Intro/Outro (00:06)
From the Bill of Rights Institute, Fabric of history weaves together US history, founding principles, and what all of this means to us today. Join us as we pull back the curtains of the past to see what’s inside.

Haley (00:20)
With the Democratic and Republican National Conventions fast approaching, Mary, Gary, and Eryn take a look at the history behind these pivotal electoral systems. From the elitist presidential nominating processes that defined much of the 19th and 20th centuries to the more inclusive systems of the modern era, the roles of party caucuses, primaries, and conventions have shifted it considerably over time. How have today’s elections come to represent the voice of the people?

Mary (00:53)
So it’s an election year, a presidential election year, and summer in an election year means we’re going to have two national conventions. But Interestingly, national nominating conventions aren’t in the Constitution. We just take for granted that this is going to happen, but it wasn’t always this way. So I want to know, what does it take to be a candidate for President when the country first begins? How has that changed over time? How did these conventions come to be?

Eryn (01:23)
I find it very fascinating that this isn’t something in the Constitution and that it somehow naturally became just the way that we do elections in the United States. It’s pretty unique because not a lot of other countries do these national conventions or how we do elections at all.

Gary (01:43)
And I like the way you phrased early on the idea of taking for granted because that’s exactly right. We can go back to early documents, and the concept of elections is one thing, but how they happen is a whole complex series of decisions and procedures that I think I agree are really interesting things to question. So I think the essential element of a Republic having elections and even there is that let’s dive into that. What is the essential part of having a Republic, just a small question to toss out there.

Mary (02:29)
Well, I think that the beauty of the Constitution is that they lay out the essential nuts and bolts, but there’s a lot that needs to be filled in, and it’s we the people that get to fill it in. As far as the President goes, the Constitution gives specific requirements. You have to be a natural-born citizen. You have to be at least 35 years old. But how you are chosen, like who puts you forward and how you conduct a campaign, do you campaign? It wasn’t always seemed as gentlemanly to actually have a campaign. All of these were questions that we’ve had to wrestle with throughout the history of our Republic and choosing who will represent us. It’s really amazing if you stop and kind of think about it, that the fundamental system has been working for as long as it has.

Gary (03:24)
So let me break down what’s on my mind right now. So we have mentioned let’s start with the Constitution, and we are taking for granted, stop me if I’m wrong, that the United States is a Republic. Correct. And in that there are representatives. And this is where I think already it gets really interesting in terms of how does that work? How did we and how should we and how must we, sounds like three questions, have these representatives? And I’m just going to toss that out there.

Mary (04:00)
So I feel like my history nerd teacher self is coming out here because I’m getting excited. So again, it is amazing that we have a Republic. It really is. It’s an experiment that is still working, and it’s something that I think people do take it for granted. If we just stop and think about it, all of our minds will be blown. Like, my mind is blowing up right now. I’m making this blowing-up motion with my hands, and my students would do that thing to me if I were still teaching. But it’s something that the founders themselves struggled with, like how can we have a Republic if the country is so large? And of course, at the time of the founding, the country was much smaller. But the idea is you have to choose people to represent your interests because it won’t work any other way. And by and large, that’s what we’ve been doing in this country. But the details of how that has worked has changed over time because now we have in the summer of a presidential election, this sort of theatrical nominating convention. But that wasn’t happening in 1800. It looked very different. So how did they determine who’s our candidate, who is going to be our candidate? How do we accept them, what makes them legitimate?

Gary (05:22)
Right. And of course, there are multiple candidates. Right. In the very beginning, there’s the whole party concept as we know it today, not really there. George Washington. Let’s go past George Washington just because that’s its own story of him becoming so close to George Washington, let’s say after 1780, 1790s or so, how do people emerge to be even discussed as representatives? And again, I’m also hearing we should clarify, we’re talking about presidential nominees. We’re not talking about sheriffs. A whole other conversation.

Mary (05:57)
So presidential elections. So by 1800, of course, parties or factions are very much it’s clear that they’re emerging, and that’s something that’s kind of a whole other conversation. So how do these parties decide who is going to represent them? And they’re actually between 1800 to 1824, there are party caucuses. So they were drawn from members of Congress, and they take over this power of deciding who from our party is going to represent us. So it’s actually Congress is deciding who they want to put forth as their candidate for President, which is kind of interesting in terms of the power dynamics. Who really has the power? Congress is very powerful. And that’s also something that we take for granted is how powerful Congress was, is meant to be very powerful, and has that changed over time as well. But again, that might be another conversation.

