That shouldn't be Clay supposedly was speaker, he was speaker, he supposedly was bought off by being offered a higher office.
P. J. Alling wrote: > It was the "corrupt" bargain of 1824 in which Henry Clay threw his > support to John Quincy Addams, as opposed to Andrew Jackson. A result > that in retrospect probably made Jackson an even worse President after > being elected in his own right in 1828. I know I'm swimming up stream > by considering him not one of the greats but so be it. In that case no > candidate received the requisite majority of electoral votes, there were > four candidates and Jackson received a plurality of the popular votes. > The election was settled in the house where Clay who was also a > candidate supposedly was speaker. After Adams won he made Clay Sec. of > State. An office much more coveted than VP in those days as a stepping > stone to the Presidency. > > The only other time anything like this happened was in 1876 where > several states, (I forget how many), had contested vote counts. Without > them neither candidate would have an electoral majority. This of > course once again threw the election into the house. A complex deal was > worked out that put the Republican in the White House and ended > reconstruction, and military occupation of the former Confederacy. As > usual it satisfied no one and we are dealing with the repercussions to > this day. > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> In a message dated 2/5/2008 11:19:17 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >> Let's use the democrats as an example, since I actually know a couple of >> their names. >> In the present campaign then, the primaries would be determining if Obama >> or >> Clinton would be the candidate in the real election, which isn't really an >> election since some other electing body (the Electoral College?) actually >> elects the president based on lord only knows what criteria? >> >> I think my eyes are bleeding. >> >> Gads, I suppose I should just google this. >> >> William Robb >> >> ============ >> Technically. But I think only two times in history (okay, maybe a few more >> but I'd have to look it up), has the popular vote and the electoral vote >> differed. The thing that's throwing you is that one of those times was the >> Gore/Bush election, but that was the first time since I don't know when, >> ages ago. >> Gore had more popular votes and Bush had more electoral votes. (Someone >> really >> wants to get precise about it, feel free to jump in.) >> >> That part is a bit Byzantine, I agree. And periodically people get steamed >> up about doing away with the electoral college. But to date, it hasn't >> happened. >> >> The historical roots for that are that originally only white men could vote >> (not women, not blacks, etc.) and they didn't trust the unwashed masses and >> wanted to limit the power of the popular vote. Of course, now it's one >> person, >> one vote, and I think we could well do away with the electoral college. >> Smaller states with low population though like it because it gives them >> more say. >> >> Sure you could, re google, but heck we can give you the Reader's Digest >> version. :-) >> >> The thing is what a big country we are, it slows everything down. And it >> costs a lot these days to win an election, so it all takes time. But I >> wouldn't >> mind it being a tad quicker. >> >> The other confusing thing is political pundits (and ordinary people) will >> discuss someone's future election chances years before the primaries even >> roll >> around. It doesn't mean the election has started, it just means we are >> always >> talking about future elections, four and eight years down the road too. >> They >> were talking about Hillary's chances years and years ago. So all of that >> future speculation also makes it look longer than it really is. It really >> takes >> about a year, but that included prep time, not the primaries. Primaries to >> general vote take less than a year (and if someone wants to be specific >> about >> that, jump right in.) Bit late here and my brain is a bit fogged. >> >> HTH, Marnie >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------- >> Warning: I am now filtering my email, so you may be censored. >> >> >> >> >> **************Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music. >> (http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp003000000025 >> 48) >> >> >> > > > -- I am personally a member of the Cream of the Illuminati. A union with the Bavarian Illuminati is contemplated. When it is complete the Bavarian Cream Illuminati will rule the world -- Anonymous -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
