The first part of this article was entitled: All we need is one elector from each state claimed by Trump to vote for a favorite son or Bernie Sanders and history will change . In that article, elections from 1792 through 1860 were discussed in which electors voted for someone else than the majority winner of votes for president in their state.
In 1872, a lot of electors for Horace Greeley were forced to think well-out of the box. For the first time in history a major candidate for president died between election day and the day when the Electoral College voted. (Three votes that were still made for deceased Horace Greeley were not counted.) B. Gratz Brown recieve 18 of Greeley’s votes; Thomas A. Hendricks took 42. Charles J. Jenkins got 2 votes, and David Davis received one vote.
The 1880 election saw an extremely close popular vote between candidates of the two major parties (just over half a million votes seperated James Garfield and his opponent, Winfield Hancock. Hancock won California; however, one Elector cast a vote for Garfield.
In 1888, the Democrat Grover Cleveland won the popular vote but lost the election. None of the those in the electoral college took the opportunity to think and vote outside of the box that year.
In 1892, the electors of the Electoral College for the Presidency of the United States finally returned to their original roots. Eight of them thoughtfully voted for others than won the highest number of votes in their state.
In short, no favorite sons were voted for in 1892, but numerous favorite neighbor (favorite opposition candidate) were chosen by at least 8 electors. In 1896, one California elector voted for William Jennings Bryan although McKinley one California.
In 1912, once again, California electors were thinking outside the box in their roles in the Electoral College. Theodore Roosevelt won California; however, two Electors cast votes for Woodrow Wilson. (By the way, Socialist Party candidate Eugene V. Debs received about 900,000 votes, but no Electoral Votes. That has been too often the American Way.)
In 1916, one elector in the Electoral College from West Virginia voted for Wilson although the rest of the delegates voted for Charles Hughes, the Republican candidate for president. It would not be until 1948 when again electors in the Electoral College once again began to choose for themselves again. It was in that year that a Tennessee elector voted for Strom Thurmond as a favorite son Southern Dixiecrat in that famed election of Harry S. Truman and Thomas E. Dewey.
In 1960, “The electoral vote was the closest in any presidential election since 1916. In the popular vote, Kennedy’s margin of victory was among the closest ever in American history. The 1960 election also remains a source of debate among some historians as to whether vote theft in selected states aided Kennedy’s victory.” Virginian Senator Harry F. Byrd received 15 electoral votes from 14 Southern states and one Oklahoma elector. (Nixon won Oklahoma; however one Elector cast a vote for Byrd. Alabama Electors split their vote: 6 for Byrd, 5 for Kennedy; Kennedy had won popular vote.)
“The election also featured a strong third party effort by former Alabama Governor George Wallace. Because Wallace’s campaign promoted segregation, he proved to be a formidable candidate in the South; no third-party candidate has won an entire state’s electoral votes since.” Again, in 1968, although Nixon won North Carolina, one Elector cast a vote for Wallace.
Although no electors stood up to support him, businessman Ross Perot won record numbers of votes as an outsider in both the 1992 and 1996 elections. That is, independent candidate H. Ross Perot received 19,741,065 votes in 1992 , most ever for a 3rd party candidate, but no Electoral Votes. In 1996, the Electoral College again ignored votes of many citizens. (That year, the Reform Party candidate H. Ross Perot received 7,866,284 votes, but once again no Electoral Votes.)
So, as the new 3rd Millenium dawned, the Electoral College was seen more and more as archaic but the Democratic and GOP bigwigs had found it vested tehir parties with full control of the executive branch. In 2000, the following occurred and Americans began asking for a change in the status quo: The Green Party candidate Ralph Nader received 2,882,728 votes, but no Electoral Votes. Al Gore won D.C.; however one Elector did not cast a vote. George W. Bush was declared the victor in December of the close election by the USA Supreme Court. It was one of only 4 elections, and first in over 100 years (1824, 1876, 1888) where the popular vote winner lost the election.
In 2008, for the first time in 4 decades a state’s set of electors for the Presidency of the United States split its votes. However, this was not done by simple clear choice of an elector thinking out of the box. This election marked the first time that Nebraska has split its electoral vote since it went to an allocated system in 1992. Four votes of Nebraska went for John McCain but the remaining vote went to Barack Obama.
Now, in 2016, again it appears that for the second time in 16 years a Democrat has clearly won the popular vote while the Republican candidate appears to be winning the Electoral College. The latest 2016 Election Results (from yesterday) indicate Clinton will beat Trump by between 2 million and 4 million votes depending on uncounted votes in Utah and California. Meanwhile, Trump appears to have won four large states by less than 1% of the total cast votes making the difference. (Michigan, one of the big 4, is still counting its ballots, by the way. The other 1%-vote-difference-states were Pennsylvania, Florida, and Wisconsin.)
It is for this very reason that the people of this nation called the United States of America asks all electors in the Electoral College for the presidency and vice-presidency to think what the real American neighborhoods they are from need now for the exectutive branch. How would the variety of voters in their own state like to see them represent their peoples this 2016?
The Electoral College needs to show the wisdom it was once created long ago to reveal. It was created to avoid mobocracy. Can voting for someone for president and vice-president, i.e other than the majority-vote-getter for their states, become a possibility? Only if they think outside the box and observe the needs of the time, especially the need to fight climate change.
How can we keep this land from moving to a full oligarchy where only the 1% control all power? What side are you on in history, Mr. or Ms. Elector?