On June 29, 1892, the Prohibition Party held its national convention in Cincinnati. It nominated John Bidwell for President, and James B. Cranfill for Vice-President. Cranfill was age 33 at the time. He had been born September 12, 1858. He was a Texas physician, teacher, and editor of The Baptist Standard. The party made no secret of his age. Cranfill was praised for having accomplished a great deal despite his relative youth.
Despite the fact that Cranfill didn’t meet the Constitutional age requirement, and that this was well known, no state refused to print his name on the ballot because of his age. The ticket appeared on every ballot except South Dakota’s (where the party missed the filing deadline). In 1892, there were 44 states, and all but eight states used government-printed ballots. The eight states that didn’t have government-printed ballots, and where voters or parties prepared their own ballots, were Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia.
No state barred Cranfill from its ballot. Back then, people had a clearer understanding that the true candidates in November are the candidates for presidential elector. The presidential and vice-presidential candidates’ names generally appeared on the ballots as well, but as markers, so the voters would know the intentions of the presidential elector candidates. Also, back then, in every state, voters voted for individual candidates for electors, and weren’t confined to voting for all the members of a slate.
The U.S. Constitution’s provisions concerning the Electoral College have not changed since 1892, but nowadays the public, and even election administrators, don’t understand it as well as they did back then. If people did understand the Electoral College, there would be no instances in which election administrators kept people under the age of 35 years off the ballot, nor would there be any need for lawsuits over whether a particular presidential or vice-presidential candidate is a “natural-born citizen.” The presidential elector candidates would tell the world their intentions. The voters would choose presidential electors. If any presidential elector candidate was elected in November, and in December voted for someone for president who doesn’t meet the constitutional qualifications, it would be up to Congress in January to refuse to count that electoral vote. Congress is free to refuse to count electoral votes. The precedent was set in 1872, when Congress refused to count the three electoral votes that had been cast for Horace Greeley. Congress ruled this way because Greeley had died after the November election but before the December meeting of the Electoral College.
FANTASTIC article!
The editor’s clamor for implementing democracy in regards to the respective State Legislature’s choice for electors to represent the state in advising the Congress in appointment of the POTUS is misplaced.
The US Constitution Article 2 Section 1 has not been amended in regards to Clause 5 nor in regards to the Clause 2 requirements that quote:
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.”
Whether the Editor prefers merely a Nationalized democracy popular vote or not any vote for office of POTUS is just advisory in nature and personally I am of the opinion that the State legislatures must make all choices in chambers in that the voting population has proven in majority mentally incompetent driven by emotions and fantasy to the detriment of the individual citizen suffering from their socialist wrath.
To suggest that the rise of the progressive socialist movement was in anyway in conformance with the constitution especially in regards to the Rockefeller funding of the Prohibition movement to suppress agricultural endeavors in favor of petroleum is a folly at best and treasonous at worst.
What is unconstitutional with a State’s legislature directing that their manner of appointing presidential electors, is to elect a slate of electors who have pledged themselves to vote for persons who are qualified to be President and Vice-President?
You seem to have the erroneous opinion that the 1892 way is the only way.
However in contrast, an under-age Eldridge Cleaver ran for President in 1968 on the Peace and Freedom Party ticket. The Hawaii Secretary of State refused his appearance on the ballot. The decision was appealed to the Hawaii Supreme Court and upheld. A court in New York ruled similarly and I believe he was also excluded from the California ballot.
(while AZ investigative focus on undocumented alien and ineligible selective service filing history of 2012 POTUS/CINC candidate “BO”)
“US President Barack Obama on Monday challenged the “unelected” Supreme Court not to take the “extraordinary” and “unprecedented” step of overturning his landmark health reform law.”
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/combative-obama-warns-supreme-court-health-law-192629533.html
Yes, EXCELLENT ARTICLE!! Here is the Constitution Party’s proposal on this issue along with a link to BAN. Thanks Richard: http://cpwv.org/2012/02/26/the-electoral-college/
The 1872 Congress stuff was one more direct subversion of the Const.
The Electoral College is one of the 3 EVIL minority rule gerrymander systems stuck over the 1787 State legislature gerrymanders.
Will Obama attempt to pack SCOTUS with his robot party hack statist stooges ???
See the 1937 Roosevelt court packing machinations.
—–
Uniform definition of Elector in ALL of the U.S.A.
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
Richard Winger, great post. Obviously you get a lot of comments from morons with oddball views and agendas, like everyone above, but you know, you’re a highly-informed, intelligent adult and most of the intelligent readers (who usually will not comment) appreciate your vast knowledge. Thanks, as always.
You mention that the Prohibition Party’s vice presidential candidate in 1892, James B. Cranfill, was only 34 years old at the time of the election. That is true. You also mention that “the party made no secret of his age” and that “Cranfill didn’t meet the Constitutional age requirement, and that this was well known.” I don’t know if these latter statements are correct. What are your sources? The reason I ask is because in an 1892 Prohibition Party campaign book entitled “Biographical Sketches of General John Bidwell, Prohibition Nominee for President, and Dr. James B. Cranfill, Prohibition Nominee for Vice-President; with Nominating Speeches, National Platform, and Bidwell’s Letter of Acceptance,” written by Edgar Howe, Cranfill’s date of birth is given as September 12, 1857, which would make him old enough (35 years of age) on Election Day, 1892, to become vice president. Indeed, I can’t find anything before Cranfill’s 1916 autobiography which states that he was born in 1858 and not in 1857 and nothing (newspaper articles, etc.) from 1892 that questions or even mentions Cranfill’s qualifications (age wise) to become vice president.