22:40
I'm Lindsey Chervinsky, executive director of the George Washington Presidential Library. I'm here to answer your questions today from the internet. This is US Election Support. LoanLady75 asks, "Why does the American election campaign process take so long?" It doesn't have to take this long, but imagine Congress passed a bill saying this was the moment when candidates were supposed to declare their election and start campaigning. If a candidate declared before then, and they were held in violation, they would likely bring a lawsuit challenging the bill's restrictions on their freedom of speech.
One of our most important amendments is our First Amendment, which guarantees a certain amount of political speech, especially for candidates. And various different levels of American courts, including the Supreme Court, have been very protective of political speech. So, it would be very difficult to put limitations on the political process in this way, because they would likely be struck down by the court. Reddit user asks, "Both parties have reason to hate the Electoral College, so why does it still exist?" The Electoral College exists because it is in the Constitution, and it is incredibly difficult to change. The interesting
thing about the Electoral College is many of the delegates at the Constitutional Convention opposed direct election of the president because they worried that it would lead to a demagogue or mob rule. So, they wanted to have some sort of check between American voters and the presidency, but they didn't necessarily want to empower the state legislatures to make that choice. So, in a committee towards the very end of the Constitutional Convention, they came up with the concept of the Electoral College and squished it in. It was passed with a vote and written into the draft Constitution, which was then ratified by the states. In order to amend the Constitution, the bill would have to pass Congress by a two-thirds vote in both houses, and then would have to be
approved by three-quarters of the states. That's highly unlikely to happen at this point. WHD13B says, "Gerrymandering needs to be outlawed. It's cheating. If you can't win based on your policies and have to gerrymander to win an election, you're clearly not the winning party." A lot of voters agree with you. Gerrymandering is highly unpopular in the United States today. And in fact, all Congress would need to do is to pass a bill outlawing either racial or political gerrymandering. Gerrymandering originally emerged in 1812 in Massachusetts when Elbridge Gerry, so we're actually saying it wrong, it should be gerrymandering, approved a gerrymandered map of the Massachusetts legislature in order to give the
Democratic Republicans the advantage. And Congress hasn't passed that law that would be needed to outlaw it because it would often diminish their power. No one really wants to vote themselves out of office, and so neither party is incentivized to do so when they have control. Stop having an opinion asks, "Why do young people rarely turn up in numbers at elections?" Young people don't vote in the same numbers as older generations for a couple of reasons. They tend to be more transient, moving regularly, often going to college or other places for work. And they often haven't updated their voter registration or their address, or maybe they're still getting a ballot at home with their parents, but
don't have access to it. Young people often have jobs that are less flexible. Maybe they are wage workers or they're working hourly and they aren't able to take that time off for the election. And lastly, young people often don't have the same sort of accumulated wealth. So a lot of the decisions that are being made on the local ballot, the state ballot, or even the national ballot seem like they will have less impact on their financial security or their financial future. Those that have money tend to be more invested in the outcome and are much more likely to vote at higher rates. I've got dumb questions asks, "Can the president cancel or postpone an election?" No.
Elections are entirely controlled by the states, and any federal legislation is controlled by Congress. And the reason we know this is so is that during the Civil War, probably the nation's most significant crisis, we continued to hold regular elections and even managed to get absentee ballots to Civil War soldiers. AdRealistic1356 asks, "Why are US elections held on a Tuesday in November rather than on a Sunday as in some other countries?" Congress passed a bill in 1845 which mandated that federal elections are to be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. This was originally selected as the day because the United States was still largely an
agrarian society, meaning that most people had to harvest their crops in the fall. So, by the time November rolled around, most farmers were able to make their way to the polls, which sometimes required traveling a great deal of distance. And why a Tuesday? Tuesdays were really selected for convenience. Sundays were church days and Wednesdays were usually market days. So, selection of a Tuesday gave farmers time to travel to and from their place of polling. SomeSam asks, "How is it ensured that those counting the votes do not commit fraud themselves?" Our elections are incredibly safe. They are some of the safest in the world. And that's because there are several levels of checks along
the way. Each county generally has a counting process where it compares voter rolls to the poll registers that are actually showing up on that day. There are then digital records that are compared to the paper ballots and the paper polls that are taken. Those are then often sent to a county commissioner board to do an audit to ensure that they pass the various regulations. They are sent to the state and then they are sent to the federal level. So, all of those levels of protections really ensure that the votes are counted safely and that there is very little fraud. HipHopTomato asks, "Why can't we make online voting work?" We actually can.
