• Foni@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    20 days ago

    That is to say, Washington had 100% of the vote in the electoral college, not in the popular vote, of which I suppose there will be no record.

    • PugJesus@piefed.socialOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      20 days ago

      Funny you should mention that - voting there was different as well. Some states do have records of the popular vote, but the votes were for the electors themselves, rather than the presidential (and vice-presidential, as that was voted on separately at the time) candidates they were going to be electing.

      Since all the electors who voted ended up casting a vote for Washington, and we can’t be certain how the failed electors would have voted, even knowing the popular vote totals doesn’t help us. XD

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        20 days ago

        In slightly less than half the states (TIL—I thought it was most or all of them), the electors were chosen by the state legislatures, not using any sort of popular vote at all.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1788–89_United_States_presidential_election

        States had varying methods for choosing presidential electors. In five states, the state legislature chose electors. The other six chose electors through some form involving a popular vote, though in only two states did the choice depend directly on a statewide vote.


        Arguably, that system (along with the pre-17th Amendment method of choosing senators) had better federalist separation of powers, by giving more importance to your state-level representative(s) instead of letting those things be a popular vote.

    • jqubed@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      20 days ago

      And of course, back then, a far smaller percentage of the population were eligible voters