1960 Popular Vote
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 08:35:45 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: Dereich)
  1960 Popular Vote
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: 1960 Popular Vote  (Read 6463 times)
rbt48
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,060


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: July 31, 2009, 10:37:09 AM »

One can make a strong argument that Nixon won the 1960 popular vote.  The pivot point is Alabama.  Six of the eleven Democratic Electors were were pledged to Byrd, while five were pledged to Kennedy.  Yet, nearly every compilation gives Kennedy all the Democratic popular votes.  If, instead, you give Kennedy 5/11ths of the Democratic popular vote and award the other 6/11ths to "Unpledged Electors," the national popular vote margin swings to Nixon.

The logic behind what most tables show is that practice of recording the greatest number of votes for an elector pledged to that candidate as the candidate's state popular vote.  But this method is not reflective of the reality of what occurred in Alabama in 1960.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,965
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: July 31, 2009, 10:47:50 AM »

Democrats won PV. The Democratic Party's ballot won Alabama.
Logged
rbt48
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,060


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: July 31, 2009, 08:02:26 PM »
« Edited: July 31, 2009, 08:07:45 PM by rbt48 »

Well, here is my table for the alternative 1960 popular vote:  http://members.cox.net/rbt48/weather/Presidential_Elections/Alternate%201960%20election%20spreadsheet.pdf

Democrats won PV. The Democratic Party's ballot won Alabama.
The logic of giving JFK all the Democratic ticket votes defies my understanding of what is reasonable.  It was not a hidden fact that only 5 of the 11 electors in Alabama were pledged to him.  The other 6 electors made it clear that they would vote for Sen Harry Byrd.  Suppose, in the Democratic primary, only one JFK loyalist had been victorious?  Would it still make sense to credit all the Democratic popular votes to JFK?  Or, what if none of the 11 were pledged to JFK; all to Harry Byrd?  How could one argue that the 324,050 Democratic popular votes be credited to Kennedy.
[/quote]
A Wikipedia entry on the 1960 Presdiential Election notes the following for Alabama:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1960

Alabama popular vote

The actual number of popular votes received by Kennedy in Alabama is difficult to determine because of the unusual situation in that state. The first minor issue is that, instead of having the voters choose from slates of electors, the Alabama ballot had voters choose the electors individually. Traditionally, in such a situation, a given candidate is assigned the popular vote of the elector who received the most votes. For instance, candidates pledged to Nixon received anywhere from 230,951 votes (for George Witcher) to 237,981 votes (for Cecil Durham); Nixon is therefore assigned 237,981 popular votes from Alabama.

The more important issue is that the statewide Democratic primary had chosen eleven candidates for the Electoral College, five of whom were pledged to vote for Kennedy, and six of whom were free to vote for anyone they chose. All of these candidates won in the general election, and the six unpledged electors voted against Kennedy. The actual number of popular votes received by Kennedy is therefore difficult to allocate. Traditionally, Kennedy is assigned either 318,303 votes (the votes won by the most popular Kennedy elector) or 324,050 votes (the votes won by the most popular Democratic elector); indeed, the results table below is based on Kennedy winning 318,303 votes in Alabama.


Here is another website on the Alabama results: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/4275

I look forward to other comments!
Logged
Verily
Cuivienen
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,663


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: July 31, 2009, 10:28:15 PM »

Since people have 11 different votes, and 318,303 people chose to vote for the most popular Kennedy elector, there does not appear to me to be any reason not to assign all 318,303 votes to Kennedy in the PV. At least 318,303 people wanted him to get at least one electoral vote. Dividing the most popular elector's vote into elevenths is far more absurd; clearly, a large segment of the population wanted Kennedy to get electoral votes, while only around 6,000 voters (assuming a bit of churn) wanted a Democrat but not Kennedy to get EVs. That people did not have the option of voting for more than five Kennedy electors does not mean that they would not have done so given the choice. Nor does the limited nature of the ballot allow us to arbitrarily divvy up the Democratic vote.

