Thread by @BrooksDSimpson

What will make the impending presidential election notable is that it will remind us of how the Electoral College has shaped national politics since 1800 and how we have debated the legitimacy of election results (see 1876, 2000).

Prior to 1860, the impact of the 3/5 rule on the allocation of electoral votes favored the South, resulting in a presidency and a Supreme Court where southerners held disproportionate power (remember who nominates justices, right?).

In 1860, however, the Electoral College secured a victory for Abraham Lincoln, who did not manage to get even 40% of the popular vote.

It also helped Republicans fare well in presidential elections from 1876 through 1892, after Democrats' voter suppression reduced black voting.

It helped Woodrow Wilson in 1912, and the Democrats would retain control of the South until the 1960s.

It turned pluralities in three-way contests into majorities in 1968, 1992 and 1996: it has been fundamental to Republican chances since 2000.

As for the legitimacy of outcomes, for all the talk about 1800, the first time an outcome did not seem to reflect the popular will in the minds of many was in 1824--an election where one could argue that the process reflected Framer intent.

White Southerners raised the possibility of a legitimate process resulting in a disastrous outcome in 1856, and in 1860 they acted on it--although the process of secession they followed only faintly resembled that which they had previously outlined.

While debates over legitimacy in state contests (even during national elections) appeared between RI's Dorr Rebellion (1842) and Maine in 1880 (as well as territorial contests in Kansas in the 1850s), only in 1876 was the legitimacy of a presidential contest in question.

The next time, of course, was 2000 ... but never have we had such talk about anticipated fraud and whether the loser would accept the outcome prior to Election Day as we now see.

Debates over the Electoral College and the legitimacy of elections have met in a perfect storm.

Add to this debates over the composition of the Supreme Court and the possible role the Court might play in determining the outcome (in ways glimpsed in 1876-77 and 2000), and the result means that we could have a grave crisis. If we head it off, we're lucky.