Author: Zev Zentner

The year 2000 was full of butterfly hair clips and butterfly ballots. Now, I don’t want to call my readers old—I’m pretty sure my parents and professor are the only people reading this—but even though 2000 seems like it was just a few years ago, I along with my fellow college students, were not even alive yet, so let’s recap!

The 2000 election is our first contested election since 1876. That’s not because we are skipping around, it’s because there wasn’t a contested presidential election for 124 years.

So, what happened?

This contested election came down to a race between Republican George W. Bush, and Democrat Al Gore.

The election was close—very close. On election night the media originally called Florida for Gore. The voter projection model they were using just wasn’t working, and moreover, people were leaving voting unsure if they had actually voted for their candidate. The media had to recall their announcement. Florida was still in play. Or was it? Florida seemed to be going for Bush and Gore conceded. But wait—it was too early. Florida was still too close and Gore un-conceded.

Florida was just way to close. A recount was in order. The Gore campaign brought up issues with ballots—they were confusing, and, in some cases, computers were not counting ballots where you could see that someone had tried to cast a vote. Further complicating the 36 day recount process, George Bush’s brother, Jeb, was the Governor of Florida, and the woman certifying the process, Florida secretary of state Kathrine Harris, was co-chair of Bush’s Florida campaign. The ballot errors and perceived conflicts of interest, along with the fact that Al Gore won the popular vote, galvanized Gore’s supporters.

The political battle eventually leads to the supreme court. In Bush v. Gore, the court sided 5-4 in favor of Bush, making him the next president.

I’d love to tell you exactly who to blame, but I would likely have to recall that answer. It’s simply too close to call.

So, Al Gore lost. If you are anything like my parents (hi mom!) I’m sure you still hold a grudge, but hey, this election is older than me, does it still matter?

Well, Yes, it does.

The questions it raised have not been answered: Is the electoral college democratic? What do we do when the people in charge of safeguarding the election also work for one side? What happens when we don’t trust our election processes? What happens when our process is inaccurate?

I don’t think we have unifying answers to these questions, but studying the 2000 election can help us start.

Donald Trump and the modern Republican party love to accuse the Democrats of “election fraud” Oooooh scarry! And yet, fact check website Snopes writes “There’s Still No Evidence of Systematic Voter Fraud in the 2020 Election.” But hey, let’s give them the benefit of the doubt maybe they are just still thinking about the election of 1876. The election of 1876 was also contested due to republican accusations of democrat election fraud in several key states. The big difference between 2020 and 1876 is that the election fraud was only real in 1876.

The election of 1876 was between Democrat Samuel Tilden and Republican and man who just has a real “president name”, Rutherford B. Hayes. Votes were disputed in Florida, Louisiana, Oregon, and South Carolina. In these states, Democrats had intimidated Black voters and white Republicans, and their families through violence or the threat of violence. In some precincts, some Democrats stuffed ballot boxes with extra votes or printed Democratic ballots with the Republican logo to trick recently emancipated Black people who were often illiterate. With the falsified results, technically Tilden could seem like the winner, but the election ultimately went for Hayes. Hayes in turn agreed to end reconstruction through a “policy of conciliation”. The rest of Hayes’ career was haunted by the election as his contemporaries referred to him as “his Fraudulency” and Hayes’ legacy was soiled as “the man who ended reconstruction”.

One thing that the 1876 election, 2020, and almost certainly 2024 do have in common is that there was an organized effort to stop people from voting. As Ari Goldberg writes, a study by the Bipartisan Policy Center, found, “…precincts with a high percentage of minority voters, renters, and lower incomes saw significantly longer wait times.” Additionally, as the League of Women Voters argues, contemporary voter ID laws are part of an effort to “promote voter suppression”. While the voter fraud Donald trump loves to scream about a problem that doesn’t exist, there are still certainly efforts to deter some people from voting.

As the dozens of political texts, emails, and calls I receive daily keep reminding me, the election 2024 presidential election is just 45 days away! Are you registered to vote? Do you have a plan to vote early? Are you voting absentee? Do you know where your polling place is? Do you know what ID you must bring?

Voting is a deeply important way that we, as Americans, get to interact with our government. Please, if you are eligible to vote, make a plan. Vote early if possible! (If you live in Grinnell there will be early voting on Oct. 17 in the Joe Rosenfield ’25 Center from 9 a.m. – 3 p.m).

But this blog is for a history class and this week we are talking about the election of 1860. This is the election that directly preceded (and depending on who you ask, caused) the Civil War. This election is a big deal!

Do you know how you are voting in 1860? Well firstly, unless you are a man, good news—you don’t have to wait in line! Sure, it’s because you can’t vote, but the suffrage movement has only just begun. Further, Black men can only vote in Five states: Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire. Additionally South Carolinians did not vote for president in 1860, as the Legislature still directly picked the state’s electors.

Let’s pretend you can vote though; what’s impacting your decision?

