The Importance of One Vote

[PBrunsel]

In 1845 President Sam Houston of the Lone Star Republic of Texas waited for a messenger. This was no ordinary messenger, this man brought news on how the Senate had voted on Texas statehood. After a long time, the messenger arrived with the letter. President Houston felt guilty about reading it first, so he instead went outside and read it to the crowd. It started, “From your honorable servant Stephen Austin,” and continued a greeting. Finally Houston came to the part that said Texas had become a state by the margin of one vote! This one vote came from a Senator from Indiana, James Harrigan. Harrigan was expected to vote against Texas statehood, but instead voted for it. His vote made Texas a state by one vote.

Now back to the year 1842. In Indiana all the Indiana State Legislators had voted for the new Senator. Since there were an odd number of legislators, there was a three way tie. The candidates, all Democrats, were Harold Zummwald, Benjamin Rothchild, and an unknown man named James Harrigan. The President Pro-Tempe of the Senate, Madison Marsh, had to cast the deciding vote. After talking with his advisors during a 5 minute recess, he made his choice: Mr. James Harrigan. Harrigan was elected Senator by just one vote.

Going farther back to the year 1836, an Indiana farmer named Jamison Shoemaker was working in the field. A neighbor of his reminded him that it was Election Day, and Shoemaker was off to vote. He got to the polls a few minutes before they closed. There he voted for state senator. He chose Madison Marsh. The final vote tally was showed Madison Marsh had 218 votes to his opponents 217. Marsh was elected by just one vote!

Shoemaker voted for Marsh, who won by one vote.

Marsh voted for Harrigan, who won by one vote.

Harrigan voted for Texas Statehood, which won by one vote.

Just goes to show you one vote really does matter.

[zachman]

Here's one of my favorite Norm MacDonald jokes:
"And in Connecticut, where I live, a House race was won by a margin of just two votes. Well, that's good. My vote still wouldn't have made any difference at all. ..."

[Blerpiez]

In 1839, Marcus "Landslide" Morton was elected governor of Massachusetts by one vote.  In those days, the governor had to recieve a majority of the vote.  Landslide recieved 51034 of 102066 votes cast.  One less, and the election would have been thrown to the state legislature

[Gustaf]

In 1839, Marcus "Landslide" Morton was elected governor of Massachusetts by one vote.  In those days, the governor had to recieve a majority of the vote.  Landslide recieved 51034 of 102066 votes cast.  One less, and the election would have been thrown to the state legislature

IIRC, the crazy bastard did it TWICE!

[??????????]

In 1839, Marcus "Landslide" Morton was elected governor of Massachusetts by one vote.  In those days, the governor had to recieve a majority of the vote.  Landslide recieved 51034 of 102066 votes cast.  One less, and the election would have been thrown to the state legislature

IIRC, the crazy bastard did it TWICE!

What does IIRC mean?

[JohnFKennedy]

In 1839, Marcus "Landslide" Morton was elected governor of Massachusetts by one vote.  In those days, the governor had to recieve a majority of the vote.  Landslide recieved 51034 of 102066 votes cast.  One less, and the election would have been thrown to the state legislature

IIRC, the crazy bastard did it TWICE!

What does IIRC mean?

If I Recall Correctly I think.....

[Gustaf]

In 1839, Marcus "Landslide" Morton was elected governor of Massachusetts by one vote.  In those days, the governor had to recieve a majority of the vote.  Landslide recieved 51034 of 102066 votes cast.  One less, and the election would have been thrown to the state legislature

IIRC, the crazy bastard did it TWICE!

What does IIRC mean?

If I Recall Correctly I think.....

It means If I recall correctly, IIRC.

[Blerpiez]

In 1839, Marcus "Landslide" Morton was elected governor of Massachusetts by one vote.  In those days, the governor had to recieve a majority of the vote.  Landslide recieved 51034 of 102066 votes cast.  One less, and the election would have been thrown to the state legislature

IIRC, the crazy bastard did it TWICE!

In 1842, the election was thrown to the legislature, where Landslide won by one vote

[MHS2002]

A town near mine (Luray, VA) just held their election for mayor. The result: 584-583.

[Platypus]

Sounds like a Jeffrey Archer book group

I lost my form captain election by 15-13. My best friend voted for the other guy. If he had've vote for me, the teacher would have chosen, and considering she hates the guy who won i think it woulda been me. Oh well, next year

I also won by the same margin (15-13) in year 9 though, so...

(I was massacred in year 10, 20-8 )

[A18]

Unfortunately, if that ever happened today, the loser would demand a recount.

[J. J.]

In a local race, township supervisor, I remember one decided by one vote.  It was won when a college student cast an absentee ballot.  I mailed him the application.  :-)

[minionofmidas]

Unfortunately, if that ever happened today, the loser would demand a recount.

While back then, they regularly contested their opponent's credentials in the House. In the 19th century, the House more often than not declared at  least one of its members' election invalid. They didn't mandate recounts or revotes either, they just seated the other guy. Sometimes they did this months into the term.

[J. J.]

Unfortunately, if that ever happened today, the loser would demand a recount.

While back then, they regularly contested their opponent's credentials in the House. In the 19th century, the House more often than not declared at  least one of its members' election invalid. They didn't mandate recounts or revotes either, they just seated the other guy. Sometimes they did this months into the term.