Gary (06:56)
Yes, it is. But that brings up a really interesting point about separation of powers. Right. I mean, beyond just how powerful they are, if you’ve got Congress being kind of responsible for the executive branch, that’s a whole other way of thinking of things.

Mary (07:10)
Yeah, definitely. The change comes the catalyst for change is in the election of 1824, and the caucus process resulted in no candidate winning in the Electoral College. So the election actually goes to the House of Representatives, and John Quincy Adams is chosen as President, even though Andrew Jackson won the popular vote and the Electoral College. So, of course, there’s this huge outcry. He won the popular vote, he won the College, but he’s not the President. So this is what’s going to lead to nominating conventions.

Gary (07:46)
Okay. Perhaps can we walk through a little bit about that particular election? I feel like that’s a huge turning point of like what led to all that.

Mary (07:54)
Yeah, absolutely.

Gary (07:55)
So the election of 1824, might we say it was a pretty unusual one. I mean, I know this from some of our BRI materials. What was it that made it sort of an unusual year that really affected this whole discussion of selecting candidates?

Mary (08:11)
Well, it was unusual that you had no clear winner. So four candidates are vying for the presidency in 1824. You have William Crawford of Georgia. You have Henry Clay from Kentucky, Andrew Jackson of Tennessee, and John Quincy Adams of Massachusetts. And all four of these men are running as National Republicans, but they each represent different regional interests, and no candidates secure, the 131 electoral votes needed to win the election. Jackson gets the biggest share of the popular vote. So there’s no clear winner in the Electoral College. Of course, we go to the Constitution like you do, and the election is thrown into the House of Representatives. So the House of Representatives is, in essence, the kingmaker in this election. They get to choose who the President is going to be, and they chose John Quincy Adams. And Jackson’s supporters, in particular, Andrew Jackson’s are outraged, and they label this the corrupt bargain. And some historians have labeled this election, the election of 1824, is one of the most contentious and controversial in US history, not the, but one of so people were very upset. So things went a little sideways. So we have to adjust the process if we are going to have a situation where you have four people of the same party and nothing we have this outcry over. Basically, many people are saying John Quincy Adams isn’t a legitimate President because he wasn’t elected the way he was supposed to be elected. He was chosen by the House. So we need to revisit our process.

Gary (09:54)
I love your phrase sideways. Like when it goes sideways, it means let’s pay attention again and go back to the what essentially has to happen, and what can we do to help that process along? I really like that question.

Eryn (10:05)
Congress is ultimately choosing our President. Does that uphold the idea of a Republic?

Mary (10:11)
So the following presidential election, you have sort of a rematch. You have Andrew Jackson, who’s now representing a new party, the Democratic Party, and the President John Quincy Adams, and they’re new organizations. So we sort of have this party system reinventing itself a little bit or evolving. And you have sort of two clear candidates being put forth, pitted against each other, and Jackson wins this election.

Eryn (10:43)
So if the goal is to uphold the voice of the people after this election, that kind of went sideways in 1824, how did they reevaluate to uphold that idea?

Mary (10:56)
Right. So between 1818 and 1824, you have these party caucuses, so members of Congress choosing candidates for President, and then we had this corrupt bargain in 1824. So it was felt like we weren’t preserving the voice of the people. So in order to stay true to our essence as a Republic, something needs to change in the process. And the change is that the nominee deciding who is going to be the candidate shifts to the state legislatures. And that is happening in the 1828 and 1832 elections. And that’s largely where it stays from 1836 until 1905. You have the state legislature deciding who the candidate would be.

Gary (11:45)
But that’s really interesting just to put our mindset in it for a couple of decades there then there is this shift to state legislatures, which again, if we’re talking about the foundation being Republic and representative, that seems like that makes sense, right. That means that as long as there’s communication with our state legislatures and so forth, then our voices can be heard or at least represented, which I think is the goal. And so I think that on the surface, sort of does make some sense there, although I also wonder if how those decisions then get made. Probably there seems to be a bit of a gap in the whole process of having representation happen. Someone else representing you, there’s going to be some kind of gap. Right. I think there’s a phrase like smoke-filled rooms and back-office decisions being made and sounds real weird and negative, but these things, these plannings, sort of have to happen. Right. You can’t just put everybody in town’s name in a hat or whole state. I think that’s a really interesting question in terms of if you’re preserving representation and honoring or attending to honor the voice of the people, what’s the best way to do that? And I think working through that over time is important.

