It's not unusual to have that many candidates in that era but it is impressive it's so consistent. In this case it looks like the Populists were succeeded directly by the Socialists (rather than merging totally into the Democrats as happened in some other places) while the Prohibitionists continued consistently as well. Of course it also helps that Oregon only had two districts 1892-1910!
-
Hi Guest!
The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress
Caprice's Maps and What-Not
- Thread starter Caprice
- Start date
I don't know if the Oregon Socialists are directly descended from the Populists, but the Populists did last up to 1900, and the Socialists picked up in 1902, so there wasn't a gap of an election in between, yes. And indeed, there being two districts probably made it easier to consistently contest both.
While trying to find the 1910 election results in Oregon, I discovered that Oregon approved the idea of proportional representation in an 1908 ballot measure roughly 59-41, but rejected the proposal given in 1910 45-55. Under this proposal, state senatorial and representative districts would continue to exist, and candidates' nomination and ballot access would be tied to those districts, but voters could use their one vote to write in a candidate from another district within their state if so desired, and the apportionment of seats would be done by party on a statewide level. Candidates who got more than the quota (1/30 of the statewide vote for senate, 1/60 for house) would be elected, and then the runners-up would be allocated within each party until all the seats were filled.
Suffice to say, I am sorely disappointed we didn't actually get to see a state in the US go full open-list PR despite having the chance.
Suffice to say, I am sorely disappointed we didn't actually get to see a state in the US go full open-list PR despite having the chance.
That system sounds very interesting, it's actually not dissimilar to some thoughts I've had about how an 'Anglo-Saxon' country might do PR within its political norms around the turn of the 20th century, so it's good to see I wasn't making that up!
- Location
- Das Böse ist immer und überall
- Pronouns
- he/him
So basically the Danish system?
To quote a Dane in a server I sent the PDF in:
The initiative description begins on p. 186, the argument against begins on p. 197, and the argument for begins on p. 169.
Doing a reboot of my old TL, let's go!
Sages, à la Chełm
The Workings of the Columbian Government
The [Placeholder] of Columbia (often called "Columbia with an O" to disambiguate it from "Colombia with two Os") is the oldest still-extant country in America - this is because it has existed longer than every other country that currently exists in America. Initially founded as the Holy Caribbean Empire in 1754 (in imitation of the Holy Roman Empire, which was similarly situated half a continent up from the place it was named after), it was quickly noticed some decades later that, despite being called the Holy Caribbean Empire, they had completely forgotten to provide for the existence of a Holy Caribbean Emperor, and so they hastily renamed the nation, intending to come back to it at a later time that, as of 2024, has not yet come around.
At first, the government consisted simply of a House of Commons, comprised of representatives sent by the governments of the various constituent states of not-yet-Columbia. However, vague language in the constitution made it so that there was a) no expiration of House of Commons terms, and b) no restriction on how many representatives the states could send, how many seats they could assign, and how many seats could be held by a single person. After several hundred commissions were given out in the span of just over a decade, it became clear that something had to be done about the sorry state of the House of Commons, and the states called a convention to reform the government.
In the ensuing constitutional convention held in 1787, it was decided that the House of Commons would be supplemented by its opposite, the House of Rares, elected by the people of Columbia (whenever each given state deemed it fit, so long as each state was represented proportional to its population and each state had at least one Rarer) instead of the states. In addition, starting with the next session of the House of Commons, each state would be limited to four seats held by four Commoners. In addition, an [Insert Head of State Title Here] would be chosen by the members of both houses (or, as became the case when the cries for popular choice became more and more commonplace, specially-chosen electors) in an electoral conclave every four years.
This sweeping change was enacted into law, and states began eagerly appointing or electing new members of the House of Commons for the next session. Unfortunately, the House of Commons did not adjourn on schedule, or even at all - it has remained in session 24 hours a day, 365 or 366 days a year since the beginning of the 1787 session. Originally, this was because the vast majority of Commoners did not want to lose their jobs in the House of Commons, but it has since become a protective measure - if the House of Commons ever adjourns, the vast majority of the Commoners elected to the next session will be dead. As the House of Commons by-laws prohibit the presence of dead persons, such a session will be unable to reach a quorum, and all government business will grind to a halt. This would be a bad thing.
