When the Electoral College picks a president who lost the popular vote, as it soon might, it casts doubt on the legitimacy of the winner and the way that he was chosen. The last time the Electoral College's action undermined an election's legitimacy, in 1888, voters forced established politicians to address political and social reforms advocated by third parties. Given that precedent, we may find, surprisingly, that Ralph Nader, this year's distant third-place finisher, will have the most impact on the near future of American politics.
It's worth looking for guideposts to our current uncharted political course in the reform movement that emerged after 1888, an election that bears striking similarities to this year's and the last time an Electoral College decision differed from the popular vote.
In 1888 and 2000, major party candidates quietly endorsed the main economic change of their time. In the late 1800s, it was the shift in power from small entrepreneurs to large corporations. In our time, it is free trade and globalization, or the opening of world markets to facilitate competition across national boundaries.
Record campaign spending occurred in both eras. This year, "soft money" (contributions to parties, unrestricted by candidate fundraising laws, that parties funnel to individual campaigns) topped $400 million. In 1888 business gave more money than ever before to Republican, Benjamin Harrison, who became president, and Democrat Grover Cleveland, the popular vote winner.
In both elections, third parties criticized Republicans and Democrats for ignoring larger issues. In 1888, disparate third parties of workers, farmers and moral reformers attacked Harrison and Cleveland for disregarding low wages, farm foreclosures and alcohol abuse. Despite their differences, this year's Green party and Reform party have criticized Bush and Gore for their frenzied spending and inattention to free trade's abuses. In 1888 and 2000, third parties won few votes but their message that major parties had made government unresponsive to popular will aimed to shake up the status quo.
By inaugurating a president who got fewer votes than his opponent, the 1888 election amplified the message that politics-as-usual could thwart majority rule in the same way that the 2000 election has provoked criticism of the Electoral College and increased suspicion of political institutions.
After 1888, the newly created People's party, or Populists, exploited distrust of major parties by attacking political corruption, courting black voters despite Jim Crow racism, and urging workers and farmers to recognize their common interest in fighting business consolidation. Because of these efforts, in 1892 the People's party won 22 Electoral College votes and several congressional and gubernatorial races. Should the same thing happen now, the headline of 2004 is likely to be a strong third-party showing, reminiscent of the Populists, that would force Democrats and Republicans to take reformers seriously.
At least that's what happened after 1892. Progressivism, the name for the third-party reform agenda, began to find major party advocates who in the succeeding two decades passed anti-trust laws, sought to ban child labor, protected food quality, conserved land and created the Federal Reserve banking system. Politicians who this year said little about big problems like international child labor or global warming may, pressed by third-party forces, soon be falling over each other to offer responses to these challenges.
But today's progressives will need to prioritize the two concerns that created support for Ralph Nader if they want to influence the major parties. Nader polled best with unskilled workers threatened by free trade's downward pressure on wages and with registered independents seeking to change the way politics operates. Building broad support for changing the complex global economy will be harder than convincing people to reform politics, especially after the post-election contest, which has increased calls to review election procedures.
Turn-of-the-century reformers enacted the direct primary, initiative and referendum, secret ballot and popular election of U.S. senators before passing most social and economic legislation. The popularity of Minnesota's Reform party governor, Jesse Ventura, and Sen. John McCain, a campaign finance critic who sought the Republican nomination, suggests that a movement to clean up lobbying and campaign funding could succeed now even if a movement to abolish the World Trade Organization will have to wait.
Harrison's tarnished win in 1888 gave foes of the two-party system the momentum needed to launch a generation of reform that addressed political corruption and later tackled broad social problems. In the wake of our recent close election, a new era of popular reform is poised to begin. As they did a century ago, progressives have a unique historical role to play in initiating this process and in doing so they stand to gain the most from the election of 2000.
Frank Towers is an assistant professor of history at Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colo., and a writer for the History News Service.
