The presidential elections say we live in a divided country, when did we not?

Great Debates
1

We seem to be living in a country with a very divided electorate, meaning that whomever wins the Presidency this year, will probably have to deal with the reality that half of the voters didn’t want them in office.

When, in American history, was the popular vote for a candidate or party more than 60%? I realize that popular vote doesn’t solely determine the President, but it can serve as an important indicator as to how many people wanted a certain person in office.

I’m guessing that Washington, Madison & Monroe were pretty well supported.

Seems like Teddy Roosevelt was also supported by over 60%, and maybe the FDR era too, but I’m just guessing.

Does anyone know which years in US History had less of an even split 50-50, and more of a lopsided electorate, implying that for the majority, they were pretty happy with “their guy”?

2

Its rare in any democracy to find a really big majority, especially when you factor in the large numbers of people who don’t vote. But is this such a bad thing? The regimes that claim 99.9% support are invariably dictatorships.

3

The divided country thing is less about the support/opposition ratio and more about the fluidity of support. It seems like in today’s USA that your candidate can do no wrong and the opposition is not just wrong but traitors, sell-outs, and the Devil incarnate. Reasonable disputation seems to be leaking out of political dialogues with snappy catchphrases and 10 second rally-the-troops statements coming to the foreground.

4

To clarify slightly, diversity of opinions is a good indication of a healthy democracy and society.

5

1984–Reagan, 58.77%
1972–Nixon, 60.67%
1964–LBJ, 61.05%
1956–Ike, 57.37%
1936–FDR, 60.80%
1932–FDR, 57.41%
1928–Hoover, 58.22%
1920–Harding, 60.32%
1904–Roosevelt, 56.42%

And on the other hand:
1992–Clinton, 43.01%
1912–Wilson, 41.84%
1860–Lincoln, 39.82%
1824–J.Q. Adams, 30.92%–he won because the election went to Congress

source: www.electionatlas.org

6

IIRC, Washington was unopposed, so, yes, he was pretty well supported.

Much of what Priam said has been true for many, many of the US presidential elections. Some of them were really, really, nasty. One of the kinder things that was said about Abe Lincoln by his opposition was that he looked like a baboon. In almost every election I can recall each side claimed that the sky would fall unless their candidate were elected. Snappy catchphrases were even more the norm in previous generations, IMHO. “I like Ike.” Now that tells you a lot about the relative merits of the candidates.

As far as which recent elections were virtual runaways, LBJ defeated Goldwater with over 60% of the popular vote, as did Nixon over McGovern in 1972.

A great site with a basic overview of the electoral & popular votes, as well as the major issues, is at ElectionsCentral. You can look up the actual stats on any election from 1789 to 2000.

7

BTW, beware of about a million pop-ups when visting History Central.

8

For a really close election, those unfamiliar with early contests should check out 1800.

To quote the aforementioned site,

Makes some recent campaigns seem civilized in comparison.

There were 73 electoral votes each for Jefferson and Burr, 65 for Adams, 64 for Pinckney and one for Jay.

BTW, sorry for the accidental double-post.

9

It’s not the closeness of the election that’s so remarkable, it’s the intensity of the partisanship and the degree to which the “other side” is so thoroughly illigitimized.

I don’t remember another period in my middle-aged lifetime when feelings were so polarized except perhaps in the '72 election, but then I wasn’t that tuned in to politics before the 80s. (Back then it seemed Congress was more moderate and civil.)

I’d be interested in some historical perspectives on such polarization. The McCarthy era? The Civil War? Have there been other times with such bitter partisanship?

10

The 1876 Hayes-Tilden election was pretty hot and heavy - as in 2000, Tilden won the popular vote but the electoral vote was very close, and contested in South Carolina, Louisiana, and, er, sorry guys, Florida. The issue at hand was the ending of Reconstruction, and the votes were strongly divided, as you may imagine, along racial lines. Congress had to set up a commission to decide the thing, in favor of Hayes, to nobody’s real satisfaction (you mean just like Indecision 2000? Yep, you got it.). Reconstruction was ended and Mr. Hayes was known in certain circles as Rutherfraud.

