mgf1107notes7

mgf1107notes7 - In 1850, Representative Samuel Vinton of...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–4. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
In 1850, Representative Samuel Vinton of Ohio proposed a “new” method that was nothing but a thinly disguised version of Hamilton’s method. In fact, Vinton’s Act made Hamilton’s method law. Although it remained on the books well into the 20 th century, Hamilton’s method was never strictly followed. For example, the apportionment that followed the census of 1870 saw the House size increased to 283. This number was chosen because the methods of Hamilton and Webster would produce the same apportionment. Several months later 9 seats were added bringing the House size to 292 (and later to 293) and the resulting apportionment agreed with neither the Hamilton nor Webster method. The Presidential Election of 1876 resulted in the following popular vote: Candidate (Party Affiliation) Votes Samuel J. Tilden (Democrat) 4,284,020 Rutherford B. Hayes (Republican) 4,036,572 Peter Cooper (Greenback) 81,737 Hayes won the Electoral College vote 185-184. There were 4 states whose apportionment differed from that given by Hamilton’s method. State Actual apportionment Hamilton apportionment Won by New York 33 34 Tilden
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Illinois 19 20 Hayes New Hampshire 3 2 Hayes Florida 2 1 Hayes Had Hamilton’s method been used as required by the Vinton Act of 1850, Tilden would have picked up an extra electoral vote in New York and won, 185-184. After the election both sides accused the other of voting irregularities. In the aftermath of the contested election, a special commission was created consisting of 5 senators, 5 representatives, and 5 Supreme Court justices. Seven were Democrats, seven were Republicans, and one was a justice who was supposed to be neutral between the parties. In every case where contested state election results were decided by the commission, the vote was 8-7 with the “neutral” justice siding with Hayes and the Republicans. There was talk of blocking the inauguration of Hayes, but an agreement was reached by which federal troops would be withdrawn from the South and Reconstruction governments would be ended. For the apportionments following the censuses of 1910 and 1930 a variation of Webster’s method was used. The House was never apportioned based on the 1920 census, because the new apportionment using Webster’s method would have resulted in a huge loss of seats from rural areas. Congress was unable to agree on an apportionment and decided to disregard the 1920 census
Background image of page 2
results, using the justification that during the war many people had temporarily left farms to seek work in cities and that, furthermore, rural areas had been grossly undercounted because the census had been taken in the middle of an unusually severe winter. Around 1911, Joseph Hill, chief statistician for the Census Bureau, and Edward Huntington, a Harvard math professor, developed a new method of apportionment .
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 4
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 19

mgf1107notes7 - In 1850, Representative Samuel Vinton of...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 4. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online