Victor,

I was reading your September 14th piece titled Uncivil War” which likened the current so-called “culture war” in America to the inequalities of the electoral system made evident in Lincoln’s 1860 election.  There were some historical facts that I thought I should present for your consideration on this point.

You state that Lincoln received 98% of the Northern electoral votes.  Yet north is such a subjective term.  I think the only accurate means by which to define it is which states did not secede following the election (counting Mo. Ky. Md. and Del., but, of course, excluding the western states, Ca and Or.)  With these numbers, Lincoln won 173 of the 205 possible electoral votes, only 84.4% of the North.

Secondly, you call this a purely sectional election, but fail to mention that Lincoln won both of the western states, California and Oregon. Furthermore, you state that Lincoln had “no support in the South” but fail to mention that Lincoln was not placed on the Southern Ballots, so southern support is a rather unreasonable demand.

Furthermore, regardless of “Electoral politics” Lincoln would’ve won by popular vote.  His 39.79% was far ahead of his nearest competitor, Douglas who had 29.4% (and 12 electoral votes, to Lincoln’s 180).

Lastly, and most importantly, even if it were not for the electoral college, we would revert back to the 12th Amendment, where when no candidate has a majority vote, then there is a runoff of the top three voted on by the House of Representatives (with each state having one vote).  Although it is impossible to predict every what-if, more then likely it would’ve played out as follows.  There were 33 states in the Union, so the number needed to win in the House vote would be 17.  And, to our surprise, Lincoln won 17 states in the general election (technically 18, but New Jersey split their votes, 4 to Lincoln, 3 to Douglas).  So, regardless of electoral politics, Lincoln would’ve been president anyways.

Thank you for your consideration,
KS