West Virginia piloted a program in 2018 where voters cast their vote on a blockchain system. The only reason all of the states don't include online voting as an option is because it would require each state legislature to pass a bill extending a virtual ballot to the voters. However, some experts think that paper balloting is much more secure because then you have an option to go back and count the paper ballots. So, a lot of state officials still oppose an online voting system and it's unlikely to become widespread in the near future. Humble Economist 8933 asks, "Why did the Founding Fathers design a system that guaranteed the two-party doom they feared?" So, the system that the Founding Fathers created doesn't
actually guarantee a two-party system. It does make it likely that political factions would emerge, which is what they were anticipating. They thought that there would be a lot of little factions that would come together to form a coalition over one particular issue or one particular candidate, but then would dissolve and reorganize in a couple of years. The two-party system really emerged over the primary process. The way that we count votes for the Electoral College is often decided by a winner-takes-all system, meaning whoever wins the state gets all of the delegates. That makes it much harder for a third-party candidate or an independent candidate to make its way
onto the ballot in a serious way and cause real competition to one of the two parties. FK430 asks, "Why do we limit the presidency to two terms?" George Washington only served two terms as president, and he did so because he felt that it was really important for Americans to learn how to conduct a peaceful transfer of power while he was alive. Otherwise, all of his successors would be likely to serve for the rest of their lives, making the presidency basically an elected king. Most of Washington's successors adhered to that two-term president until Franklin D. Roosevelt, who ran and won four terms. After Franklin D. Roosevelt died, Congress proposed in 1947 an amendment, the 22nd, making this two-term precedent
embedded in the Constitution. In 1951, it was ratified by the necessary states, and now restricts all presidents to two terms. A user from President subreddit asks, "Was Nixon's performance during the debates partly to blame for his loss?" Yes, but not necessarily because he said anything wrong or was inaccurate with his information. The 1960 election was a watershed moment in American politics. It was the first time that television had really played a role, and it was the changing of the guard of a new generation. John F. Kennedy really played to the cameras, and it seemed like he understood the medium. He was
tanned, his outfit looked great on television, and he looked young and vibrant. On the other hand, Richard Nixon hadn't have the appropriate makeup put on, and he had a really heavy five o'clock shadow from his beard. He looked kind of old and sweating, as though he was part of the older generation. And this confirmed what a lot of people were already thinking. Dwight D. Eisenhower had been in the office for eight years, and although he was a very successful president, many Americans were ready for a generational change. Because John F. Kennedy looked so young and vibrant on television, that confirmed what a lot of people thought, that he was the right person for this new moment.
Got Pearl asks, "What was the reasoning for picking 35 as the minimum age for president of the United States?" During the Constitutional Convention, George Mason, who was older, he was in his 60s, suggested that there should be an age limit for the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the presidency. And he referred to his own experience when he was 21 and he didn't have much knowledge or wisdom. Not everyone agreed with him. James Wilson, who was in his 40s, suggested that any date would be arbitrary. And he referred to many great British prime ministers and members of Parliament in the past who had done extraordinary things in their 20s.
