I’m not a big fan of Reagan’s, but Cecil’s answer on this one only related to RR’s 1980 election. I believe the questioner had his 1984 election in mind when he posed the question, considering that Mondale only took Minnesota (and just barely) that year. Reagan took EVERY OTHER state that time. I don’t know what the popular vote was, but I imagine it was pretty impressive in Reagan’s favor.
The column in question, What U.S. presidents won in the biggest landslides? appears on page 135 of the original Straight Dope collection, which means it dates to before 1984 – another example that Uncle Cecil, while omniscient, is not clairvoyant. Although maybe he might want to put together an update.
Of course, Cecil does note that even in 1980, Regan got an impressive fraction of the electoral vote, despite an unremarkable performance popularly.
Since we’re mentioning it, can anybody explain to me what Cecil means by “margin of victory”? On the one hand, we have
, but on the other hand,
Now, I can’t figure out any way to get the one number from the other. Any clues?
John Anderson had a significant vote total as an independent that year. That and third parties account for the discrepancy.
What about the old tale that Washington got a perfect vote? Does that count, seeing as he was a benign military dictator?
I’m not sure where you dreamed up the “benign dictator” notion, (Washington had his political opponents who characterized him in scathing terms throughout both of his terms and he was no more able to dictate to Congress than any subsequent president), but he certainly was not given 100% of the vote as these pages on the 1789 election and the 1792 election indicate.
Um, tomndebb (presumably Tom?), you might want to recant that statement. In the elections held before the passage of the 12th Amendment, each elector cast simultaneous votes for the two people he thought should lead the country. The votes from all the electors were counted, and the person who got the most votes became president; the second-place person was V-P.
In the 1789 election, 69 electors cast ballots; 6 for various reasons did not vote for anyone. Of the 69 electors, all voted for Mr. Washington; the second vote was split up among a number of others.
In the 1792 election, there were 132 electors, all of whom voted for Mr. Washington; again, there was some disagreement as to who else should be in power.
Thus, in truth, Mr. Washington was chosen by 100% of the voters to be president; the only disagreement was as to who his second in command should be.
The silliness of this system was demonstrated in the 1796 election, where at least one elector voted for both Jefferson and Adams (their combined vote totals exceed one-half of the total), and the 1800 election, where factionalism finally became fixed in the casting of votes, and Jefferson and his V-P Aaron Burr tied, forcing the House to decide which of the two should actually be the President. The 12th Amendment was promptly put into place to prevent further such occurrences.
It was not until the 1824 election that there was a nationwide popular vote to choose state electors, at which point the discussion of vote totals forces distinction between the popular vote and the electoral vote.
He was in control of the army - AND he was a successful politician. Put those two together in a person who just arranged for a country to throw off its’ parent’s shackles, and Washington would have had little trouble assuming complete command. But he didn’t - there’s another legend, that he was offered the Crown, but rejected it because he didn’t want America to become a monarchy.
You’re right that he didn’t dictate to Congress. He was benign. That’s exactly what I said.
Every President in history has been in control of the Army (the Constitution says something about being "Commander-in-Chief) and a successful politician (getting elected makes that axiomatic). Have they all thus been military dictators? Congress has never been dissolved, the Courts never suspended (well, Lincoln did do that nasty habeus corpus thing), and no President has ever ruled by fiat or decree. We’ve never missed an election, not even in times of war. As far as I know, we’ve never even been under martial law – kind of a requirement to be considered a military dictator. Police curfew during natural disasters, yes, but not to my knowledge martial law.
So, I am failing to understand how Washington is different from any US President, or how any would merit the title “military dictator,” benign or otherwise.
– Beruang
I wrote this the other day, then couldn’t post it. I still think it’s relevant, especially the last 2 lines.
cdhostage, I don’t know where you got your American History, but you seem to have missed something. Yes, Washington had been the general and leader of the army, but that was over when he was elected.
The British were defeated at Yorktown in October of 1781. The Treaty of Paris was signed in September of 1783, which formally recognized independence of the U.S. Washington was not elected President until 1789, after the Constitution was ratified.
Before the Constitution, there was this little thing called The Articles of Confederation. When the Americans rebelled and signed the Declaration of Independence, they formed the Continental Congress. The Continental Congress went on to draft and finally enact the Articles of Confederation. This form of government had the States as sovereign entities but cooperating for mutual benefit. It was very decentralized. The Articles were enacted in March of 1781, and the Congress of Confederation took over from the Continental Congress. There was no President of the United States.
It wasn’t until 1787 that a Constitutional Convention was called in Philidelphia to address numerous problems with the Articles. The outcome of that was the drafting of the U.S. Constitution, and a new form of government. The Constitution was adopted in 1789, and then, under the authority of the Constitution, Washington was elected. A military dictator is someone who takes his army and then declares himself in charge. Washington did not do that.
There’s no justification to consider Washington a dictator. By any stretch of the imagination. He did not force his way to power, or manipulate his way to power. He was duly elected by the laws that were established. That he was deemed a hero and worthy of being president is no reason to say he was a dictator - quite the opposite. Benign? Yes. Dictator? Absolutely not.
CD Hostage, just to pile on a little…
“Benign” means “not harmful.” When referring to a dictator, it indicates that the dictator acts in the best interests of his subjects, doing no harm that he can avoid. It does NOT mean that he doesn’t dictate – all dictators dictate, that’s why they’re called “dictators.” George Washington could have been King - he was that popular. He chose to retire and leave public life entirely, specifically so that he wouldn’t give anyone that idea. It was only years later, as a private citizen, that he was elected President.
I agree 100% on this. But this does not mean that he was a dictator; it means that he could have been. Had he actually assumed complete command, then he would have been a dictator.