How were possible the results in Mississippi and South Carolina in 1936?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 03, 2022, 12:40:27 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: Dereich)
  How were possible the results in Mississippi and South Carolina in 1936?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: How were possible the results in Mississippi and South Carolina in 1936?  (Read 663 times)
buritobr
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,085


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: August 09, 2022, 10:13:30 PM »

I can understand why did FDR have a big margin. He won a national landslide, there was the anti-Lincoln's party vote in the South, the southeners were willing to vote for democrats even if they were northern liberals, many southeners were very poor and the New Deal was good for them.

But how is it possible to explain 97%?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936_United_States_presidential_election_in_Mississippi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936_United_States_presidential_election_in_South_Carolina
In 1 county in Mississippi and in 2 counties in South Carolina, FDR had 100%

Usually, it's not easy to find 97% who have the same opinion living in a place. It's hard to find this percentage in a single county in the most recent elections. 
Logged
LGC Speaker ZMUN M441
Adowemiti
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,077
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.06, S: -3.48

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: August 09, 2022, 10:33:16 PM »

Voter suppression, especially of Black voters. Due to how racially polarized party support in the 'Solid South' was, these states were practically one-party states for the Dems due to it, all the way from the end of the Reconstruction era in the 19th century until Thurmond's candidacy in 1948.
Logged
If my soul was made of stone
discovolante
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,264
United States


Political Matrix
E: -8.13, S: -5.57

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: August 10, 2022, 10:13:40 AM »

Prior to the 1950s, South Carolina's voter suppression tactics were the most brutal in the nation. Between direct suppression of Black voter registration, poll taxes, and the lack of a secret ballot (thus allowing voter intimidation), the only bloc that could reliably vote was the white elite that was deeply wedded to the upholding of white supremacy. In the '40s poorer upcountry whites in the textile industry began to support more "progressive" candidates (such as Truman over Thurmond in '48) and Black voter registration increased somewhat, but the loosening of these requirements also allowed the gradual realignment of those most benefited by the prior regime to the Republicans, often via unpledged electors/Southern sectional tickets along the way. Much of the same is true of Mississippi; its initial regime of voter suppression was slightly less brutal, but held on for somewhat longer into the '60s.
Logged
CentristRepublican
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,365
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: August 10, 2022, 12:36:21 PM »

Voter suppression, especially of Black voters. Due to how racially polarized party support in the 'Solid South' was, these states were practically one-party states for the Dems due to it, all the way from the end of the Reconstruction era in the 19th century until Thurmond's candidacy in 1948.

Basically this. And IMHO even more crazy than 1936 is 1904 - TR won in a landslide, but in southern states (particularly MS/SC), the results were overwhelmingly (I'm talking 90%+) for Parker. In 1936, FDR still won in a landslide. Parker lost in a landslide and still got ridiculous margins out of the deep south (and if you compare results in SC/MS to national results, you'll find the disparity was much bigger in 1904 than in 1936).
Logged
Orser67
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,773
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: August 10, 2022, 03:38:35 PM »

Agreed with other posters about suppression of the black vote and the lack of the secret ballot being major causes. I'd assume there was also a bit of a vicious cycle going on in terms of Republicans not bothering to vote.

It's also somewhat instructive to look historical vote totals. In 1876, Hayes narrowly carried South Carolina over Tilden, as both received about half of the ~182k votes cast. By 1884, after Democrats had regained over the state, total voter turnout fell to around 90k. In 1936, FDR won 98.5% of the 115k total votes. So South Carolina cast about 1.5x the number of votes in 1876 as it did in 1936, despite the passage of the 19th Amendment, and despite the fact that the state population grew from around 1 million in 1880 to 1.7 million in 1930.

South Carolina's total number of votes cast grew to over 300k in 1952 after South Carolina implemented a secret ballot (ironically, it was signed into law by Strom Thurmond) and repealed the poll tax. After the passage of the Voting Rights Act, South Carolina cast over 650k votes in the 1968 presidential election.
Logged
Old School Republican
Computer89
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 37,211


Political Matrix
E: 2.97, S: 2.09

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: August 10, 2022, 11:45:34 PM »

Here is an insane fact about SC. From 1900-1948 no republican ever got more than 7% in SC but then in 1952 Eisenhower got 49.3%.
Logged
If my soul was made of stone
discovolante
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,264
United States


Political Matrix
E: -8.13, S: -5.57

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: August 11, 2022, 12:36:54 AM »

Here is an insane fact about SC. From 1900-1948 no republican ever got more than 7% in SC but then in 1952 Eisenhower got 49.3%.

introduction of secret ballot + continuing resentment of national Democrats for their overtures towards civil rights + Thurmond endorsed Ike + Ike's campaign gently courting segregationists
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 0.228 seconds with 13 queries.