under the rules of the Democratic party. The large majority necessary to nominate in the Democratic convention has often resulted in the defeat of the leading candidate and the nomination of a "dark horse," that is, a candidate whose name has not been previously presented to the convention or which has not been prominently kept before it. Presidents Polk and Pierce were nominated in this way.

Nomination of Vice President.—Usually there is little contest over the nomination of the Vice President, the nomination usually being given to some one supported by a defeated faction or group of the party, or to a particular section of the country. Thus if the presidential nomination goes to an Eastern man, the vice presidential nomination is likely to be given to a Western man. In view of the comparatively large number of Presidents who have died in office it is to be regretted that so little consideration is given to the nomination of candidates for Vice President.

Notification of the Candidates.—The candidates are formally notified some weeks later by a committee specially appointed for the purpose. The nominee in a formal speech accepts the nomination and pledges himself to support the platform. Usually this is followed by a letter of acceptance in which the views of the nominee are elaborated more at length. This completes the formalities of nomination, and the next step is to inaugurate the campaign for the election of the nominees.

Conduct of a Presidential Campaign.—The National Committee.—The main task of managing the campaign falls on the chairman of the national committee. This committee is made up of one member from each state and territory, and is chosen by the national convention which nominates the candidates.[69] The chairman is usually an experienced political leader with a wide acquaintanceship, and is a trusted friend of the presidential candidate, by whom, in fact, he is usually selected.

Soon after the adjournment of the convention, the national committee meets and organizes. In addition to the national chairman a treasurer and a secretary are chosen. The treasurer raises and has custody of the enormous funds expended in the conduct of the campaign. As the national chairman may be compared to a general who commands the forces, the treasurer is the man who raises the sinews of the war.

Work of the National Committee.—The headquarters of the committee are usually established in New York city, with branch offices in Chicago or Washington, though during the campaign of 1908 the principal headquarters were located in Chicago. The work of the committee is usually divided among bureaus or divisions, one of which has charge of the mailing of campaign literature, another is engaged in the tabulation of reports, another looks after the employment and assignment of speakers, another has charge of the organization of voters' clubs throughout the country, etc.[70] Large quantities of campaign literature, consisting of a "Campaign textbook," speeches of the candidates or of members of Congress, pamphlets, leaflets, posters, lithographs, and in fact everything calculated to influence the voters, are sent broadcast throughout the country and particularly in the close or doubtful states where the principal efforts of the committee are concentrated.[71]

Activity of the Presidential Candidate.—Formerly it was not considered proper for the presidential candidates themselves to take an active part in the campaign by traveling about the country and making speeches, but in recent years there has been a change in this respect. Mr. Bryan in 1896 traveled about the country and delivered hundreds of speeches in behalf of his candidacy, and he pursued a similar course in 1900 and again in 1908 when he was the Democratic candidate. In the latter year, Mr. Taft, the Republican candidate, likewise entered actively into the campaign and delivered more than 400 speeches in thirty different states. In 1912 Mr. Wilson and Mr. Roosevelt made extensive campaign tours and delivered many speeches. Similar tours were made in later campaigns.

Raising and Expenditure of Campaign Funds.—The management of a national political campaign requires the expenditure of large sums of money for printing, postage, telegrams, express, rent of halls, music, expenses of speakers, organizing clubs, and the like. This money is spent solely under the direction of the national chairman, who until recently was not required to render an account of the moneys contributed for this purpose.

The Raising of Campaign Funds.—Prior to 1884 the expenditures on account of a national campaign were comparatively small and were raised by the party in power largely by assessments on federal office-holders; but the civil service law enacted in the year previous forbade assessments of this kind and thus cut off an important source of supply. More attention then began to be turned toward the great corporations, many of which desired to become the beneficiaries of special legislation or to secure immunity from government interference with the management of their business. In a recent campaign, one corporation, a life insurance company, contributed $200,000; one railroad company gave $100,000; and many others $50,000. Sometimes a corporation contributes equally to the campaign funds of both parties, on the principle that it is a wise policy to be on good terms with each.

Contributions of Corporations now Forbidden.—The raising and spending of so much money as a part of the process of electing a President has recently given rise to a demand that the sources of national campaign contributions should be made public. Moreover, it is coming to be regarded as an evil that the large corporations who desire beneficial legislation or immunity from prosecution should have become the chief contributors to campaign funds. This feeling led to the enactment by Congress in 1907 of a law forbidding national banks and other corporations which have charters granted by Congress, from making contributions to the campaign funds of any party at any election, national, state, or local. The law also prohibits any corporation, whether chartered under the authority of the national government or not, from making campaign contributions at any election at which the President of the United States or any member of Congress is to be chosen.

Publicity of Campaign Contributions.—In 1910 Congress passed a law requiring the treasurer of each national party committee to make and publish after the election a sworn statement showing every contribution of $100 or more received by him, every expenditure of $10 or more, and the totals of all other contributions and expenditures.

Finally, in 1911, Congress went still further and passed a law requiring the publication of such statements before the election. The elections affected by these acts are those of President and members of Congress. The act of 1911 forbids any candidate for representative to spend or promise more than $5,000, and any candidate for senator more than $10,000, in his campaign. And such candidates are required to file statements of all campaign receipts and expenditures.

