DOCSLIB.ORG

The Electoral College Standard/Objective • Identify the Basic Feature of the Political System in the United States

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Electoral College Standard/Objective • Identify the Basic Feature of the Political System in the United States Using Primary Sources Electoral Maps The Electoral College Standard/Objective • Identify the basic feature of the political system in the United States. (NCSS) • Students will describe the role of the popular and electoral votes, and then they will participate in a simulated electoral vote. Materials Copy of facsimile Electoral Maps; Copies of the historical background information (page 60); Copies of student activity sheet, Winner of Electoral Vote Wins It All! (page 61); Copies of the Electoral College Reading Comprehension Questions (comp.pdf) and the Distribution of Electoral Votes (votes.pdf) both available on the CD; Copies of Electoral Maps (page 62); White index cards Discussion Questions • Some people say we should get rid of the electoral vote and only count the popular votes. What do you think? • Why do candidates spend more time in some states than others? • Does your state have enough electoral votes for candidates to visit often? Using the Primary Source Read and discuss as a class the historical background information (page 60) that focuses on the history of electoral voting in our country. Use the discussion questions above to get students talking and sharing. Then, have partners complete the Electoral College Reading Comprehension Questions (comp.pdf). Show students the large facsimile and discuss the use of colors on the map. Then, distribute copies of each of the maps from the document. (If possible, copy the large facsimile in color. If not, use Electoral Maps (page 62). Have students complete the student activity, Winner of Electoral Vote Wins It All! (page 61), individually or with partners. Pass out 50 index cards, assign states to the students. Each student should write his or her state(s) on a card. Distribute copies of Distribution of Electoral Votes (votes.pdf). Have students write the number of electoral votes on the cards for their states. Choose the names of two major presidential candidates from a recent or upcoming election and write them on the board. Each student gets to decide which candidate will win his or her states’ votes. Call the name of each state. The student with that state name responds: “The state of _____ casts _____ votes for _____.” Keep a tally on the board. Discuss the total vote. Remind students that this is just a way for them to understand how many electoral votes are cast each presidential election year and how some states get more votes than others. This is not the way the votes are actually cast. Electors meet together and vote in their state and send that vote to the House of Representatives who verifies the vote. Extension Idea In pairs, have students research the election process of a country of their choice. When complete, they should present their findings to the class. © Teacher Created Materials 59 #19949—Primary Sources: Elections Using Primary Sources Electoral Maps The Electoral College (cont.) Historical Background Information The Electoral College is not a school. It is a group of electors from each state who cast their states’ votes for president and vice president. Presidential election voting is rather confusing. There are two kinds of votes. The popular vote means the votes recorded by American citizens who vote in the election. The electoral vote means the number of votes awarded to a candidate by each state. Some states have lots of electoral votes, others just a few. The number of electoral votes equals the number of senators and representatives each state has. For example, Missouri has two senators and nine representatives, so that state has 11 electoral votes. So, if the majority of people in Missouri vote for the Democratic candidate, all 11 electoral votes would go to that candidate. Texas has 34 votes and California has 55 electoral votes. Whoever wins one of those states receives a lot of electoral votes. A presidential candidate can win the popular vote and lose the electoral vote—so he does not become president. This has happened several times in the history of the United States. In 1800, there were 20 states. The 1800 election attracted five candidates. Four of these candidates were very close in their votes. John Adams ran for a second term and his vice president Thomas Jefferson ran against him. Aaron Burr, James Pinckney, and John Jay also ran for president. Aaron Burr and Thomas Jefferson tied with 73 votes. Adams had 65 votes and Pinckney had 64. There cannot be two presidents. So the House of Representatives voted to break the tie and choose the president. Thomas Jefferson won by 10 votes, and so Burr became the vice president. Another historic election was in 1860. The country was in great turmoil. The United States was very close to splitting into two countries. By this time, presidential and vice presidential candidates ran together on one political party’s ticket. During the election, there were four sets of candidates. Abraham Lincoln and Hannibal Hamlin ran on the Republican ticket. John Cabell Breckenridge and Joseph Lane ran as Southern Democrats. John Bell and Edward Everett ran on the Constitutional Union ticket. Stephen Douglas and Herschel Vespasian Johnson were from the Democratic Party. The Lincoln/Hamlin ticket won with 39 percent of the popular vote and 59 percent of the electoral vote. However, all their electoral votes were from more populated Northern states. Southern citizens felt the election was unfair. They had warned that if Lincoln won the election they would leave the union and form their own country. By December 1860, Southern states started leaving the union. By 1861, they had formed the Confederate States of America, a new country. In 1968, the Democratic presidential candidate was Hubert Humphrey, the vice president under Lyndon Johnson. The Republican candidate was Richard Nixon who had lost the 1960 election to John Kennedy. There was also a third party candidate, George Wallace, who was against desegregation of schools. Wallace won four Southern states. Humphrey won Texas, Washington, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, New York, and some New