Harrison v Cleveland

Electoral Corruption in the 1880s

Throughout the late 19th century, rampant election schemes plagued the nation. It was common that both parties engaged in both legal and illegal acts to ensure electoral victory¹. First, normal campaigning and public persuasion methods were employed. Parties hoped to attract voters through messaging and public information campaigns¹. However, other, more devious strategies were also at work. In the 1880s, vote-buying, “colonizing”, and repeat voting were all commonplace¹.

With political polarization and party cohesion at high levels during the decade, the fight over independent voters became paramount to electoral success². Republicans and Democrats engaged in efforts to buy these voters’ ballots and secure victory for their preferred candidate¹. Called “floaters”, these voters sold their ballot to the highest bidder³. At the time, ballot boxes were often made of glass. Ballot secrecy was therefore nonexistent³. Thus, vote-buyers could be assured that paid voters did in fact cast a ballot for their party, making the scheme quite effective³.

Outside of vote-buying, parties also used the tactics of “colonization” and repeat voting to guarantee favorable election results¹. “Colonization” referred to parties transporting non-residents into different states to cast illegal votes¹. Often, voters would cast multiple ballots as well, in repeat voting schemes³.

Harrison v Cleveland

Tariffs represented the defining issue of the 1888 campaign⁴. Incumbent President Grover Cleveland ran as a tariff reformer, while Republican challenger Benjamin Harrison was a proponent of raising tariff rates³. With a stable national balance between the two parties, the election was gearing up to be decided by a narrow margin¹.

However, in the electoral college, Republicans held a slight advantage¹. The party could count on winning 182 of the required 201 votes to win the presidency¹. In contrast, Democrats could only safely rely on 153 electoral votes. For both parties, the key to winning the contest came down to New York and Indiana¹.

The Blocks of Five Scandal

While Harrison’s path to victory seemed less daunting than Cleveland’s, Cleveland had won both Indiana and New York in the prior 1884 election³. With less than a month to go until election day, Harrison’s campaign looked to be in trouble in the two states⁵. One of Harrison’s top campaign staffers and Treasurer of the Republican National Committee, W.W. Dudley, sought to change the increasingly bleak outcome⁵. He wrote instructions to top GOP officials in Indiana on October 24th, 1888:

“Divide the floaters into blocks of five and put a trusted man with necessary funds in charge of these five, and make him responsible that none get away and that all vote our ticket. There will be no doubt of your receiving the necessary funds…Only see that it is husbanded and made to produce results.”⁶

However, Democrats were made aware of the letter’s contents and informed a variety of newspapers⁵. Despite the newfound press coverage, Dudley’s utilization of vote-buying schemes in prior elections was already widely known, earning him the moniker “Two-Dollar Dudley”². Nevertheless, the scandal consumed the Harrison campaign. However, it did not change the campaign’s tactics. Despite the public’s awareness of their illicit strategy, Republicans still engaged in vote-buying schemes in Indiana and across the nation³.

A Stolen Election?

After the ballots were tallied, Cleveland won almost 90,000 more individual votes than Harrison. However, with wins in both New York and Indiana, Harrison won the presidency. Harrison finished with 233 electoral votes compared to Cleveland’s 168.

The election remains one of the most blatantly corrupt in U.S. history. Widespread evidence (outside of Dudley’s letter) exists of vote-buying schemes taking place, along with voter “colonization”, and repeat voting¹. For instance, in Bloomington, IN, almost 200 of the city’s 700 eligible voters were floaters and received payment for their votes¹. In New York, the Republican Party was alleged to have sent over $150,000 to the leaders of Democratic voting groups, in exchange for up to 40,000 votes¹. Harrison ended up winning New York with a mere 14,000-vote margin¹. Numerous claims of fraud and corruption were made by both parties in the election².

The outrage over election integrity in 1888 sparked widespread reforms across the nation. By the early 1890s, most states had adopted the Australian secrecy ballot⁷. Instead of casting votes in a public square, voters moved indoors to private voting booths, ensuring anonymity and confidence in results⁷.

References