This is not to say that the states have spent the past two hundred and thirty-odd years constantly one-upping each other. A shaky agreement to chill on the appointments was reached so as not to invite further outrage, and while occasionally a state would accidentally appoint a new Commoner to several dozen seats in the way that one might accidentally open several dozen tabs by annoyedly spam-clicking a laggy "new tab" button, generally this was respected, with states trying to choose one Commoner every three years to keep the House of Commons above replacement level. Things actually worked well for the next several decades. Then Canada happened.
Figuring that what had worked for Columbia would work for Canada, upon the new nation's independence in the mid-19th century, the Canadian legislature decided that its seats would be apportioned "by the same method which is in use in the [Placeholder] of Columbia for its House of Rares." This worked well until 1900, when the Canadian census revealed that its least-inhabited state (Yukon) had less people than the least-inhabited state in Columbia (Alaska). Accordingly, Columbia was left counting Yukon's population as the quotient for its apportionment, as to do otherwise would violate the Canadian constitution by using different methods in their legislative apportionments. This wasn't too bad (by Columbian standards) at first, but as Yukon hemorrhaged population over the next couple of decades the House of Rares ballooned in size - nearly quadrupling after the 1910 census and more than doubling again after the 1920 census, reaching a peak of nearly thirty thousand Rarers after the 1930 census.
While the House of Rares has managed to rein its numbers into the quadruple digits in the past few decades, its exceedingly numerous size made legislative sessions very difficult, and power began to flow back to the House of Commons with its far more reasonable triple-digit number of seats. States therefore began to make Commoners popularly elected rather than the choice of the state legislatures (whose difficulties with electing one Commoner at a time have been previously mentioned), a process that was essentially complete by 1920. Commons elections are, almost as a rule, nonpartisan, though candidates are broadly lumped into various ideological blocs, especially around the time that the [Insert Head of State Title Here] is elected, as Commoners have traditionally participated in electoral conclaves even as Rarers have been supplanted by specially-chosen electors in the vast majority of cases.
At first, the government consisted simply of a House of Commons, comprised of representatives sent by the governments of the various constituent states of not-yet-Columbia. However, vague language in the constitution made it so that there was a) no expiration of House of Commons terms, and b) no restriction on how many representatives the states could send, how many seats they could assign, and how many seats could be held by a single person. After several hundred commissions were given out in the span of just over a decade, it became clear that something had to be done about the sorry state of the House of Commons, and the states called a convention to reform the government.
In the ensuing constitutional convention held in 1787, it was decided that the House of Commons would be supplemented by its opposite, the House of Rares, elected by the people of Columbia (whenever each given state deemed it fit, so long as each state was represented proportional to its population and each state had at least one Rarer) instead of the states. In addition, starting with the next session of the House of Commons, each state would be limited to four seats held by four Commoners. In addition, an [Insert Head of State Title Here] would be chosen by the members of both houses (or, as became the case when the cries for popular choice became more and more commonplace, specially-chosen electors) in an electoral conclave every four years.
This sweeping change was enacted into law, and states began eagerly appointing or electing new members of the House of Commons for the next session. Unfortunately, the House of Commons did not adjourn on schedule, or even at all - it has remained in session 24 hours a day, 365 or 366 days a year since the beginning of the 1787 session. Originally, this was because the vast majority of Commoners did not want to lose their jobs in the House of Commons, but it has since become a protective measure - if the House of Commons ever adjourns, the vast majority of the Commoners elected to the next session will be dead. As the House of Commons by-laws prohibit the presence of dead persons, such a session will be unable to reach a quorum, and all government business will grind to a halt. This would be a bad thing.
This is not to say that the states have spent the past two hundred and thirty-odd years constantly one-upping each other. A shaky agreement to chill on the appointments was reached so as not to invite further outrage, and while occasionally a state would accidentally appoint a new Commoner to several dozen seats in the way that one might accidentally open several dozen tabs by annoyedly spam-clicking a laggy "new tab" button, generally this was respected, with states trying to choose one Commoner every three years to keep the House of Commons above replacement level. Things actually worked well for the next several decades. Then Canada happened.