Here in 1860, slavery is at the front of many voters’ minds and there are four candidates. The first candidate, Lincon, is a Republican opposed to expanding slavery into new states and territories. Lincon’s former political rival for Illinois senate, Stephen Douglas, is the Democrat running on popular sovereignty, or the idea that each new state and territory should be allowed to decide if people should be able to legally own other people there. Douglas is, however, not the only Democrat running; John Breckinridge is running as the Southern Democratic candidate on a platform that is more pro-slavery than Douglas. Lastly, John Bell is running as the Constitutional Union candidate. Bell is anti-succession due to slavery, his platform is “the constitution”, and according to Michael Burlingame, his supporters would hand out bells for people to ring at rallies.

There is a lot of commotion in the lead up to the election. You probably saw or heard grassroots protests like the Wide Awakes—groups of young white (and a small number of Black) Republican men who marched through cities and towns with torches in support of Lincon. The Democrats have attempted to create a similar youth movement but have fallen flat. Historian Jon Grinspan argues that, while the Wide Awakes likely did not turn the election for Lincon, they did generate a great deal of youth momentum and enthusiasm for him, so while they probably did not convince you to vote for Lincon, maybe they made you more excited about him.

On November 6^th, according to Grinspan, “Thousands of plain-clothed wide awakes policed the polls.” So maybe you gab with a Wide Awake friend before casting your vote for Lincon. Hopefully you remembered to live in a Northern state because Lincon is not on the ballot in the South. After you vote, your vote is read out loud in front of the small crowed gathered. Good job voting! Unfortunately, it seems like you won’t get a sticker.

In 1860 Lincon won the election. The civil war started soon after. Four years later, “In the middle of a devastating civil war,” Michael Burlingame writes, “the United States held its presidential election almost without discussion about any alternatives. No other democratic nation had ever conducted a national election during times of war.” After the election of 1860 we kept voting and slowly began to expand suffrage.

The election of 1860 was complicated and contested election. We don’t have to pretend to vote in this election. Suffrage, while still not universal, has been massively expanded, and yet turnout is down. In 1860 over 80% of eligible voters turned out. In the last presidential election, more Americans voted than ever before, and yet only 66% of eligible voters turned out.

I’m sorry to have to tell you this, but this year, if you are eligible, you must wait in the line, the 2024 election is deeply important. But hey, look on the bright side, now you get a sticker.

This November 5^th Americans will once again vote for president. Unlike in 1860, all citizens over 18 can vote, your vote is private, and if you run into any trouble on election day, you can use your phone to call the election non-partisan Election Protection Hotline at 866-687-8683. Make a plan now, double check your voter status, and vote.

The election of 1824, our second US contested election, seems at first quite similar to the election of 1800. Once again, the election revolved around five candidates (one is even an Adams) and the election ends up in the US House of Representatives. But let’s take a step back to understand what happened. The election comes down to five candidates—all technically Democratic-Republicans. John Calhoun becomes the first loser (and perhaps the biggest winner) when he drops out of the race before the election, in order to run for Vice President. The four men still in the running by the election are Henry Clay, the Speaker of the House, John Quincy Adams, son of second President (John Adams), Andrew Jackson, a violence prone politician and general, and lastly, William Crawford, a congressional powerbroker whose name I have to look up every time I remember there was a fifth candidate.

When the states vote, Jackson receives the most electoral college votes, with John Quincy Adams receiving the next most, followed by Crawford, and then Clay. Unfortunately for Jackson’s supporters, a presidential candidate needs a plurality (more than half) of the votes rather than a majority (the most). Jackson’s majority of 99 electoral votes fell short of the 131 votes he needed to win the plurality, so the election was turned over to the house of representatives. In accordance with the twelfth amendment to the constitution, the house decides the winner out of the top three candidates. This rule eliminates Henry Clay from the running but does not lock him out of the process—if anything, it has the potential to give him more power, in the election because of his position as speaker of the house.

Unlike the election of 1800, a president is selected in the first round of voting in the House. They elect John Quincy Adams as the new president. Jackson won the most electoral votes and claimed the popular vote (the strength of this claim has been disputed by historian Donald Ratcliffe using data from Philip Lampi), but Jackson will not be elected president in 1824. This infuriated Jackson and his supporters, but what really set them off was Adams’s appointment of Henry Clay to the position of Secretary of State. Clay’s fancy new job is held up as clear proof of a “corrupt bargain” between Adams and Clay. However, even now we don’t know if there was actually a “corrupt bargain”, but we do know the accusations of corruption created a bitter rivalry between Jackson and Clay and helped fuel Jackson’s successful1828 campaign.

Ok, now you understand. But, so what? Why should you care about an election that happened 200 years ago? Well, the 1824 election can help you understand how we got “here”. Yes, it can tell us about the past, but it can also say something about the present.

200 years ago a man claimed that populist support meant he should have been president and, when he lost, he along with his allies, spent four years campaigning for the next election. This man claimed status as a “Washington outsider,” despite previously holding elected office. Jackson’s supporters cast him as a folk hero of the masses—the kind of guy who will fight for you the way he fights his enemies on the street.

Despite his involvement in the First Seminal War, the Creek War, the Invasion of Florida and subsequent execution of unarmed British officials, and a reputation for getting into fights, Jackson became president four years after losing in 1824. Jackson refused to back down and accept he lost.

Donald Trump loves to compare himself to Jackson. It’s important to understand what he means.