(Pre/Post 1900)AHC: Another 4-way Presidential Election after 1860

[Nofix]

We had a few good third party attempts: Populists, Roosevelt, the Dixiecrats, Wallace, and Perot, but they weren't the four way messes 1824 and 1860 were.

How can we get another one of those elections, with at least 4 plausible candidate winning decent amounts of both electoral and popular votes, with the possibility of a tie?

 

[Somedevil]

1884?? almost got there. Blaine almost won CT & NY and almost lost Michigan. The Prohibition party and the Greenback party's each got around 1.5% of the vote

 

[Hierophant]

Have Wilson dropout at the convention and Champ Clark get the nomination. WJ Bryan leads a walk out like what happened at the Republican convention.

Thats all I got.

 

[Nocrazy]

Well, if Washington decides to make his own party, independent of both the Democrat-Republicans and Federalists, we would see a three way election, and probably at some point, a four way.

 

[Caesar Biden]

1912?

Well, 1912 was technically this. Socialists, Progressives, Republicans and Democrats all captured more than one percent of the vote (unless I'm mistaken).

 

[Nofix]

1884?? almost got there. Blaine almost won CT & NY and almost lost Michigan. The Prohibition party and the Greenback party's each got around 1.5% of the vote

Not really, the most John St. John got was 4.59% of the vote in Michigan, enough to tip the state either way but nowhere near winning it, and the most Benjamin Butler got was 8.04% in his native Massachusetts, also enough to tip the state but not enough to win it.

Have Wilson dropout at the convention and Champ Clark get the nomination. WJ Bryan leads a walk out like what happened at the Republican convention.

Thats all I got.

That...is actually a rather interesting idea. But I don't think Bryan would do that. Notwithstanding he had ran as a national Democratic figure for a good decade and a half by now, and the Democrats hadn't held the Presidency since Cleveland, I don't think Bryan would piss off everyone and ruin this once in a lifetime opportunity to elect a Democrat, even if he is a Wall Street Democrat. Still, the idea of Bryan running
(as maybe a Prohibitionist?) is intriguing enough to consider.

Well, if Washington decides to make his own party, independent of both the Democrat-Republicans and Federalists, we would see a three way election, and probably at some point, a four way.

The thing is, Washington basically was a Federalist. His politics swung more toward Hamilton and Adams then Jefferson and Gallatin, and he despised parties for that matter. There's also the fact he was technically running against every other man who got an electoral vote, given how elections pre-12th Amendment, but that's neither here nor there.

Well, 1912 was technically this. Socialists, Progressives, Republicans and Democrats all captured more than one percent of the vote (unless I'm mistaken).

I will admit Debs did rather well in some areas, even beating Taft on the ballot (7 states Debs got over 10% of the vote, and of those states 2 of them, Nevada and Arizona, he beat the incumbent President), but the highest percentage of the vote he got in any state was 16.47% in Nevada, and Wilson won that 39.70%. Debs was some miles away from winning an electoral vote.

---

Reminder guys, at least 4 plausible candidate winning decent amounts of both electoral and popular votes, means they have to do very well in the popular vote (more like 10% then 6%) and/or win a states electoral votes (not just come close, or have a faithless elector vote for them, like when Nullifier John Floyd got South Carolina's votes in 1832), and it has to be 4 campaigns all running against each other (excluding the Whigs 1836 campaign with different Whigs in each part of the country fighting Van Buren).

 

[jpj1421]

I suppose you could have a tweak to the 1948 scenario. Perhaps FDR digs his heels in 1944 (unlikely) or Wallace's oddities are kept quiet (more likely) and Wallace remains on the ticket in 44. FDR kicks the bucket and Wallace eats its as President, just a real screwup. The Democrats oust him at the convention with some respectable, say Harry Truman, and he takes up the Progressive mantle as per OTL but as an incumbent President is far more likely to gain support. Republicans and State's Rights do their thing and we have a horribly messy election at a real bad time.

 

[Glenuse]

We had a few good third party attempts: Populists, Roosevelt, the Dixiecrats, Wallace, and Perot, but they weren't the four way messes 1824 and 1860 were.