England states. Nixon won all the rest and became president of the United States. The popular vote was very close and if Wallace had not been in the race, Humphrey would have won the popular vote. But he still may have lost the electoral vote which is what really matters. #19949—Primary Sources: Elections 60 © Teacher Created Materials Using Primary Sources Electoral Maps Name ______________________________________________________ Winner of Electoral Vote Wins It All! Background Information The United States Electoral College is made up of groups of electors from each state who meet once every four years to elect the president and vice president of the United States of America. Electors are people from each state chosen to cast the electoral votes for that state. The Electoral College was established by Article Two, Section One of the Constitution. The whole Electoral College never meets as a single group. Instead, the electors in each state meet within their states to cast their votes. These voting sessions are supervised by state officials. Activity Directions: Look at the maps and answer the following questions using complete sentences. Analyze the 1800 map 1. How many states were in the union then? 2. How many votes did the two winners get? Who broke the tie? 3. How many candidates were running for president? Analyze the 1860 map 1. How many states were in the union then? 2. How many electoral votes did the winner get? Which big states did he win? 3. How many candidates were running for president? Which one came in second? Analyze the 1968 map 1. How many states were in the union then? 2. How many votes did the winner get? Which big states did he win? 3. How many candidates were running for president? Did that make a difference in the election? Challenge Compare the 2004 election to the other three elections. How was it alike and similar? Find the results to the 2000 election. How were the 2000 and 2004 elections similar and different? © Teacher Created Materials 61 #19949—Primary Sources: Elections Using Primary Sources Electoral Maps Name ______________________________________________________ Electoral College Reading Comprehension Questions Directions: Use the historical background information to answer the following questions. 1. What is the difference between the electoral vote and the popular vote? ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ 2. How is the number of electoral votes for each state decided? ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ 3. How many electoral votes does your state have? ___________________________________________________________ 4. Who won the election in 1800? ___________________________________________________________ 5. What happened to the man who came in second place? ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ © Teacher Created Materials Publishing #11001 Primary Sources—Elections Using Primary Sources Electoral Maps Electoral College Reading
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Gerrymandering Becomes a Problem
    VOLUME TWENTY FOUR • NUMBER TWO WINTER 2020 THE SPECIAL ELECTION EDITION A LEGAL NEWSPAPER FOR KIDS Gerrymandering Becomes a Problem Battling Over for the States to Resolve How to Elect by Phyllis Raybin Emert a President by Michael Barbella Gerrymandering on a partisan basis is not new to politics. The term gerrymander dates back to the 1800s when it was used to mock The debate on how the President Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry, who manipulated congressional of the United States should be elected lines in the state until the map of one district looked like a salamander. is almost as old as the country itself. Redistricting, which is the redrawing of district maps, happens every Contrary to popular belief, voters 10 years after the U.S. Census takes place. Whatever political party is do not elect the president and vice in power at that time has the advantage since, in most states, they president directly; instead, they choose are in charge of drawing the maps. electors to form an Electoral College “Partisan gerrymandering refers to the practice of politicians where the official vote is cast. drawing voting districts for their own political advantage,” During the Constitutional Convention says Eugene D. Mazo, a professor at Rutgers Law School and of 1787, a an expert on election law and the voting process. few ways to Professor Mazo explains that politicians, with the use of advanced computer elect the chief technology, use methods of “packing” and “cracking” to move voters around to executive were different state districts, giving the edge to one political party.
    [Show full text]
  • POLE RAISING: a CAMPAIGN ACTIVITY Introduction by George A
    POLE RAISING: A CAMPAIGN ACTIVITY Introduction by George A. Turner Often a special feature of political party rallies during presidential campaigns in the mid- 1800s involved raising a large pole for a candidate. Democrats used a hickory tree in honor of Andrew Jackson, known as "Old Hickory," and the father of the party. The Whigs favored a poplar tree for their pole raising events. When the Republicans came into existence, they adopted the poplar since many of its members were former Whigs. Selecting the right pole was an important decision. It needed to be proportioned and of great height. It took several people to cut and trim the tree, haul it to the meeting, and put it upright in a hole. Columbia Democrat and The Star of the North, two Democrat newspapers in Bloomsburg, each published an article in late summer1860 about two Democratic political meetings in Sugarloaf Township and Bloomsburg that raised "hickory poles." It was election time with a large majority of Pennsylvania Democrats supporting Vice President John C. Breckinridge, a Kentucky slave owner for President, Senator Joseph Lane of Oregon for Vice President, and Henry Foster for Governor. Pole Raising in Bloomsburg The Star of the North, August 22, 1860 The friends of Breckinridge, Lane and Foster, erected on last Saturday afternoon, between the house of five and six o’clock in East Bloomsburg, near the residence of Mr. Henry Wanich, a magnificent hickory pole, not much short of one hundred feet in length, with a streamer on the tope, and a splendid flag bearing the names of Breckinridge, Lane and Foster, our gallant Democratic nominees.
