Author: Tatum Watkins

The 2000 Election between Al Gore and George HW Bush was the first election to be contested in over 100 years, but it wasn’t the last. Twenty years later, in 2020, Donald Trump claimed that the election was stolen and disputed the outcome. Despite both disputing the immediate election outcomes, Al Gore and Donald Trump had vastly different reactions to their eventual loss and the proceedings between election day and inauguration.

Many issues complicated the election of 2000, but in the end, it all came down to issues in Florida. There were plenty of issues with Florida, but there are three that stick out. First, issues with the ballots lead to inaccurate counting of votes and voter confusion. Second, conflicts of interest with election officials, including the Florida Secretary of State. Finally, premature reporting of election night results from the press. All of these problems led to a recount in Florida, which was complicated by a lack of regulation regarding how to determine voter intent. It is also worth noting that the Florida Secretary of State was Jeb Bush, the brother of HW Bush.

On election night, the press first said Gore won, then they backtracked and said it was too close to call, then they said Bush won, and finally they again said it was too close to call. Gore was minutes away from conceding the election, but his concession speech was narrowly intercepted and the long process of recounts began.

Trump had less grounds to contest the election, but both Trump in 2020 and Gore in 2000 suggested that the election was inaccurate due to issues with voting machines. After the 2020 election, Trump allies claimed that Dominion voting machines were faulty, but in 2023 this claim was proven false. In 2000 the ballots in Florida were voted by punching a piece of paper out to represent your vote, unfortunately, some of the paper bits ‘chads’ did not fully punch out as a result leading to those votes not being counted. The ballots were also designed in a confusing layout that could easily confuse voters.

Just as Gore was a sitting Vice President at the time of the 2000 election, Trump was a sitting President, but Gore did not use his power as Trump did. Following the Supreme Court’s ruling on the election of 2000, Gore gave a concession speech, thanked his supporters, and peacefully transferred power. Trump on the other hand never gave a concession speech, rallied his supporters, and incited an insurrection.

It is also important to look at what Trump and Gore are doing now. Trump is running for president for the third time, this time with a new running mate after his former Vice President, Mike Pence, refused to endorse him. Al Gore on the other hand has not run for office since 2000, advocates for climate-smart policy making, and spends most of his time on his regenerative farm in rural Tennessee.

Should Al Gore have reacted more like Donald Trump? Personally, I think his reaction was to be expected, and acted in a way that preserved the electoral process. Gore expressed disappointment in the final rulings on his election, but he never did anything to go above the law. If Gore had thrown a fit and rallied his supporters, he likely still would not have won, but he may have divided the nation and contributed to growing political division.

If there is one thing any future presidential candidate can learn from both Gore and Trump it is to stand up for yourself but never forget that no matter who you are, you are never above the law.

In 2020 Republicans argued that the election was stolen and won only through fraudulent votes by Democrats. In 1876, Republicans said the same thing. The difference? In 1876, Democrats actually committed voter fraud and voter suppression. The election of 1876 was a race between Rutherford B. Hayes and Samuel J. Tilden. In many ways, it was also a race between continued Northern control over the South during Reconstruction and allowing the South to independently govern again. Though the election of 1876 happened almost 150 years before the election of 2020 there are many parallels.

 As we know, the election of 2020 wasn’t actually stolen and claims of voter suppression, fraud, and corruption by Democrats were dismissed. In 1876 those claims were a reality. There is proof of ballot boxes being stolen, fake ballots being voted, fraud committed by election officials, and extreme voter suppression by Southern Democrats. Despite the corruption, the Democratic candidate, Samuel J. Tilden came within one electoral vote of becoming president, but through compromise and months of deliberation Rutherford B. Hayes was elected President.

Democrats were so opposed to another Republican Presidency that they did everything in their power to prevent it, but in doing so invalidated 20 of their electoral votes, more than enough for Rutherford B. Hayes to win.

What exactly did they do to invalidate 20 electoral votes? Many of the things that Donald Trump accused Democrats of doing in 2020. Direct intimidation took place and there were reports of hundreds of men on horseback blocking voting sites, armed militias intimidating Black voters. Fraudulent ballots were also cast by people who voted more than once or illiterate voters were told that they were voting for a different person than their ballot was cast for. Democrats even went so far as stealing ballot boxes.

The good news is that democracy prevailed, and Democrats didn’t get away with fraud. After two conflicting sets of Electoral results were sent to Congress the election needed to be decided by the House and Senate, but when they couldn’t come to a decision an Electoral Commission deliberated on how to solve the race. Eventually, the fraud was investigated and the commission concluded that enough votes had been stolen from Hayes to argue that he was the rightful winner of the election. Two days before the inauguration, Filibusters in the House were called off and the election was certified, finally leading to Rutherford B. Hayes winning the election.

