The Bridgeville Area Historical Society celebrated the promotion of Allegheny County to the “green” status by returning to its regular program of live presentations last month. Appropriately the speaker was one of the Society’s favorites – Dr. Todd DePastino. His subject was also appropriate for these times – “The American Way of Voting: a Wild History”.
Because of my voluntary self-quarantine I was unable to attend the presentation in person; fortunately it was filmed and became available on the “Bridgeville.org” website two days later. I was not surprised to learn that the program was equally entertaining and educational, particularly since we are in a highly critical Presidential election year.
The Constitution clearly intended that the selection of President and Vice President be determined by electors selected by the Legislatures of the various states. Each state had its own criteria for eligibility of voters to record their preferences.
In most of them voting was restricted to adult, property-owning white males. An exception was New Jersey, where women were allowed to vote up until 1807. The property-owning requirement was eventually replaced by one of being a tax payer.
By 1828 most of the states had relaxed this requirement. This resulted in a significant increase in the percentage of the population actually voting and facilitated Andrew Jackson’s election despite a campaign replete with defamatory attacks on his character.
Prior to 1840 the largest voter turnout was fifty eight percent of the “voting age population”. The turnout that year was an astonishing 81.2 %, surpassed only in 1876, by 81.8%. The trend for high turnout continued through 1896. It then dropped to the fifty to sixty percent range that has continued until today
Experts attribute the relatively low turnout in recent years to a number of factors, including the “winner-take-all” policy, which automatically discourages voters in states dominated by one party. What is the point of a Republican voter in California voting in a Presidential election, when he/she knows the vote can never influence the outcome?
This is a sound argument for the proposal that each state split its electoral votes in proportion to the popular vote in the states. Currently only Maine and Nebraska official follow this practice, although occasionally “faithless” electors vote independently. In 2016 an elector in Washington cast his vote for Faith Spotted Eagle, a female Native American.
Criticism of the electoral college method for selecting our President grows each time its results do not coincide with the national popular vote, as has occurred four times. Our system of electing our Executive official independently is unique; in most modern democracies the executive official is a Prime Minister, selected by a coalition of prominent political parties in the legislature, based on the process that evolved in the United Kingdom. If this concept had been applied to our elections, over half of the recent ones (since 1952) would have had different outcomes.
Another possible explanation of the reduced turnout is the actions of the local political parties. Eighty years ago, if a registered voter in Bridgeville hadn’t voted by supper time, a representative of his/her party would telephone and offer to give the voter a ride to the polling place. I haven’t seen much evidence of that commitment in recent years.
The method of voting has evolved as well. Originally voters reported their preferences orally. This method eventually was the replaced by paper ballots, pre-printed by the political parties and handed out to voters.
The first mechanical voting machines were introduced in the mid-1800s, facilitating a transition to secret balloting. Eventually the lever-operated machine was perfected and became standard in most venues. It required the voter to indicate his/her preference by positioning a small lever; the machine mechanically accumulated the votes for each candidate.
Because of the complications resulting from the Covid-19 pandemic, voting by mail increased significantly in our recent primary election and will certainly be equally significant in the Presidential election in the Fall. I was comfortable voting that way, although I am aware that members of both parties have suggested it provides the other party with an opportunity for election fraud.
My experience has been that in-person voting at local polling places where the poll watchers know the voters personally is the best way to avoid fraud, at least at the local level. I know from experience that our local poll watchers know their voters personally. For years it was my practice to write-in my friend Hugh Carr, an enthusiastic local Democrat, in irrelevant contests. One year when I was unable to vote, the poll watchers told Hugh they had finally identified the maverick write-in voter.
Another anomaly of our system, as compared with many other modern democracies, is the failure of “third parties” to survive effectively. They are still with us; in 2016 Libertarian, Green Party, and Independents polled five percent of the votes cast.
Short-lived third parties have greatly influenced specific elections. Examples include Theodore Roosevelt’s “Bull Moose” Party in 1912, George Wallace’s American Independent Party in 1968, Ross Perot’s Independent Party in 1992, and Ralph Nader’s Green Party in 2000.
So, why don’t third parties prosper, as they do in most other modern democracies? Political analysts blame it on the “winner-take-all” concept, the restrictive ballot access laws, their inability to be included in debates, and the fact that the two principal parties quickly co-opt the issues on which third parties are based.
Today, when both major parties are dominated by extremists, it would appear appropriate for a Moderate third party to prosper. A party focused on co-operation, compromise, and tolerance would certainly be a welcome alternative for moderates in both major parties and, at a minimum, could provide the balance of power needed to get projects like infrastructure moving.
Dr. DePastino’s presentation was excellent, as expected. I certainly hope conditions will improve eventually and it will be possible for me to participate in one of his programs in person.