How can we get another one of those elections, with at least 4 plausible candidate winning decent amounts of both electoral and popular votes, with the possibility of a tie?

1948 was a four way race. Truman, Dewey Thurmond for the Dixiecrats (actually received 39 electoral votes) and former VP Henry Wallace on the Progressive ticket. While Wallace garnered only 2.4% of the vote nationally he did take 8.3% in New York, enough to tip New York into Truman's column.

 

[Nofix]

I suppose you could have a tweak to the 1948 scenario. Perhaps FDR digs his heels in 1944 (unlikely) or Wallace's oddities are kept quiet (more likely) and Wallace remains on the ticket in 44. FDR kicks the bucket and Wallace eats its as President, just a real screwup. The Democrats oust him at the convention with some respectable, say Harry Truman, and he takes up the Progressive mantle as per OTL but as an incumbent President is far more likely to gain support. Republicans and State's Rights do their thing and we have a horribly messy election at a real bad time.

That actually could prove to be very interesting.

1948 was a four way race. Truman, Dewey Thurmond for the Dixiecrats (actually received 39 electoral votes) and former VP Henry Wallace on the Progressive ticket. While Wallace garnered only 2.4% of the vote nationally he did take 8.3% in New York, enough to tip New York into Truman's column.

No it wasn't. Wallace might have proved to be a spoiler for the Democrats in New York, Michigan, and Maryland, but without getting some mass sectional support (as Thurmond did get in the parts of the South where he was the "official" Democratic nominee) that 2.4% national vote didn't amount to much.

 

[funnyhat]

1884?? almost got there. Blaine almost won CT & NY and almost lost Michigan. The Prohibition party and the Greenback party's each got around 1.5% of the vote

Does 1.5% qualify as a "decent" share of the vote? That's setting the bar rather low.

 

[Derek Jackson]

What if the anti war movement agreed on a competent separate campaign in 1968?

 

[wilcoxchar]

That...is actually a rather interesting idea. But I don't think Bryan would do that. Notwithstanding he had ran as a national Democratic figure for a good decade and a half by now, and the Democrats hadn't held the Presidency since Cleveland, I don't think Bryan would piss off everyone and ruin this once in a lifetime opportunity to elect a Democrat, even if he is a Wall Street Democrat. Still, the idea of Bryan running
(as maybe a Prohibitionist?) is intriguing enough to consider.

The Prohibitionists actually were trying to get Bryan to run for them in 1920 with Billy Sunday as their VP candidate. Both declined in OTL, but I'm not sure what it would take for Bryan to accept.

1920 is actually an interesting prospect for this, because Hoover was briefly contemplating running as a Democrat or even on an independent ticket. Hoover won a few Democratic primaries without entering, and there was hopes of a Hoover/FDR ticket as the Democrats' best chances of beating whoever the Republican was. The Hoover/FDR ticket was also being floated for an independent run as well. Under the right circumstances, you could have a decent four-way race that way.

Let's say:
Democratic: A. Mitchell Palmer (PA)/William Gibbs McAdoo (CA)
Republican: Frank Lowden (IL)/William Cameron Sproul (PA)
Independent: Herbert Hoover (CA)/Franklin Delano Roosevelt (NY)
Prohibitionist: William Jennings Bryan (NE)/Aaron S. Watkins (OH)
Progressive: Hiram Johnson (CA)/William Borah (ID)

And then just because, I'm throwing in Hiram Johnson being stubborn and walking out of the GOP convention to form the Progressive Party again.

 

[Nofix]

Does 1.5% qualify as a "decent" share of the vote? That's setting the bar rather low.

That's barely a footnote, even by American standards.

What if the anti war movement agreed on a competent separate campaign in 1968?

Like if Johnson were still the nominee, we might get some kind of Kennedy and/or McCarthy ticket? Theoretically possible I guess.

The Prohibitionists actually were trying to get Bryan to run for them in 1920 with Billy Sunday as their VP candidate. Both declined in OTL, but I'm not sure what it would take for Bryan to accept.

