1960 Popular Vote

[rbt48]

One can make a strong argument that Nixon won the 1960 popular vote.  The pivot point is Alabama.  Six of the eleven Democratic Electors were were pledged to Byrd, while five were pledged to Kennedy.  Yet, nearly every compilation gives Kennedy all the Democratic popular votes.  If, instead, you give Kennedy 5/11ths of the Democratic popular vote and award the other 6/11ths to "Unpledged Electors," the national popular vote margin swings to Nixon.

The logic behind what most tables show is that practice of recording the greatest number of votes for an elector pledged to that candidate as the candidate's state popular vote.  But this method is not reflective of the reality of what occurred in Alabama in 1960.

[rbt48]

Well, here is my table for the alternative 1960 popular vote:  http://members.cox.net/rbt48/weather/Presidential_Elections/Alternate%201960%20election%20spreadsheet.pdf

Democrats won PV. The Democratic Party's ballot won Alabama.

The logic of giving JFK all the Democratic ticket votes defies my understanding of what is reasonable.  It was not a hidden fact that only 5 of the 11 electors in Alabama were pledged to him.  The other 6 electors made it clear that they would vote for Sen Harry Byrd.  Suppose, in the Democratic primary, only one JFK loyalist had been victorious?  Would it still make sense to credit all the Democratic popular votes to JFK?  Or, what if none of the 11 were pledged to JFK; all to Harry Byrd?  How could one argue that the 324,050 Democratic popular votes be credited to Kennedy.
[/quote]
A Wikipedia entry on the 1960 Presdiential Election notes the following for Alabama:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1960

Alabama popular vote

The actual number of popular votes received by Kennedy in Alabama is difficult to determine because of the unusual situation in that state. The first minor issue is that, instead of having the voters choose from slates of electors, the Alabama ballot had voters choose the electors individually. Traditionally, in such a situation, a given candidate is assigned the popular vote of the elector who received the most votes. For instance, candidates pledged to Nixon received anywhere from 230,951 votes (for George Witcher) to 237,981 votes (for Cecil Durham); Nixon is therefore assigned 237,981 popular votes from Alabama.

The more important issue is that the statewide Democratic primary had chosen eleven candidates for the Electoral College, five of whom were pledged to vote for Kennedy, and six of whom were free to vote for anyone they chose. All of these candidates won in the general election, and the six unpledged electors voted against Kennedy. The actual number of popular votes received by Kennedy is therefore difficult to allocate. Traditionally, Kennedy is assigned either 318,303 votes (the votes won by the most popular Kennedy elector) or 324,050 votes (the votes won by the most popular Democratic elector); indeed, the results table below is based on Kennedy winning 318,303 votes in Alabama.

Here is another website on the Alabama results: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/4275

I look forward to other comments!

[rbt48]

Since people have 11 different votes, and 318,303 people chose to vote for the most popular Kennedy elector, there does not appear to me to be any reason not to assign all 318,303 votes to Kennedy in the PV. At least 318,303 people wanted him to get at least one electoral vote. Dividing the most popular elector's vote into elevenths is far more absurd; clearly, a large segment of the population wanted Kennedy to get electoral votes, while only around 6,000 voters (assuming a bit of churn) wanted a Democrat but not Kennedy to get EVs. That people did not have the option of voting for more than five Kennedy electors does not mean that they would not have done so given the choice. Nor does the limited nature of the ballot allow us to arbitrarily divvy up the Democratic vote.

As the overall PV was substantially less close than 6,000 votes, the difference is irrelevant.

Well, you have to understand, only the electors' names appeared on the ballot, not any Presidential candidate.  Here are a few more websites that might provide further insight:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110004320

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/16/opinion/the-slippery-statistics-of-the-popular-vote.html

[rbt48]

The problem is that it assumes that every Democrat in Alabama was really casting 5/11 of a vote for Kennedy and 6/11 of a vote for Byrd, which makes no sense.

There are problems with the Alabama vote no matter how you count it.  But it is not because I'm a Republican that I have a problem with Kennedy getting credit for all the votes cast for Democratic electors (actually, getting credit for the largest vote for a Democratic elector, who, it turned out was an Unpledged elector!).  Kennedy's name wasn't even on the ballot in Alabama. 

As a parallel, consider 1964 when Johnson wasn't on the ballot in Alabama.  http://members.cox.net/rbt48/weather/Presidential_Elections/1964%20election%20spreadsheet.pdf  Just how many of the Unpledged Democratic elector popular votes did Johnson get credit for in his national vote total?  None!

[rbt48]

Lewis, I realize you are a respected and intelligent poster to this website.

I would deeply appreciate it if you would not refer to me as a liar.  You can call me uninformed or misled, or even ugly.  Perhaps dumb might be appropriate.  But not a liar.  Please.

[rbt48]

There was no massive voter fraud in Illinois. There was *some* fraud in Illinois, by both sides, but nothing out of the ordinary. "Illinois stolen in 1960" is an urban legend, in part a consciously fabricated one.

When you get to heaven one day (not anytime soon, I trust), you'll find out that Nixon actually carried Illinois in 1960 by 1,328 votes.  You'll also learn that Kennedy similarly lost Missouri by 845 votes and barely carried Texas by 3, 205 votes.

Wish I could be there to see the look on your face, but I'm guessing I have reservations in warmer climes.