The whole thing sounds pretty ugly - they blamed Hayes for everything in the Grant administration, and they still blamed the Democrats for being the “treason party”.

11

See above.

12

Don’t confuse support with the regime with support for a particular elected official or candidate for office. Most Americans support our constitutional system in roughly its present form.

13

Keep in mind that in the run-up to the 2000 election, people were up in arms that Gore and Bush were so similar and that the major parties had ceased to be relevant because they were basically the same.

Bush Jr. has done a great deal to polarize the nation (and the parties) into two groups fighting for two sets of ideals rather than two groups fighting over nothing.

14

KSO, it might help if figures from more than just one candidate are compared.

1984–Reagan, 58.77% / Mondale, 40.56%
1972–Nixon, 60.67% / McGovern, 37.53%
1964–LBJ, 61.05% / Goldwater, 38.47%
1956–Ike, 57.37% / Stevenson, 41.97%
1936–FDR, 60.80% / Landon, 36.55%
1932–FDR, 57.41% / Hoover, 39.65%
1928–Hoover, 58.22% / Smith, 40.79%
1920–Harding, 60.32% / Cox, 34.15%
1904–Roosevelt, 56.42% / Parker, 37.59%

And on the other hand:
1992–Clinton, 43.01% / Bush, 37.45% / Perot, 18.91%
1912–Wilson, 41.84% / Roosevelt, 27.40% / Taft, 23.17%
1860–Lincoln, 39.82% / Douglas, 29.46% / Breckenridge, 18.10% / Bell, 12.62%
1824–J.Q. Adams, 30.92% / Jackson, 37.9% / Crawford, 15.7% / Clay, 14.2%

And you forgot:

2000–Gore, 48.38% / Bush, 47.87%

Source: http://www.uselectionatlas.org

15

Duckster ,

You’re right–the comparisons are particularly important for the candidates that received less than 45% of the popular vote because in each case a third person/party received a significant percentage of votes. I’m not sure that’s true for the converse: 55% plus of the popular vote is significant, standing alone.

As for 2000, I just didn’t feel like opening that can o’ worms. :slight_smile:

16

Then allow me, using the minority presidents. The first percentage is the popular vote. The second percentage is the electoral vote:

2000: Gore, 48.38% / 49.44% - Bush, 47.87% / 50.37%
1888: Cleveland, 48.62% / 41.9% - Harrison, 47.82% / 58.1%
1876: Tilden, 50.97% / 49.9% - Hayes, 47.95% / 50.1%
1824: Jackson, 37.9% / 29.2% - J.Q. Adams, 30.92% / 54.2% - Crawford, 15.7% / 16.7% - Clay, 14.2% / 0%

In the two subsequent elections where the candidates were again the same, with one being the incumbent minority president (popular vote), the incumbent was decisely defeated:

1828: Jackson, 55.97% / 68.2% - Adams, 43.63% / 31.8%
1892: Cleveland, 46.02% / 62.39%, Harrison, 43.01% / 32.66%

17

What I always wonder about is why people don’t seem to find the fights and often personal attacks between the candidates for the nomination of a same political party denigrating for that party as a whole.
Salaam. A

18

Well, for starters, some people do find them annoying.
Others enjoy and savor it, like some hockey fans love it when a fight breaks out.

Some folks like to hear the issues out calmly and rationally. Those people are in the distinct minority and IMHO always were. Remember that half the population has an IQ below 100.

19

Of course, the percentage of votes somebody gets only shows how many voters prefer him to the other candidate(s), not how many actually want him to be president.

When was the last time we had a president who wasn’t hated and disdained by a significant portion of America? Who was the last president who was liked and/or respected by the majority of Americans during the majority of his time in office? Kennedy? Eisenhower? FDR?

I sometimes wonder why, out of the millions of people who live in this country, we can’t find at least one or two that I’d trust to be president.

20

I apologize for the hijack, but this is not true. IQ tests are designed so that the most common single score will always be 100. The “average” range (normal intelligence) is 90-110, and about half the population falls into that category. If, for some strange reason, you wanted to disregard the whole purpose of IQ tests and their scoring system and count even people with a score of 99 as “below average intelligence” then you’d still come out with less than 50% of the population in that group because the highest point of the bell curve is at exactly 100.