South Carolina, 90%'s for the Democrats throughout history
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 11:20:19 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  South Carolina, 90%'s for the Democrats throughout history
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: South Carolina, 90%'s for the Democrats throughout history  (Read 3277 times)
TommyC1776
KucinichforPrez
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,162


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: June 02, 2006, 07:13:59 PM »

How come South Carolina always gave Dems like 90% or more in the popular votes (when it went Dem.) and other Southern states never gave Dems that much?(percentage wise).

From,

KucinichforPrez
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: June 02, 2006, 08:05:43 PM »

Party politics got a late start here.  We didn't start making any elections officially partisan until the 1850's.  Our weak executive branch made the case for a statewide party weak. Then the Civil War and Reconstruction caused our politics to be polarized by the issues of race and sectionalism, so that once Tillman caused the blacks and Yankees to be disenfranchised in the 1890's, the voters who were left were monolithically Democratic.  Our election laws still carry remnants from when the Democrats did their best to hamper the Republicans.  For instance, I think we may be the only State that requires the parties to pay the cost of holding primaries.  I don't think the Republicans held a primary in South Carolina until the 1970's as a result, and used county conventions instead as they were cheaper, tho they were far less effective in helping to get out the vote.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,697
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: June 03, 2006, 10:47:22 PM »

Because the elections were similar to the elections in Iraq under Saddam, to call them legitimate "elections" is a joke.
Logged
Max
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 276


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: June 04, 2006, 03:37:00 AM »

...
and other Southern states never gave Dems that much?
...

Dems also got 90%+ in Mississippi several times
Logged
True Democrat
true democrat
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,368
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.10, S: -2.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: June 04, 2006, 02:31:35 PM »

Party politics got a late start here.  We didn't start making any elections officially partisan until the 1850's.  Our weak executive branch made the case for a statewide party weak. Then the Civil War and Reconstruction caused our politics to be polarized by the issues of race and sectionalism, so that once Tillman caused the blacks and Yankees to be disenfranchised in the 1890's, the voters who were left were monolithically Democratic.  Our election laws still carry remnants from when the Democrats did their best to hamper the Republicans.  For instance, I think we may be the only State that requires the parties to pay the cost of holding primaries.  I don't think the Republicans held a primary in South Carolina until the 1970's as a result, and used county conventions instead as they were cheaper, tho they were far less effective in helping to get out the vote.

I think he means why is South Carolina significantly (about 10%) more Democratic than other states than Georgia, Alabama, Louisana, etc.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,611


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: June 04, 2006, 02:52:03 PM »

Party politics got a late start here.  We didn't start making any elections officially partisan until the 1850's.  Our weak executive branch made the case for a statewide party weak. Then the Civil War and Reconstruction caused our politics to be polarized by the issues of race and sectionalism, so that once Tillman caused the blacks and Yankees to be disenfranchised in the 1890's, the voters who were left were monolithically Democratic.  Our election laws still carry remnants from when the Democrats did their best to hamper the Republicans.  For instance, I think we may be the only State that requires the parties to pay the cost of holding primaries.  I don't think the Republicans held a primary in South Carolina until the 1970's as a result, and used county conventions instead as they were cheaper, tho they were far less effective in helping to get out the vote.

Wow, the SC capitol has a statue for this horrible horrible person? SC ought to be ashamed of themselves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Tillman
Logged
Kevin
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,424
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: June 14, 2006, 07:50:06 AM »

Because the Democratic Pary has changed.
Logged
WalterMitty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,572


Political Matrix
E: 1.68, S: -2.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: June 14, 2006, 08:26:00 AM »

because they werent allowing blacks to vote.

also, other southern states, like nc,  have always had some areas that were republican strongholds (ie the blue ridge)
Logged
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: June 14, 2006, 01:40:57 PM »
« Edited: June 14, 2006, 01:43:53 PM by ag »

South Carlolina also had ridiculous turnouts even among the whites. In 1924 only about 50 thousand voters turned out to "determine the fate" of SC's 9 electoral votes (over 96.5% voting D, less then 2.5% voting R), whereas the 10 electoral votes in Mississipi got nearly 115 thousand voters to show up (89% D) and Arkansas with 9 electoral votes attracted about 140 thousand voters. Of course, even the Mississipi and Arkansas tournouts were ridiculous: in West Virginia in the same election, though it had only 8 electoral votes, saw nearly 600 thousand voters and Rhode Island with just 5 electoral votes had over 200 thousand voters.  Even if you assume (as you should do) that the black turnout was essentially zero, the white turnout in South Carolina was not much above 20% either.

To sum up, talking about the general elections in South Carolina in the 1920s is not much more sensible than talking about elections in the Soviet Union during the same time. Both stood in roughly the same relation to democracy (except that the Soviets forced everybody to show up, while the South Carolinians where content with nobody, but the local party activists, going through the motions of voting).
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: June 16, 2006, 03:54:45 AM »

I've pointed out in the past that South Carolinas turn-out actually declined after Reconstruction and never recovered until after WWII.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: June 16, 2006, 07:40:20 PM »

If you know what the result will be, why vote?  I suspect that the turnout was higher for the Demicratic primaries than the general election in the first haf of the 20th century.
Logged
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: June 16, 2006, 09:39:09 PM »

If you know what the result will be, why vote?  I suspect that the turnout was higher for the Demicratic primaries than the general election in the first haf of the 20th century.

Of course. But the fact, that in a state with, ostensibly, many hundreds of thousands eligible voters there was not even an attempt to energize some 50 thousands to try to defeat the official candidate means one of two things: a) there was an enormous coincidence of preference of all citizens b) there was no feasible way of running any political campaign outside the Democratic Party.  The latter, of course was the case.

You could argue that 1924 vote did express the "will of South Carolina", but 1928 clearly disproves it. With the reviled "wet" Catholic Al Smith on the ballot, SC still reports 91.31% for the Dems. But this "overwhelming" tally still represents only 62,700 (exactly) votes, out of the total of less than 70,000 votes cast. Now, don't tell me that there weren't 70,000 people in SC who believed that Al Smith was worse than Herbert Hoover (or, for that matter, than the Antichrist himself). If they didn't want to vote Republican, there must have been something to prevent them from registering another candidate. For almost 2 generations SC never had the D candidate get less than 90% of the vote, nor did it have even 150 thousand voters show up.

By the way, even though most other Southern states in 1924 were equally uncompetitive, the turnouts were still substantially higher. Something was particularly bad in that state. A poor one-party apartheid state where almost all citizens, whatever their race, were denied political rights, that's what South Carolina was in 1924.
Logged
Virginian87
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,598
Political Matrix
E: -3.55, S: 2.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: June 23, 2006, 10:11:15 AM »

The Democrats controlling South Carolina, yes those were the days (aside from the whole segregation thing).

Man I miss Fritz Hollings.
Logged
Josh/Devilman88
josh4bush
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,079
Political Matrix
E: 3.61, S: -1.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: June 23, 2006, 03:19:06 PM »

North Carolina only vote over 70 percent for Jackson in 1828(73.07%) and 1832(84.77%).
Logged
Olin D. Johnston
Rookie
**
Posts: 19


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: June 26, 2006, 06:40:37 AM »

If you know what the result will be, why vote?  I suspect that the turnout was higher for the Demicratic primaries than the general election in the first haf of the 20th century.

At the time, winning the Democratic Primary was litterly like winning the election.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.04 seconds with 11 queries.