The Succession to the Presidency.—The Constitution declares that in case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the same shall devolve upon the Vice President. In case of the removal, death, resignation, or inability of both the President and the Vice President, Congress is authorized to provide for the succession. The only way in which the President may be removed is by impeachment and conviction. President Johnson was impeached, mainly for the violation of the tenure of office act, but the senate failed by one vote to convict him. Had he been convicted the office would have been declared vacant. There has been no instance of the resignation of a President.[72] Five Presidents have died in office: Harrison, Taylor, Lincoln, Garfield, and McKinley. In each case the dead President was succeeded by the Vice President. No case of inability to discharge the duties of the presidential office has ever been construed as existing, though in fact such a case existed from July 2, 1881, when President Garfield was shot, to September 19, when he died. A similar case existed during the period in which President McKinley lingered on his deathbed, from September 6 to September 14, 1901. In neither case did the Vice President assume the reins of office until death had made the office vacant. Likewise during President Wilson's serious illness in 1919-1920, the Vice President did not act.

Succession Law of 1792.—Congress provided by law in 1792 that in case of the removal, death, resignation, or inability of both the President and the Vice President, the president pro tempore of the senate should succeed, and after him the speaker of the house. There were several practical and political objections to this arrangement, however. In the first place, there might be considerable periods of time when there was no president pro tempore of the senate or speaker of the house, and consequently no one to succeed in case of a vacancy.[73] Another objection to the law—political in character—was illustrated by the situation that existed in 1886. The Democratic Vice President Hendricks had died, and in case the presidential office had become vacant it would have been filled by a Republican president of the senate. Thus the executive branch of the government would have passed from the hands of the party that had carried the country at the last election, to the other party, merely by the death of a public officer.

Succession Act of 1886.—In 1886 Congress changed the law so as to give the succession to the presidency to the members of the cabinet, in the order of the creation of their departments, in case of the death or removal of both the President and the Vice President. As the members of the cabinet usually belong to the same party as the President and Vice President, the office in such a contingency would remain in the control of the party which elected the President at the last election. No special provision has yet been made, however, in regard to the succession in case the President elect and Vice President elect should die after their election by the electoral college on the second Monday in January and before their inauguration on the 4th of March. The electoral college could not be reconvened because it becomes functus officio immediately after electing the President. As the law stands, the succession would probably go to some member of the old cabinet, who might be of the opposite party. In such a case, however, Congress might provide for a special presidential election.

References.—Andrews, Manual of the Constitution, pp. 166-177. Beard, American Government and Politics, ch. ix. Bryce, The American Commonwealth (abridged edition), chs. vi, vii, lii-liv. Fuller, Government by the People, ch. vii. Harrison, This Country of Ours, chs. iv-v. Hart, Actual Government, pp. 261-267. Hinsdale, American Government, chs. xxix-xxxi. Stanwood, History of the Presidency. Woodburn, The American Republic, pp. 116-136.

Documentary and Illustrative Material.—1. Congressional Directory. 2. Copy of the call for a national convention. 3. Addresses of the temporary and permanent chairmen of the last national convention. 4. The Democratic and Republican campaign textbooks. 5. Copy of the election returns. 6. Specimen ballots containing the names of candidates for presidential electors.

Research Questions

1. How many votes is your state entitled to in the electoral college? What proportion of the total electoral vote is that? Can you give the names of any of the presidential electors from your state at the last election?

2. What was the popular vote received by the Republican candidate for President in your state at the last election? By the Democratic candidate?

3. Name the Presidents who received only a minority of the popular vote.

4. Suppose a vacancy should occur in the electoral college of a state by the death of an elector, is there any way by which it could be filled?

5. Suppose the candidate for President should die after the popular election in November and before the meeting of the electors in January, for whom would the electors cast their vote? Have there been any actual instances of this kind?

6. Suppose the President elect should die before the votes are opened and counted by Congress, who would be declared President?

7. Have there been any instances since 1820 in which a presidential elector voted against the candidate of his own party?

8. What would be the principal advantage in extending the term of the President and making him ineligible to succeed himself?

9. Do you think the custom a wise one which prohibits the President from serving more than two terms?

10. What were the controversies at issue in the disputed election of 1876?

11. What were the objections to the method of nomination by congressional caucus? Who was the last candidate to be nominated by this method?

12. Tell something about the first national convention held in the United States for the nomination of candidates for President and Vice President.

13. How many parties nominated candidates for President and Vice President in the last presidential election? Give the popular vote received by each, in your state and in the country as a whole.

14. Read the platforms of each party and contrast their positions on the leading political issues.

15. How many delegates is your state entitled to in the national convention? Who were the delegates at large from your state in the last Democratic national convention? In the last Republican national convention?

16. Where did the Democratic and Republican parties hold their last national conventions? Who was the permanent chairman of each?

17. What is your opinion of the "unit rule" followed by the Democratic party? Of the "two-thirds" rule?

18. Do you think it would be a wise rule to apportion the delegates from each state to the national convention on the basis of the party strength rather than on the basis of population?

19. Since the people of the territories take no part in national elections, ought they to be allowed to send delegates to the national convention?

20. What is your opinion of the proposal to nominate candidates for President and Vice President by direct primary as state officials are nominated in many states?

21. What is meant by the doctrine of "availability" in choosing candidates for President? What presidential candidates has your state furnished?

22. Is Mr. Bryce's assertion that great men are rarely elected President true? If so, why?

23. Do you think presidential candidates should make campaign tours and deliver campaign speeches?

---