Even after the election was decided and it was concluded that democrats engaged in fraud, many democrats refused to accept the results. Eventually, Rutherford B. Hayes became known as His Fraudulency and Rutherfraud because of Democrats who rejected the results of the election.  Although democracy prevailed through the election of Rutherford B. Hayes in order to maintain a working relationship with southern Democrats, Hayes was forced to make compromises that weakened reconstruction in the south.

In 2020, just as in 1876, compromises had to be made due to the election being contested. In 2020 many people said they were voting for the lesser of two evils, but just as in 1876, compromise led to at least slight stability. All in all, forced compromise is not ideal, but it is important to keep in mind what the outcome may be if you don’t vote.

The Election of 1860 is often remembered for electing Abraham Lincoln to the Presidency and conditions that led to the Civil War, but there is a lot more you should know. Did you know that there were four candidates from four parties? Do you know that both the Democratic and Republican candidates were from the same state? What about the results of the election, did you know that the second most popular candidate won the electoral college in only one state?

The first thing that everyone should know is that divides between the South and North led to fracturing within political parties, especially within the democratic party.

Thankfully, in 2024, both major parties elected candidates by the end of their convention, even if the process was different than it has been in the past. In 1860, that wasn’t the case. The Republican Party elected Abraham Lincoln at their convention with little argument, but the Democratic Party on the other hand failed to elect a candidate at their first convention.

Eventually, the Democratic Party elected Stephen Douglas, but the party remained split on the topic of slavery, and two new parties formed. The new pro-slavery Southern Democratic Party elected John C. Breckinridge (the Vice President at the time) and the Constitutional Union Party (who avoided the topic of slavery), elected John Bell. In the end, the election became a race between Lincoln and Douglas in the North with the complication of Breckinridge taking away a few votes in the South.

The fact that there were four candidates is already weird, but somehow two of them were from the same state. Interestingly, Lincoln and Douglas were both from Illinois and served in state legislature together. Can you imagine a world where Donald Trump and Kamala Harris served in the same state legislature or even as representatives from the same state?

Today, it seems hard to imagine two presidential candidates being from the same state, but technically, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump both claimed residency in New York in 2016. Before the 2016 election, two major party candidates hadn’t claimed residency in the same state since 1944.

Maybe it isn’t all that interesting that Douglas and Lincoln were from the same state, but what is interesting is the outcome of the election. As seen in the 1860 electoral college map, Lincoln won both the popular vote and Electoral College, carrying 18 northern states, and 1.8 million votes. Douglas on the other hand carried only one state, yet still accounted for a total of 1.3 million votes. To complicate the results further, Breckinridge and Bell both carried more states than Douglas but received considerably fewer votes.

All in all, the upcoming election may be unprecedented, but at least it isn’t as complicated as the election of 1860.

Think to yourself, do you know who the Electoral College is made up of? Do you know how to become an elector? Do you know how to find out? Personally, up until a few months ago, I had no idea how to become an elector and only found out after accidentally becoming one. Now, when I reflect on the Electoral College of the past, I want to know if it was more straightforward in the past or present.

There is no federally mandated system for selecting presidential electors, so the choice is left to the states. As seen here a pamphlet listing candidates for Elector in 1800 was circulated by the Republican Party of Virginia which made the choices very clear to voters. In 1800, only two states, Virginia and New Hampshire, selected electors through general election. All other states had other systems for selecting electors, generally through appointment by state legislators. It is important to note that in 1800, electors were effectively unbound and could (and did) vote for whatever candidate they wanted, regardless of the popular vote in their state.

Only after the Electoral College failed massively was it restructured with the 12^th amendment which factored in political parties and allowed electors two separate votes, one for President and one for VP. After it failed in 1800 and again in 1824, voters began to become frustrated by the lack of direct representation and the Electoral College evolved more.

By 1824, eighteen out of twenty-four states selected electors through general election, and by 1828 only two states selected electors through different methods. Today, most states elect multiple slates of electors through various processes. For example, The Iowa Democratic Party selected electors in two stages. First, district-level electors are voted on by delegates at district conventions, then two additional electors are chosen “at large” by delegates at the state convention. The Iowa Republican Party on the other hand does not have a clear selection plan outlined per their bylaws, it appears that the Republican Party of Iowa selects electors through nomination by a small nomination committee.

Undeniably, the process for selecting electors still varies from one state to another, but given that the selection process for electors has become less accessible for the average citizen, is that acceptable? Electors now serve a more ceremonial role in deciding the election as most states do not split up their electoral votes, so it is possible to argue that there is little significance. At the same time, our modern electoral college is so dissimilar to the original process set up by the founding fathers, that it has evolved into a completely different process.