As the overall PV was substantially less close than 6,000 votes, the difference is irrelevant.
Logged
rbt48
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,060


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: August 01, 2009, 05:09:52 PM »

Since people have 11 different votes, and 318,303 people chose to vote for the most popular Kennedy elector, there does not appear to me to be any reason not to assign all 318,303 votes to Kennedy in the PV. At least 318,303 people wanted him to get at least one electoral vote. Dividing the most popular elector's vote into elevenths is far more absurd; clearly, a large segment of the population wanted Kennedy to get electoral votes, while only around 6,000 voters (assuming a bit of churn) wanted a Democrat but not Kennedy to get EVs. That people did not have the option of voting for more than five Kennedy electors does not mean that they would not have done so given the choice. Nor does the limited nature of the ballot allow us to arbitrarily divvy up the Democratic vote.

As the overall PV was substantially less close than 6,000 votes, the difference is irrelevant.

Well, you have to understand, only the electors' names appeared on the ballot, not any Presidential candidate.  Here are a few more websites that might provide further insight:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110004320

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/16/opinion/the-slippery-statistics-of-the-popular-vote.html
Logged
CJK
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 671
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: August 01, 2009, 05:27:46 PM »

The problem is that it assumes that every Democrat in Alabama was really casting 5/11 of a vote for Kennedy and 6/11 of a vote for Byrd, which makes no sense.
Logged
rbt48
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,060


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: August 01, 2009, 10:52:06 PM »

The problem is that it assumes that every Democrat in Alabama was really casting 5/11 of a vote for Kennedy and 6/11 of a vote for Byrd, which makes no sense.

There are problems with the Alabama vote no matter how you count it.  But it is not because I'm a Republican that I have a problem with Kennedy getting credit for all the votes cast for Democratic electors (actually, getting credit for the largest vote for a Democratic elector, who, it turned out was an Unpledged elector!).  Kennedy's name wasn't even on the ballot in Alabama. 

As a parallel, consider 1964 when Johnson wasn't on the ballot in Alabama.  http://members.cox.net/rbt48/weather/Presidential_Elections/1964%20election%20spreadsheet.pdf  Just how many of the Unpledged Democratic elector popular votes did Johnson get credit for in his national vote total?  None!
Logged
President Mitt
Giovanni
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,347
Samoa


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: August 01, 2009, 10:57:32 PM »

Democrats won PV. The Democratic Party's ballot won Alabama.

I agree.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: August 02, 2009, 03:18:21 AM »

One can make a strong argument that Nixon won the 1960 popular vote.  The pivot point is Alabama.  Six of the eleven Democratic Electors were were pledged to Byrd
Liar. Next.
Logged
rbt48
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,060


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: September 04, 2009, 06:08:17 PM »

Lewis, I realize you are a respected and intelligent poster to this website.

I would deeply appreciate it if you would not refer to me as a liar.  You can call me uninformed or misled, or even ugly.  Perhaps dumb might be appropriate.  But not a liar.  Please.
Logged
Alexander Hamilton
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,167
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: -5.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: September 04, 2009, 09:16:42 PM »


America doesn't vote party we vote person.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: September 05, 2009, 03:10:26 AM »

Lewis, I realize you are a respected and intelligent poster to this website.

I would deeply appreciate it if you would not refer to me as a liar.  You can call me uninformed or misled, or even ugly.  Perhaps dumb might be appropriate.  But not a liar.  Please.
But I don't consider you any of these other things. So why would I want to call you them? *shrugs*

Notice that I called you a "liar" only in regards to the quoted part - the first part of your post, and (if you read closely enough) directly contradicted by the wikipedia quote. The presentation of the facts there is slanted but broadly correct, and I'm not calling you anything for it.
Nobody was pledged to Harry Byrd. Harry Byrd was not a presidential candidate that year. Nobody knew who the unpledged electors would be voting for. We are talking of a distinction of pledged Democratic electors versus unpledged Democratic electors, nothing else. You could even make an argument that we are talking of unconditional Kennedy electors versus conditional Kennedy electors, and that the indy vote in Mississippi and Louisiana should be added to Kennedy's popular vote total as well (I'm not actually endorsing that argument, btw.) Certainly the public expectation was that Kennedy would be able to count on the segregationist Electors if he needed them - at a political price.

That's the one thing.

The other thing is of course the background of the claims' popularity. "Democrats oughtn't to complain that we stole 2000 because they stole 1960." Which is a frankly disgusting lie that one would hope has really, really run its course.
Logged
Franzl
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,254
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: September 05, 2009, 04:05:58 AM »


America doesn't vote party we vote person.