This occured in Speaker Reed's famous "quorum count" in 1890.  Several newly elected members were Black Southern Republicans that the Democrats didn't want to seat.

[minionofmidas]

Unfortunately, if that ever happened today, the loser would demand a recount.

While back then, they regularly contested their opponent's credentials in the House. In the 19th century, the House more often than not declared at  least one of its members' election invalid. They didn't mandate recounts or revotes either, they just seated the other guy. Sometimes they did this months into the term.

This occured in Speaker Reed's famous "quorum count" in 1890.  Several newly elected members were Black Southern Republicans that the Democrats didn't want to seat.

As late as 1890? You sure? IIRC no Blacks got elected after ca.1880 except for the 1st NC, which sent one solitary Black Rep to Congress until early in the 20th century. Of course, in 1928(?), the first-ever Northern Black Congressman got elected on Chicago's South Side. (A Republican, beat after two terms by a Democrat.)

[J. J.]

Unfortunately, if that ever happened today, the loser would demand a recount.

While back then, they regularly contested their opponent's credentials in the House. In the 19th century, the House more often than not declared at  least one of its members' election invalid. They didn't mandate recounts or revotes either, they just seated the other guy. Sometimes they did this months into the term.

This occured in Speaker Reed's famous "quorum count" in 1890.  Several newly elected members were Black Southern Republicans that the Democrats didn't want to seat.

As late as 1890? You sure? IIRC no Blacks got elected after ca.1880 except for the 1st NC, which sent one solitary Black Rep to Congress until early in the 20th century. Of course, in 1928(?), the first-ever Northern Black Congressman got elected on Chicago's South Side. (A Republican, beat after two terms by a Democrat.)

Yes,  SC had at least one, George Washington Murray, who was a member until 1897, and NC had George Henry White, who served until 1901.  These look like the two challenged; they were both in their seats previously.

[Redefeatbush04]

In 1845 President Sam Houston of the Lone Star Republic of Texas waited for a messenger. This was no ordinary messenger, this man brought news on how the Senate had voted on Texas statehood. After a long time, the messenger arrived with the letter. President Houston felt guilty about reading it first, so he instead went outside and read it to the crowd. It started, “From your honorable servant Stephen Austin,” and continued a greeting. Finally Houston came to the part that said Texas had become a state by the margin of one vote! This one vote came from a Senator from Indiana, James Harrigan. Harrigan was expected to vote against Texas statehood, but instead voted for it. His vote made Texas a state by one vote.

Now back to the year 1842. In Indiana all the Indiana State Legislators had voted for the new Senator. Since there were an odd number of legislators, there was a three way tie. The candidates, all Democrats, were Harold Zummwald, Benjamin Rothchild, and an unknown man named James Harrigan. The President Pro-Tempe of the Senate, Madison Marsh, had to cast the deciding vote. After talking with his advisors during a 5 minute recess, he made his choice: Mr. James Harrigan. Harrigan was elected Senator by just one vote.

Going farther back to the year 1836, an Indiana farmer named Jamison Shoemaker was working in the field. A neighbor of his reminded him that it was Election Day, and Shoemaker was off to vote. He got to the polls a few minutes before they closed. There he voted for state senator. He chose Madison Marsh. The final vote tally was showed Madison Marsh had 218 votes to his opponents 217. Marsh was elected by just one vote!

Shoemaker voted for Marsh, who won by one vote.

Marsh voted for Harrigan, who won by one vote.

Harrigan voted for Texas Statehood, which won by one vote.

Just goes to show you one vote really does matter.

That is pretty cool. The question is, had he not shown up to vote, what would have happened?

[PBrunsel]

That is pretty cool. The question is, had he not shown up to vote, what would have happened?

There in lies an idea for an alternate history.

[Platypus]

but it wasn't necessarily Shoemaker's vote that made the difference. That's just a bit of fluff

[PBrunsel]

but it wasn't necessarily Shoemaker's vote that made the difference. That's just a bit of fluff

Had Shoemaker not voted for Indiana State Senator then it would have been a tie. Marsh's opponent could have won the run-off and voted for Rothchild or Zumwald for Senate and one of them could have voted against Texas becoming a state.

Shoemaker's vote was very important.

[Colin]

PBrunsel you should do another story. This time make it about an independent Texas.

[Silent Hunter]

One vote brought down the Callaghan government and led to 18 years of Tory rule.

[Nym90]

The election for Mayor of my town was decided by 4 votes initially, then after a recount, was decided by one vote. I voted for the winning candidate.

Hmm, maybe I should call her up and demand a job. After all, she owes her position to me (well, and 1,432 other people, as well...).

[minionofmidas]

but it wasn't necessarily Shoemaker's vote that made the difference. That's just a bit of fluff

Had Shoemaker not voted for Indiana State Senator then it would have been a tie. Marsh's opponent could have won the run-off and voted for Rothchild or Zumwald for Senate and one of them could have voted against Texas becoming a state.

Shoemaker's vote was very important.

But no more that those of every single other Marsh supporter.

[minionofmidas]

One vote brought down the Callaghan government and led to 18 years of Tory rule.

The Callaghan government lost a no-confidence vote by a margin of one vote, yes. Of course there would have been an election about half a year later, which the Tories would have likely won, anyways.
One Labour MP who hadn't voted in the no-confidence vote explained that he had been too ill to attend, and just to prove his point, died a few days later.