1920 is actually an interesting prospect for this, because Hoover was briefly contemplating running as a Democrat or even on an independent ticket. Hoover won a few Democratic primaries without entering, and there was hopes of a Hoover/FDR ticket as the Democrats' best chances of beating whoever the Republican was. The Hoover/FDR ticket was also being floated for an independent run as well. Under the right circumstances, you could have a decent four-way race that way.

Let's say:
Democratic: A. Mitchell Palmer (PA)/William Gibbs McAdoo (CA)
Republican: Frank Lowden (IL)/William Cameron Sproul (PA)
Independent: Herbert Hoover (CA)/Franklin Delano Roosevelt (NY)
Prohibitionist: William Jennings Bryan (NE)/Aaron S. Watkins (OH)
Progressive: Hiram Johnson (CA)/William Borah (ID)

And then just because, I'm throwing in Hiram Johnson being stubborn and walking out of the GOP convention to form the Progressive Party again.

Oh, oh this would be fun to see play out...I imagine it'd be something like this

Republican: Frank Lowden (IL)/William Cameron Sproul (PA): 205 EV
Democratic: A. Mitchell Palmer (PA)/William Gibbs McAdoo (CA): 167 EV
Progressive: Hiram Johnson (CA)/William Borah (ID): 98 EV
Independent: Herbert Hoover (CA)/Franklin Delano Roosevelt (NY): 45 EV (with something like 20-30% of NY's vote)
Prohibitionist: William Jennings Bryan (NE)/Aaron S. Watkins (OH): 16 EV

 

[MoraesSarmento]

Have Buchanan run in 1992. Clinton x Bush x Perot x Buchanan. Poor Bush

 

[David T]

We had a few good third party attempts: Populists, Roosevelt, the Dixiecrats, Wallace, and Perot, but they weren't the four way messes 1824 and 1860 were.

How can we get another one of those elections, with at least 4 plausible candidate winning decent amounts of both electoral and popular votes, with the possibility of a tie?

The Democrats nominate a conservative in 1932--or they get one through FDR being killed. In 1936, the conservative Democrat (maybe Garner) manages to get re-nominated through his control of the party machinery, but a large left-wing contingent leaves the Democrats. So there is a four-way race in 1936:

(1) The Democratic Party--rather conservative, for states rights, a low tariff, some antitrust, maybe some limited intervention to help farmers. About all it has to offer labor is restrictions on labor injunctions by the federal courts. Its big strength is in the Solid South, also with traditional Democrats in other parts of the country.

(2) The Republican Party--conservative, business-oriented, though with a mildly "progressive" minority who stay with the party partly from inertia, partly because they view the party as the symbol of respectability--they associate the Democrats with the South and unsavory urban machines (and fear the Farmer Labor Party as too radical).

(3) Farmer-Labor Party--This idea was "in the air", and there were state Farmer-Labor parties in Minnesota and elsewhere. What prevented the idea from succeeding nationally was that most of its potential supporters were co-opted by the New Deal--which doesn't happen in this TL. Supporters of the new party would include trade unionists, dissatisfied farmers, liberal intellectuals, socialists, and the Communist Party in its Popular Front stage. (If the national FLP were formed anytime between 1929 and 1934, the Communists would at first denounce it as "social fascist" until the 1935 Comintern congress would set them straight.) If the conservatives retained control of the Democratic Party in 1936, there could be a mass exodus of "progressive" Democrats to the new party.

The future of the Farmer-Labor Party would be uncertain of course--especially after 1939 and the Hitler-Stalin pact, the issue of Stalinist influence within such a party would be explosive, and there would be battles between Stalinists and anti-Stalinists in the party, similar to those which took place in OTL in the Minnesota Farmer Labor Party and New York's American Labor Party.

(4) A Social Justice party--anti-Marxist, anti-liberal, isolationist, populistic. Blames "international bankers" for the Depression. Called "fascist" by its opponents, but it denies it has anything in common with "foreign isms." Led by Huey Long (in this TL his assassination is butterflied away) and supported by Father Coughlin, Townsend, etc.

