Retrospective US Presidential Election: 1892

[Japhy]

Because Wall Street says it would be bad. Or at least, Wall Street a century ago says it would be bad. Nevermind the fact that we employed greenbacks during the Civil War, or anything.

Yeah destablizing US Currency exchange rates when industrial development and banking are tied to the British Empire's willingness to invest makes perfect sense.

The Civil War was the greatest national crisis of all time, Greenbacks were needed then to Save the union. In the 1870's on the reasoning to do it is merely that some farmers had crazy short-sighted plan to remove their debts. Not really the same caliber of need behind such a move. In 1864 abandoning Greenbacks would cause the Union to fail, in 1880 or 1892 it would trigger massive trade wars and the death of American Industry.

 

[Hierophant]

I imagine this election in all honesty would go to the House but I still think Weaver would win since he would pull some Republican voters, and Grover would need them all to win.

During the worst parts of the Long Recession measures towards inflation would have helped. But thats about over, and in a continuous timeline probably long gone.

Stilled locked in for Palmer. I figure women can vote now, workers have their basic rights recognized, so I can vote for him.

 

[QuoProQuid]

I imagine this election in all honesty would go to the House but I still think Weaver would win since he would pull some Republican voters, and Grover would need them all to win.

During the worst parts of the Long Recession measures towards inflation would have helped. But thats about over, and in a continuous timeline probably long gone.

Stilled locked in for Palmer. I figure women can vote now, workers have their basic rights recognized, so I can vote for him.

To be perfectly honest, I don't think that you can even win the Electoral College with less than a third of the popular vote. The College serves as a plurality magnifier but it has its limits. I can't even imagine how Nerdlinger is going to draw up his wikibox.

 

[Nerdlinger]

To be perfectly honest, I don't think that you can even win the Electoral College with less than a third of the popular vote. The College serves as a plurality magnifier but it has its limits. I can't even imagine how Nerdlinger is going to draw up his wikibox.

Hey, I did it for McGovern in 1972, and he had only 34.71% of the vote. It's mathematically possible to win a majority in the EC with something like 20% of the popular vote, I believe. Democracy at work....

 

[The Red]

Hey, I did it for McGovern in 1972, and he had only 34.71% of the vote. It's mathematically possible to win a majority in the EC with something like 20% of the popular vote, I believe. Democracy at work....

It's winner take all, you could sweep the electoral college with 1.1% of the vote provided everyone else only gets 0.9%.

 

[Nerdlinger]

It's winner take all, you could sweep the electoral college with 1.1% of the vote provided everyone else only gets 0.9%.

I think the figure I recalled was for a two-candidate race, but you're right about that. Theoretically, you could win all 538 EVs in the 2012 election with only 102 total PVs, but that's a bit unlikely.

 

[metastasis_d]

To be perfectly honest, I don't think that you can even win the Electoral College with less than a third of the popular vote. The College serves as a plurality magnifier but it has its limits. I can't even imagine how Nerdlinger is going to draw up his wikibox.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k
Relevant.

 

[Abhakhazia]

With eight minutes to go, we can call this for Weaver.
Does he have the lowest PV for a winner ever? Or does that still go to Cooper? Or whomever else it was.

 

[metastasis_d]

With eight minutes to go, we can call this for Weaver.
Does he have the lowest PV for a winner ever? Or does that still go to Cooper? Or whomever else it was.

Don't feel like looking.

 

[JSmith]

WEAVER WEAVER WEAVER

 

[Nerdlinger]

Don't feel like looking.

Yet you took the time to make another pointless post.

Yes, Weaver now has the lowest % among any presidential winner (even lower than Adams's in 1800 when he lost the PV but won the EV).

 

[metastasis_d]

Yet you took the time to make another pointless post.

Yes, Weaver now has the lowest % among any presidential winner (even lower than Adams's in 1800 when he lost the PV but won the EV).

Well, I opened a new reply tab, then started to look, then my girlfriend showed up with food, so I threw that out there.

 

[Jasen777]

It's winner take all, you could sweep the electoral college with 1.1% of the vote provided everyone else only gets 0.9%.

You only need 11 votes total or so (1 in each of the 11 largest states which wins the state), and someone else could have millions. If we're talking extremes.

 

[Nerdlinger]

You only need 11 votes total or so (1 in each of the 11 largest states which wins the state), and someone else could have millions. If we're talking extremes.

Democracy...!

 

[Paul V McNutt]

Although Debs won three non consecutive terms and Clay two,the OTL non consecutive president does not win.

 

[metastasis_d]

Democracy...!

Haven't you heard the Republican education initiative in Texas? They don't want the word "Democracy" to describe the founding of the US... It's a Republic.

 

[Æsir]

Haven't you heard the Republican education initiative in Texas? They don't want the word "Democracy" to describe the founding of the US... It's a Republic.

It's technically true, yes, but the names of our parties just makes me think the loony wing of the Republicans are trying to hammer in platitudes like that to create a society where terms like "Liberal", "Progressive", and "Democratic" are nigh-on thoughtcrimes.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

Haven't you heard the Republican education initiative in Texas? They don't want the word "Democracy" to describe the founding of the US... It's a Republic.

Which is true, so I don't see the problem.

 

[Van555]

Which is true, so I don't see the problem.

It's a Federal Democratic republic and that's final!