The 1876 Election Was a Disaster—Not a Model for the Future

I remember watching Ted Cruz on CNN when he argued that the 1876 election should be a model for resolving future electoral disputes. Even then, it struck me as completely absurd. The 1876 election wasn’t a shining example of democracy at work; it was a masterclass in corruption and backroom dealing that ultimately undermined the will of the voters. Worse, the circumstances of 1876 were unique to that era and bear no resemblance to today’s electoral system, making it an even more ridiculous precedent.

Historically: A Corrupt and Partisan Bargain That Doesn’t Apply Today

The 1876 presidential election between Rutherford B. Hayes and Samuel J. Tilden is widely regarded as one of American history's most corrupt and controversial. Tilden won the popular vote and initially appeared to have secured the Electoral College. However, Republicans contested results in Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina, three states still under Reconstruction governments. Both parties claimed victory and accused the other of fraud.

Rather than allowing a neutral process to determine the rightful winner, Congress created a deeply partisan 15-member Electoral Commission to decide the outcome. The commission consisted of five members from the House, five from the Senate, and five Supreme Court justices, with a supposed even partisan balance. However, after an independent justice withdrew and was replaced by a Republican, the commission effectively became a rubber stamp for Hayes, awarding him all disputed votes by an 8-7 party-line vote. This decision overturned the apparent will of the electorate and handed the presidency to the candidate who had lost the popular vote.

But the corruption did not stop there. To secure Democratic acquiescence, Republicans brokered a secret deal, later known as the Compromise of 1877, in which Hayes agreed to withdraw federal troops from the South, effectively abandoning Reconstruction and allowing white supremacist governments to take power. This resulted in the disenfranchisement of Black voters, the rise of Jim Crow laws, and a century of racial discrimination.

Most importantly, the circumstances of 1876 do not apply today. The election occurred in the aftermath of the Civil War, during Reconstruction, when the federal government still enforced civil rights protections in the South. One of the key reasons this election was so contested was that Black voters in the South were systematically suppressed through violence, intimidation, and fraud. Southern Democrats had already been working to disenfranchise Black voters, and the resolution of 1876 only solidified that effort. By withdrawing federal oversight, the U.S. government essentially allowed white supremacist regimes to take complete control, ensuring that Black political participation in the South was nearly eliminated for decades.

None of these conditions exist in modern American elections. The problems of 2024, or any future election, cannot and should not be resolved using the framework of an election that was fundamentally different in every way.

Democratically: A Betrayal of the Voter’s Will

At its core, the 1876 election subverted democracy. Tilden won the popular vote by over 250,000 votes, yet Hayes assumed the presidency through procedural manipulation and political deal-making. The election showed that when partisan actors are given unchecked control over electoral disputes, the outcome is not necessarily decided by the people's will but by power-hungry politicians cutting deals behind closed doors.

Suppose Cruz envisions a future where disputed elections are resolved through partisan commissions and political bargaining rather than transparent legal processes. In that case, he advocates for a system in which elections become power plays rather than democratic expressions. Where lawmakers decide the results for a quid pro quo as opposed to whoever wins the most votes, this would be a direct assault on the principle of free and fair elections.

Practically: A Recipe for Chaos and Division

A modern commission similar to the one from 1876 would not resolve disputes fairly; it would exacerbate them. The partisanship that doomed the original Electoral Commission would be even worse today in an era of hyperpolarization and widespread misinformation. Any modern attempt to replicate such a process would likely lead to deadlock, further erosion of public trust, and potentially dangerous political instability.

Constitutionally: A Flawed Precedent Already Rejected

The 1876 crisis clarified that the United States needed a more structured and less partisan method of resolving disputed elections. That’s why Congress passed the Electoral Count Act of 1887 to prevent another 1876-style debacle by establishing clear procedures for counting electoral votes and resolving disputes promptly and orderly. To suggest returning to a process that was already recognized as a failure and legislatively corrected is not just regressive; it’s unlawful.

The 1876 Election Was a Disaster, Not a Model

Rather than looking to 1876 as a guide, we should study it as a cautionary tale of what happens when partisans manipulate electoral processes for their gain. If Cruz wants to undermine trust in our elections and normalize backroom deals over democratic outcomes, then invoking 1876 makes sense. But for anyone who values democracy, the lesson of that election is clear: partisan power plays must never override the will of the voters.