I have proposed a constitutional amendment creating a permanent Presidential Election Review Board designed to resolve presidential election disputes. (Photo: Stephen Melkisethian/flickr/cc)
Is America Prepared For A Presidential Election Crisis?
If we are smart, we will take appropriate measures before the next crisis.
What if, on account of the coronavirus, we attempt to hold the 2020 presidential election entirely on-line or through the mail, and it turns into a logistical nightmare? What if a major terrorist attack prevents holding the election on November 3? How about if, on Election Day, destructive weather prevents voting in some states? And what if hackers succeed in changing votes from one candidate to another, calling into question the accuracy of the electoral count?
For obvious reasons, people have begun to raise such questions. But we continue to pay insufficient attention to the over-arching question: Is America prepared for a presidential election crisis? The sobering answer is no.
We actually have a history to look to and learn from, and it reinforces the need to take action now. On four occasions, the nation has awakened the day after the presidential election without knowing who won and without a reliable mechanism for resolving the uncertainty. The election of 1800 produced the first crisis. Thanks to what Alexander Hamilton privately and presciently called a "defect in the Constitution," Thomas Jefferson and his running-mate Aaron Burr ended up with the same number of electoral votes, sending the election to the House of Representatives. Though everyone understood that Jefferson was the top of the ticket, his Federalist opponents schemed to make Burr president, a result Republicans threatened not to accept. It took 36 ballots for Jefferson to win and crisis to be averted.
While the election of 1800 was not the last presidential election crisis, it was the last time that we learned from the crisis and took significant action: Congress passed and the states ratified the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution, designed to prevent a recurrence of a tie between a presidential candidate and his running-mate.
Unfortunately, the Twelfth Amendment does not prevent other kinds of crises elections. In 1824, none of the four major presidential candidates received a majority of the electoral votes. The House selected as president John Quincy Adams, even though he had received fewer popular and electoral votes than Andrew Jackson. The outcome was determined by Henry Clay, who received the fourth highest vote total, throwing his support to Adams. Adams subsequently appointed Clay secretary of state, a move widely considered non-coincidental. Jackson's supporters attacked the "corrupt bargain" between Adams and Clay, and considered Adams an illegitimate president.
We have been reasonably lucky since: Fifty years passed before the next election crisis, and another 124 after that. The elections of 1876 and 2000 bore uncanny similarities to one another. In each case, the election produced a virtual tie, amidst widespread allegations of fraud. In each case, the outcome was not determined for weeks, and then by a single vote. An ad-hoc commission made Rutherford B. Hayes president by an 8-7 vote and the United States Supreme Court made George W. Bush president by a 5-4 vote. Finally, in each case the result was acquiesced in but not accepted by many members of the losing party, who believed the vote to be purely partisan. Democrats referred to Hayes as "Rutherfraud" and "His Fraudulence," just as many Democrats more than a century later insisted that Bush lacked legitimacy.
If we are smart, we will take appropriate measures before the next crisis. We can take away several key lessons from the past election crises: 1) An impartial decision-making body is essential to public acceptance of the verdict. 2) That body should be established before the election, and given the power and responsibility to resolve controversies.
I have proposed a constitutional amendment creating a permanent Presidential Election Review Board designed to resolve presidential election disputes. But with an election around the corner, and everything from foreign hackers to a nasty epidemic causing us to fear an uncertain outcome, we should not await the passage of such an amendment. Congress can create such a board by statute--now. Why wait until it is too late?
FINAL DAY! This is urgent.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just hours left in our Spring Campaign, we're still falling short of our make-or-break goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
What if, on account of the coronavirus, we attempt to hold the 2020 presidential election entirely on-line or through the mail, and it turns into a logistical nightmare? What if a major terrorist attack prevents holding the election on November 3? How about if, on Election Day, destructive weather prevents voting in some states? And what if hackers succeed in changing votes from one candidate to another, calling into question the accuracy of the electoral count?
For obvious reasons, people have begun to raise such questions. But we continue to pay insufficient attention to the over-arching question: Is America prepared for a presidential election crisis? The sobering answer is no.
We actually have a history to look to and learn from, and it reinforces the need to take action now. On four occasions, the nation has awakened the day after the presidential election without knowing who won and without a reliable mechanism for resolving the uncertainty. The election of 1800 produced the first crisis. Thanks to what Alexander Hamilton privately and presciently called a "defect in the Constitution," Thomas Jefferson and his running-mate Aaron Burr ended up with the same number of electoral votes, sending the election to the House of Representatives. Though everyone understood that Jefferson was the top of the ticket, his Federalist opponents schemed to make Burr president, a result Republicans threatened not to accept. It took 36 ballots for Jefferson to win and crisis to be averted.
While the election of 1800 was not the last presidential election crisis, it was the last time that we learned from the crisis and took significant action: Congress passed and the states ratified the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution, designed to prevent a recurrence of a tie between a presidential candidate and his running-mate.