Eryn (13:10)
Yeah, I feel like we’ve also come to a lot of quote-unquote answers for that as to how that’s evolved over the years. And it’s not that we only have national conventions, but we have primaries, we have caucuses, we have state conventions. There’s a lot that’s going on. It’s so big. The Iowa State Fair even plays a big part in that. Right? Well, it’s a kick-off for all of the primaries over the summer. And so it’s seen that all presidential candidates should be seen at that state fair. And it’s just really interesting how we get all these little pieces that have built up to this idea of how we think we should elect a candidate.

Gary (13:54)
Yeah. And primaries are a really good example of something. Again, we sort of take for granted, but primaries themselves have to evolve. So I think that’s a really interesting thing to focus on. Maybe after a break.

Mary (14:20)
Hello, Fabric of History listeners. Join the Bill of Rights Institute and fellow educators this fall as we explore topics such as women’s suffrage, the executive branch, and how to use Socratic discussion with your students, see links in show notes, and we hope to see you soon.

Gary (14:41)
So we were talking about one topic right before the break that I think is absolutely worth going into, which is the idea of primaries started off the conversation talking about what we take for granted. I think, again, we kind of take primaries for granted now, but that is something that has sort of evolved over time. And the two elements that we are most visiting is this true representation? Is it capturing the consent of the people? And so I think it’s worth taking a look at sort of the time period of the evolution of primaries.

Mary (15:15)
Yeah, absolutely. We mentioned before the break that you have the state legislatures, but there’s a lot of wheeling and dealing in the smoke field room. There’s bargains, there’s these backroom deals. So you have the general public calling for reform. So this further, like, capture my voice, not the voice of the guy with all the cigars in the room. And that’s starting around 1890, which is the Progressive Era, and we’re in this era of reforms and trying to improve things. So that is when you start to see calling for this idea of a presidential primary where state citizens vote for their preferred candidate is starting to come out of this time period. And by 1916, 25 of 48 states have adopted primary systems. So again, it comes out of that big question that you were proposing in the beginning. What is the answer to how do we make sure Republic reflects its people? And we’ve got a new answer to that, or we’re starting to have an answer to that. With this primary system, it changes again after World War Two because you now have this new media. You have TV and radio, and as a candidate, you can broadcast yourself directly to the people, whereas that wasn’t necessarily the option in 1890. So it’s a game-changer, again.

Gary (16:44)
Yeah. That’s a whole other avenue of discussion that maybe we could pick up on another podcast. Right. The whole idea of a lot of what we’ve been discussing has been we keep saying selection as if it’s something that happens to somebody, but then the idea of campaigning and the whole idea of voluntarily trying very hard to be the candidate, I definitely think it’s a really good conversation. Maybe for another episode.

Mary (17:11)
Yeah. I think it’s because that’s wild. I agree, Gary, I’m with you.

Gary (17:19)
But that’s cool. So you were mentioning the progressive era. That’s also something, again, a little biased as a Long Islander, I tend to hearken back to my days visiting Sagamore Hill and Teddy Roosevelt, and I remember learning a lot about the Progressive Party and how this idea of primaries, it was a big part of what the people were saying can really capture the consent of the people. And I know Teddy Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt for those who weren’t friends with them. I know that was a big concern for him and the Bull Moose Party and this idea that he was winning primaries, but they weren’t happening everywhere. There were only ten, I think around that point. It’s around 1912. I think as you were saying before, Eryn, the fact that it is different in different states and the way it’s happening and the fact that this is evolving over time is having real impacts on the representation of people and what candidates can expect from the election process.

Eryn (18:24)
Right. It’s like we want to uphold the voice of the people, but it’s only getting done in some States. And then does that actually lead to I don’t know. It just seems like the discrepancy gives you a discrepancy in the definition of voice.

Gary (18:40)
And I’m not saying that primaries are the only way capturing the voice of the people and the consent of the people is happening in every state. But the way they go about it is so different. That makes it a really interesting, again, we’re constantly visiting how this is evolving over time and whatnot.