Figuring that what had worked for Columbia would work for Canada, upon the new nation's independence in the mid-19th century, the Canadian legislature decided that its seats would be apportioned "by the same method which is in use in the [Placeholder] of Columbia for its House of Rares." This worked well until 1900, when the Canadian census revealed that its least-inhabited state (Yukon) had less people than the least-inhabited state in Columbia (Alaska). Accordingly, Columbia was left counting Yukon's population as the quotient for its apportionment, as to do otherwise would violate the Canadian constitution by using different methods in their legislative apportionments. This wasn't too bad (by Columbian standards) at first, but as Yukon hemorrhaged population over the next couple of decades the House of Rares ballooned in size - nearly quadrupling after the 1910 census and more than doubling again after the 1920 census, reaching a peak of nearly thirty thousand Rarers after the 1930 census.
While the House of Rares has managed to rein its numbers into the quadruple digits in the past few decades, its exceedingly numerous size made legislative sessions very difficult, and power began to flow back to the House of Commons with its far more reasonable triple-digit number of seats. States therefore began to make Commoners popularly elected rather than the choice of the state legislatures (whose difficulties with electing one Commoner at a time have been previously mentioned), a process that was essentially complete by 1920. Commons elections are, almost as a rule, nonpartisan, though candidates are broadly lumped into various ideological blocs, especially around the time that the [Insert Head of State Title Here] is elected, as Commoners have traditionally participated in electoral conclaves even as Rarers have been supplanted by specially-chosen electors in the vast majority of cases.
Last edited:
I've been working on mapping out senatorial races in Oregon, and you gotta love the party with a near supermajority in both houses completely cannibalizing itself and only electing someone at 11:55 PM on the last day of the legislative session.
Ballots 1-27 were each held on separate days, and then ballots 28-52 were held on the same day - 28 in the morning session as per all the others, and then 29-52 in a four-hour marathon from 8 to just before midnight that evening.
Ballots 1-27 were each held on separate days, and then ballots 28-52 were held on the same day - 28 in the morning session as per all the others, and then 29-52 in a four-hour marathon from 8 to just before midnight that evening.
Impressive work!
I'm surprised nobody else has gone this in-depth into it already.
In the meantime, I've popped forward to the 1903 election, and apparently they did hold a popular vote in 1902 - earlier than the 1906 date that gets tossed around. Course, the fact that the legislature went and chose another person entirely kind of robs the 1902 election of the significance it would've had. But here's the results by county:
An attempt to map the general state of affairs during ballots 28-47. No distinction was attempted between state senators and state representatives, and legislators are mapped by county of residence because the state senate districts had three layers of floterial districts and I don't want to think about how to map that.
- Location
- Das Böse ist immer und überall
- Pronouns
- he/him
Looks a lot like Colorado during the same time period. Which I would love to be able to map in the same kind of detail, but of course that's hampered somewhat by the fact that I haven't lived there for six years.
I'm sure you can do it - I certainly don't live anywhere near Oregon! I imagine the state manual or equivalent lists the legislators' hometowns, which is what I used for my map (alongside the legislative journals for the actual votes).
I'm tabling out the state legislative vote, and you can't make this up: on February 17, the Senate voted unanimously for a resolution calling for a constitutional convention with the express purpose of electing Senators by popular vote, then that very same day two-thirds of the members in attendance voted against Geer in the 22nd ballot for Senator.
- Location
- Derbyshire
I like how Fulton at one point just went 'oh for God's sakes even I'll take someone else getting elected, try this guy' and I presume H.C. Adams was presiding?
I somehow never noticed Fulton was in the state legislature - one has to wonder what he was thinking supporting candidates who peaked at three votes total. There's a universe out there where they heed his no-hoper vote and future convicted embezzler Frank L. Dunbar becomes Senator instead.
Also, there wasn't any rule against the presiding officer voting - Adams just never showed up to Salem for any of the votes, joint ballot or not.
Last edited:
- Location
- Derbyshire
I think that's the 'I am willing to back this guy who's clearly a neutral figure between our factions if the other guy is also willing to do so.'
Next up is the 1898 election, which was held late in a special session because *checks notes* the State House disintegrated over it when it was supposed to happen in 1897. Oh, joy...
Well, that turned out to be a relatively short election. For some reason, the Fusionists switched out their candidate on every ballot; not sure why when they completely failed to win over any new voters.