Not as strongly as people like to think.
Logged
Free Palestine
FallenMorgan
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,022
United States
Political Matrix
E: -10.00, S: -10.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: September 08, 2009, 11:03:01 PM »

I heard that Daley got Kennedy elected with dirty machine tactics in Chicago.  Thousands of dead people voted for Kennedy.
Logged
Verily
Cuivienen
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,663


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: September 08, 2009, 11:24:40 PM »
« Edited: September 08, 2009, 11:26:26 PM by Verily »

I heard that Daley got Kennedy elected with dirty machine tactics in Chicago.  Thousands of dead people voted for Kennedy.

Not really, no. Yes, there was massive voter fraud in Illinois, but it happened pretty much equally on both sides. And even had Kennedy lost Illinois, he would have won the Electoral College and the election.
Logged
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: September 09, 2009, 12:26:51 AM »

I heard that Daley got Kennedy elected with dirty machine tactics in Chicago.  Thousands of dead people voted for Kennedy.

The beauty of the American electoral system is not that it restricts suffrage only to the living - for all practical purposes, it doesn't. The beauty of the American electoral system is in that overall the dead vote, roughly, the same way as the living Smiley

Of course Chicago cemeteries voted Kennedy - they always vote Dem. But whom did the IL cemeteries outside of Chicago vote for?
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: September 09, 2009, 02:27:51 AM »

There was no massive voter fraud in Illinois. There was *some* fraud in Illinois, by both sides, but nothing out of the ordinary. "Illinois stolen in 1960" is an urban legend, in part a consciously fabricated one.
Logged
rbt48
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,060


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: September 18, 2009, 09:02:48 AM »

There was no massive voter fraud in Illinois. There was *some* fraud in Illinois, by both sides, but nothing out of the ordinary. "Illinois stolen in 1960" is an urban legend, in part a consciously fabricated one.
When you get to heaven one day (not anytime soon, I trust), you'll find out that Nixon actually carried Illinois in 1960 by 1,328 votes.  You'll also learn that Kennedy similarly lost Missouri by 845 votes and barely carried Texas by 3, 205 votes.

Wish I could be there to see the look on your face, but I'm guessing I have reservations in warmer climes.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: September 18, 2009, 09:13:47 AM »

I doubt they keep track of such trifling mortal matters up there... Sad
Logged
Franzl
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,254
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: September 18, 2009, 09:21:05 AM »

There was no massive voter fraud in Illinois. There was *some* fraud in Illinois, by both sides, but nothing out of the ordinary. "Illinois stolen in 1960" is an urban legend, in part a consciously fabricated one.
When you get to heaven one day (not anytime soon, I trust), you'll find out that Nixon actually carried Illinois in 1960 by 1,328 votes.  You'll also learn that Kennedy similarly lost Missouri by 845 votes and barely carried Texas by 3, 205 votes.

Wish I could be there to see the look on your face, but I'm guessing I have reservations in warmer climes.

I think Nixon only won Missouri by 700 votes.
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,258
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: September 18, 2009, 01:07:34 PM »

There was no massive voter fraud in Illinois. There was *some* fraud in Illinois, by both sides, but nothing out of the ordinary. "Illinois stolen in 1960" is an urban legend, in part a consciously fabricated one.
When you get to heaven one day (not anytime soon, I trust), you'll find out that Nixon actually carried Illinois in 1960 by 1,328 votes.  You'll also learn that Kennedy similarly lost Missouri by 845 votes and barely carried Texas by 3, 205 votes.

Wish I could be there to see the look on your face, but I'm guessing I have reservations in warmer climes.

Unusually specific numbers you have there. Any particular source or calculus you're relying on here?

Even assuming for sake of argument you're correct, neither Nixon nor Kennedy win an electoral majority (263 Kennedy to 259 Nixon), thus throwing the election to the overwhelmingly Democratic House and, presto, Kennedy still gets elected.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: September 18, 2009, 01:14:18 PM »

I think you should turn your sarcasmometer up, badger. Smiley
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,258
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: September 18, 2009, 04:48:12 PM »

I think you should turn your sarcasmometer up, badger. Smiley
D'OH!! Sorry. Crappy day at work disables that sometime. :-(
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.054 seconds with 11 queries.