Eryn (19:01)
And that’s what was happening at the time too, as it was evolving, because people were saying, hey, we want more of a voice. And that’s how we started to get the primaries because that idea of the people’s voice was evolving. But it was kind of evolving in that way in that definition at that time because only some states had those primaries.

Gary (19:25)
Right.

Eryn (19:27)
But very meta-question here that we’re not going to go down. But it does make me wonder when you’re talking about Teddy Roosevelt only capturing the primaries, that maybe not the state legislatures is how does that impact the general election, and who those candidates who ultimately get the nomination are?

Gary (19:48)
That is a good rhetorical question that we’d love to hear from listeners.

Eryn (19:52)
Yes, there we go.

Gary (19:54)
If you have thoughts about the process, I highly recommend to reach out to us at comments@fabricofhistory.org because this is an ongoing discussion.

Eryn (20:06)
So you have the Progressive Party, and they said they wanted to uphold the principles of government of the people, by the people, for the people. What happens after that? Do we get more primaries?

Gary (20:22)
Yes.

Eryn (20:23)
How did it get us to today?

Gary (20:24)
Right, They didn’t invent the idea of primaries. Right. So primaries are evolving over time, more popular. Absolutely. So I definitely think it’s worth visiting. Like, again, what do we mean by primaries? How do those work, and how does that lead us through the 20th century and into the 21st century in terms of how we understand how representatives or how candidates emerge from the process? But in all seriousness, these are really good questions. And I think another big element that we’ve hit upon now is primaries. Primaries had existed, whether or not it was in a few states or increasingly more states over time. And that element of primaries is something we recognize as a core part of the process today. Right. And so back to our ongoing question of preserving the people’s voice and whatnot something else that changes that no matter how much of a system that you have, almost comes in from the outside, is how people get informed, because in the 20th century, as you were saying before, you now have new ways that people are being informed about candidates, television, radio, different ways where that voice, correct me if I’m wrong, I would say it’s almost amplified. Right. The direction that people are going in are sending signals to the parties and to the candidates themselves about people’s opinions on candidates because we have real-time updates now from a large number of people across the country on candidates when they talk about an issue or emerge or even declare. Right. So you’ve got this really interesting thing that happens over time, that it’s an event if a candidate is declaring that they intend to become a candidate, as well as the parties themselves, sort of doing what they do, and the legislatures still, and all the people who’ve been talking about still collectively are geared toward one thing, which is selecting a series of candidates for the people to select. And I think to bring us back to the very beginning, we talked about the conventions. Right. And what the meaning of conventions are now, because by the time a convention happens, particularly this year, you sort of know a general surprise, at least the front runners are by the time that hits in an election year. I think that’s definitely worth looking at, coming back to the what is the modern version of our awareness. So our voice can be heard in the form of these conventions and primaries. And whatnot.

Eryn (23:05)
I think it’s really interesting, though, because we have our whole conventions and how we got to them today. But there are other countries around the world that also have elections in the same Democratic process. But that process looks so different because just as we have adapted based on events and circumstances over time, so have those other countries. And it’s led to a very different process, but has the same end result. And so it really begs the question since there are other ways to go about elections, what is essential for those elections to capture the voice of the people?

Gary (23:49)
Absolutely. And I think as the story continues through this summer into an election season, I think paying attention to the mechanics of how it happens, but also the spirit of representing the voice of the people and having the consent of the people, it’s interesting to watch how this process kind of plays out in real-time with that in mind. So I think that those are excellent points. It’s really interesting.

Eryn (24:20)
So we want to hear from you. What do you think is essential for an action to capture the voice of the people and as you watch these conventions, tell us your thoughts at comments@fabricofhistory.org and we’ll see you all next time or listen to you.

Mary (24:38)
Thanks for listening.

Gary (24:39)
Great.

Mary (24:40)
Bye.

Gary (24:40)
Thanks.

Eryn (24:41)
Bye, guys.

Intro/Outro (24:46)
The Bill of Rights Institute engages, educates, and empowers individuals with a passion for the freedom and opportunity that exists in a free society. Check out our educational resources and programs on our website mybri.org any questions or suggestions for future episodes? We’d love to hear from you. Just email us at comments@fabricofhistory.org and don’t forget to visit us on Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram to stay connected and informed about future episodes. Thank you for listening.