 

[Nofix]

I like all of the above, and I'm guessing once a massive exodus of normal liberals outweighs the Stalinists, the Farmer-Labor Party won't have to worry too much about what Uncle Joe wants.

(4) A Social Justice party--anti-Marxist, anti-liberal, isolationist, populistic. Blames "international bankers" for the Depression. Called "fascist" by its opponents, but it denies it has anything in common with "foreign isms." Led by Huey Long (in this TL his assassination is butterflied away) and supported by Father Coughlin, Townsend, etc.

Very interesting. I'm guessing a mixture of Share Our Wealth and other non-FL radical ideas? (Social Credit, Silver Shirts, etc.)

I'm trying to picture 1936 here, would one of the La Follette's stand as the Farmer-Laborer nominee? Hiram Johnson maybe? Would Huey Long try to seize power early on then, or wait for later and put up a front man?

 

[Ziemniak]

In addition to the possibilities already mentioned, we could have an outside shot at this happening in 1896. The National Democrats, a splinter group who disliked the mainstream Democratic party's left-turn with William Jennings Bryan, wanted to nominate incumbent President Grover Cleveland. Cleveland quietly supported the group, but declined to run again. Without him the party only got like 1% of the vote. Let's say that for some reason Cleveland says yes. Odds are an incumbent President will have enough prestige to win at least a state or two.

Then we just need to get a fourth party. The most obvious option is the Populists, who won 8.5% of the vote in 1892. The problem is how do we keep them viable when the Democrats are moving into their ideological niche? In OTL, they ended up just endorsing Bryan. Maybe if the Democrats nominated a more moderate candidate with less charisma, there would still be room for radical opposition from the Populists. They could even convince Bryan to run on their ticket instead. So something like this:

Republicans: William McKinley
Democrats: Robert Pattison
National Democrats: Grover Cleveland
Populists: William Jennings Bryan

 

[Jasen777]

It's going to be tough, 1860 took the conditions that caused the civil war after all. Since then we've had solid two party dominance, and it's going to be tough to have both fracture at the same time.

Have Buchanan run in 1992. Clinton x Bush x Perot x Buchanan. Poor Bush

Perot had significant popular vote, but no states. Buchanan isn't going to accomplish either.

 

[ennobee]

The best idea for a viable four-way race I can come up with is that there is a national issue that both Republican and Democratic parties are split over internally. Split so hard that both parties can not come up with a compromise but rather fall apart in two camps. Let's for instance take the issue of free trade agreements:

Scenario: there is a new free trade deal being negotiated with country X. According to one view, it would boost American exports and help the economy. According to another it would just reward American companies for shipping their jobs oversees. Both the Democratic as well as the Republican parties are evenly split on the matter. One year before the election the Democrats fail to rally their bases on a common course so the party splits into a Free-Trade and an American-Jobs wing each promoting their own candidate. Seeing the Democrats split emboldens the Free-Trade or American-Jobs factions of the Republicans to split off from their party as well. So the next year you have a Free-Trade Democrat, a Free-Trade Republican, an American-Jobs Democrat and and American-Jobs Republican all running for president, all with their own following.

Of course, only one can win and after the election there will be a major reshuffling of the political landscape with lots of 'loosing' congressmen either falling back in line with their party or crossing over to the other one. Eventually at least one of the parties will have to radically rethink their position on lots of issues, but unless some major miracle happens, by the end of next year we will be back to only two parties and they still will be called Democrats and Republicans although they might now be completely different in every aspect from the Democratic and Republican parties from just two years ago.

So when could this have happened, or could it happen in the future and over what issue would it happen? I frankly have no idea. But the scenario I have. and that should count for something.

 

[Nofix]

snip

The big thing with the National Democrats splitting was because Bryan was seen as so radical. The only way to get both the Populists and National Democrats to field a ticket is if you have someone too conservative for the Populists, yet too radical for the conservatives. Like some kind of ultra-southern rights ticket, after a thousand ballots and everyone but them has gone home to field their own ticket.