Unfortunately, the Twelfth Amendment does not prevent other kinds of crises elections. In 1824, none of the four major presidential candidates received a majority of the electoral votes. The House selected as president John Quincy Adams, even though he had received fewer popular and electoral votes than Andrew Jackson. The outcome was determined by Henry Clay, who received the fourth highest vote total, throwing his support to Adams. Adams subsequently appointed Clay secretary of state, a move widely considered non-coincidental. Jackson's supporters attacked the "corrupt bargain" between Adams and Clay, and considered Adams an illegitimate president.
We have been reasonably lucky since: Fifty years passed before the next election crisis, and another 124 after that. The elections of 1876 and 2000 bore uncanny similarities to one another. In each case, the election produced a virtual tie, amidst widespread allegations of fraud. In each case, the outcome was not determined for weeks, and then by a single vote. An ad-hoc commission made Rutherford B. Hayes president by an 8-7 vote and the United States Supreme Court made George W. Bush president by a 5-4 vote. Finally, in each case the result was acquiesced in but not accepted by many members of the losing party, who believed the vote to be purely partisan. Democrats referred to Hayes as "Rutherfraud" and "His Fraudulence," just as many Democrats more than a century later insisted that Bush lacked legitimacy.
If we are smart, we will take appropriate measures before the next crisis. We can take away several key lessons from the past election crises: 1) An impartial decision-making body is essential to public acceptance of the verdict. 2) That body should be established before the election, and given the power and responsibility to resolve controversies.
I have proposed a constitutional amendment creating a permanent Presidential Election Review Board designed to resolve presidential election disputes. But with an election around the corner, and everything from foreign hackers to a nasty epidemic causing us to fear an uncertain outcome, we should not await the passage of such an amendment. Congress can create such a board by statute--now. Why wait until it is too late?
What if, on account of the coronavirus, we attempt to hold the 2020 presidential election entirely on-line or through the mail, and it turns into a logistical nightmare? What if a major terrorist attack prevents holding the election on November 3? How about if, on Election Day, destructive weather prevents voting in some states? And what if hackers succeed in changing votes from one candidate to another, calling into question the accuracy of the electoral count?
For obvious reasons, people have begun to raise such questions. But we continue to pay insufficient attention to the over-arching question: Is America prepared for a presidential election crisis? The sobering answer is no.
We actually have a history to look to and learn from, and it reinforces the need to take action now. On four occasions, the nation has awakened the day after the presidential election without knowing who won and without a reliable mechanism for resolving the uncertainty. The election of 1800 produced the first crisis. Thanks to what Alexander Hamilton privately and presciently called a "defect in the Constitution," Thomas Jefferson and his running-mate Aaron Burr ended up with the same number of electoral votes, sending the election to the House of Representatives. Though everyone understood that Jefferson was the top of the ticket, his Federalist opponents schemed to make Burr president, a result Republicans threatened not to accept. It took 36 ballots for Jefferson to win and crisis to be averted.
While the election of 1800 was not the last presidential election crisis, it was the last time that we learned from the crisis and took significant action: Congress passed and the states ratified the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution, designed to prevent a recurrence of a tie between a presidential candidate and his running-mate.
Unfortunately, the Twelfth Amendment does not prevent other kinds of crises elections. In 1824, none of the four major presidential candidates received a majority of the electoral votes. The House selected as president John Quincy Adams, even though he had received fewer popular and electoral votes than Andrew Jackson. The outcome was determined by Henry Clay, who received the fourth highest vote total, throwing his support to Adams. Adams subsequently appointed Clay secretary of state, a move widely considered non-coincidental. Jackson's supporters attacked the "corrupt bargain" between Adams and Clay, and considered Adams an illegitimate president.
We have been reasonably lucky since: Fifty years passed before the next election crisis, and another 124 after that. The elections of 1876 and 2000 bore uncanny similarities to one another. In each case, the election produced a virtual tie, amidst widespread allegations of fraud. In each case, the outcome was not determined for weeks, and then by a single vote. An ad-hoc commission made Rutherford B. Hayes president by an 8-7 vote and the United States Supreme Court made George W. Bush president by a 5-4 vote. Finally, in each case the result was acquiesced in but not accepted by many members of the losing party, who believed the vote to be purely partisan. Democrats referred to Hayes as "Rutherfraud" and "His Fraudulence," just as many Democrats more than a century later insisted that Bush lacked legitimacy.
If we are smart, we will take appropriate measures before the next crisis. We can take away several key lessons from the past election crises: 1) An impartial decision-making body is essential to public acceptance of the verdict. 2) That body should be established before the election, and given the power and responsibility to resolve controversies.
I have proposed a constitutional amendment creating a permanent Presidential Election Review Board designed to resolve presidential election disputes. But with an election around the corner, and everything from foreign hackers to a nasty epidemic causing us to fear an uncertain outcome, we should not await the passage of such an amendment. Congress can create such a board by statute--now. Why wait until it is too late?