The Lonzo asks, "Did George W. Bush really steal an election in the 2000 USA election?" The 2000 presidential election was contested and incredibly controversial. On the actual election day, there wasn't a final result because of the Florida votes. The ballots were complicated. There was a butterfly ballot effect, which caused several of the ballots that were cast for Al Gore to go to a third-party candidate. A butterfly ballot required the voter to punch out their selection. But, the way that the punch out worked often was confusing and led to mixed results. Additionally, because the vote was so close, a recount under Florida law was required. However, the Bush campaign challenged that recount, and it
ultimately went up to the Supreme Court, which stopped the recount, handing the election to Bush. Later analysis of the election suggests that if a recount was conducted of just the one county, President Bush likely would have been the winner. Whereas, if a recount was conducted of the entire state, Al Gore likely would have won Florida and also the presidential election. Mysterious Mix 6879 asks, "Which election was truly the last landslide?" Probably both of Ronald Reagan's elections. In 1980, Ronald Reagan beat Jimmy Carter 489 electoral votes to 49. And in 1984, he beat Walter Mondale 525
votes to 13. In the 1970s, the United States was going through a really difficult period with the loss of Vietnam, Watergate, inflation, and then Jimmy Carter's presidency was largely seen as a failure due to the Iran hostage negotiations. Ronald Reagan offered a vision of the United States as proud. He encouraged people to be patriotic, and he seemed really like he would be a strong defender of the nation around the world. People were really ready for a change, and Reagan was a happy warrior and harnessed that change. Stronger Than Before 20 asks, "Why do midterms usually end up with the party of the current president losing?"
Midterms halfway through a presidential election tend to be a referendum on that current administration. So because we only elect a president every 4 years, that midterm election is a way to express either approval or disapproval. And for better for worse, Americans tend to get frustrated with their presidents. They tend to have a fairly short attention span and they want things to change after a couple of years. A Reddit user asks, "What's the point of voting when only seven states really matter?" We don't just vote for presidents. We vote for local officials, we vote for state officials, and we of course vote for federal officials. Our
votes on all of those elections impact everything from the quality of our roads, our local education and schools, financial policy, Supreme Court candidates, and more. Additionally, those seven states often change over time. So just because you are in a safe blue state or red state now, doesn't mean that they won't be a swing state later. Lastly, just remember if you don't vote, you don't get to complain. SICB Price asks, "Could an independent or third-party candidate for US president ever actually win?" Yes, this is possible. However, it would require a great deal of reform at the primary and state level. State primaries largely
prioritize Republicans and Democrats, the two entrenched parties. It's much more difficult to get on the ballot if you're not a member of those two parties. So we would need to pass a great deal of legislation at the state level to change how primary systems work. You would also then need to pass legislation at the state level to change how the Electoral College votes are counted. For example, California has 54 Electoral College votes and whoever wins the state gets all of those votes. Whereas states like Nebraska and Maine actually split up their Electoral College votes depending on the congressional district. If all states split up their votes depending on the district, it would be much more likely that a third-party candidate could win
or could at least win enough to throw the election to the House of Representatives where the states would vote rather than individual voters. A user on Reddit asks, "Why doesn't the US do an election week instead of a single day?" The United States actually used to do an election 6 weeks. Each state got to decide when it held its election and those generally took place from late September up to early November. And then they sent their results into the Electoral College or into depending on the election. This understandably caused a great deal of chaos because the news would come trickling in and maybe the results of an
early state would affect a later state was a lot of gamesmanship and how these elections took place. So in 1845, Congress decided to pass a bill to make the federal election one day, the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. Jimmy Colb asks, "What happens if no US presidential candidate receives 270 Electoral College votes?" For those who don't know, 270 is the required minimum in order to win a presidential election. If no candidate receives 270 either because there's a tie or there are several candidates, then the election is thrown to the House of Representatives. The House of Representatives vote with each state getting one vote, not each representative, which means if we have
50 states, there would be 50 votes. Of course, in addition to territories and places like Washington, D.C. So that would mean that a candidate would need 26 votes to win. That's all the questions today. Hope you learned something. Until next time.