    [Show full text]
  • The 2020 Presidential Election: Provisions of the Constitution and U.S. Code
    PREFACE The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) is proud to acknowledge its role in the Presidential election pro- cess. NARA’s Office of the Federal Register (OFR) acts as the administrator of the Electoral College and carries out the duties of the Archivist. In this role, the OFR is charged with helping the States carry out their election responsibilities, ensuring the completeness and integrity of the Electoral College documents submitted to Congress, and informing the public about the Presidential election process. The Electoral College system was established under Article II and Amendment 12 of the U.S. Constitution. In each State, the voters choose electors to select the President and Vice President of the United States, based on the results of the Novem- ber general election. Before the general election, the Archivist officially notifies each State’s governor and the Mayor of the District of Columbia of their electoral responsibilities. OFR provides instructions and resources to help the States and District of Columbia carry out those responsibilities. As the results of the popular vote are finalized in each state, election officials create Certificates of Ascertainment, which establish the credentials of their electors, that are sent to OFR. In December, the electors hold meetings in their States to vote for President and Vice President. The electors seal Certificates of Vote and send them to the OFR and Congress. In January, Congress sits in joint session to certify the election of the President and Vice President. In the year after the election, electoral documents are held at the OFR for public viewing, and then transferred to the Archives of the United States for permanent retention and access.
    [Show full text]
  • Cwa News-Fall 2016
    2 Communications Workers of America / fall 2016 Hardworking Americans Deserve LABOR DAY: the Truth about Donald Trump CWA t may be hard ers on Trump’s Doral Miami project in Florida who There’s no question that Donald Trump would be to believe that weren’t paid; dishwashers at a Trump resort in Palm a disaster as president. I Labor Day Beach, Fla. who were denied time-and-a half for marks the tradi- overtime hours; and wait staff, bartenders, and oth- If we: tional beginning of er hourly workers at Trump properties in California Want American employers to treat the “real” election and New York who didn’t receive tips customers u their employees well, we shouldn’t season, given how earmarked for them or were refused break time. vote for someone who stiffs workers. long we’ve already been talking about His record on working people’s right to have a union Want American wages to go up, By CWA President Chris Shelton u the presidential and bargain a fair contract is just as bad. Trump says we shouldn’t vote for someone who campaign. But there couldn’t be a higher-stakes he “100%” supports right-to-work, which weakens repeatedly violates minimum wage election for American workers than this year’s workers’ right to bargain a contract. Workers at his laws and says U.S. wages are too presidential election between Hillary Clinton and hotel in Vegas have been fired, threatened, and high. Donald Trump. have seen their benefits slashed. He tells voters he opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership – a very bad Want jobs to stay in this country, u On Labor Day, a day that honors working people trade deal for working people – but still manufac- we shouldn’t vote for someone who and kicks off the final election sprint to November, tures his clothing and product lines in Bangladesh, manufactures products overseas.
    [Show full text]
  • The Democratic Party and the Transformation of American Conservatism, 1847-1860
    PRESERVING THE WHITE MAN’S REPUBLIC: THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND THE TRANSFORMATION OF AMERICAN CONSERVATISM, 1847-1860 Joshua A. Lynn A dissertation submitted to the faculty at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of History. Chapel Hill 2015 Approved by: Harry L. Watson William L. Barney Laura F. Edwards Joseph T. Glatthaar Michael Lienesch © 2015 Joshua A. Lynn ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii ABSTRACT Joshua A. Lynn: Preserving the White Man’s Republic: The Democratic Party and the Transformation of American Conservatism, 1847-1860 (Under the direction of Harry L. Watson) In the late 1840s and 1850s, the American Democratic party redefined itself as “conservative.” Yet Democrats’ preexisting dedication to majoritarian democracy, liberal individualism, and white supremacy had not changed. Democrats believed that “fanatical” reformers, who opposed slavery and advanced the rights of African Americans and women, imperiled the white man’s republic they had crafted in the early 1800s. There were no more abstract notions of freedom to boundlessly unfold; there was only the existing liberty of white men to conserve. Democrats therefore recast democracy, previously a progressive means to expand rights, as a way for local majorities to police racial and gender boundaries. In the process, they reinvigorated American conservatism by placing it on a foundation of majoritarian democracy. Empowering white men to democratically govern all other Americans, Democrats contended, would preserve their prerogatives. With the policy of “popular sovereignty,” for instance, Democrats left slavery’s expansion to territorial settlers’ democratic decision-making.
    [Show full text]
  • The Electoral College: a System “For the People?”
    The University of Maine DigitalCommons@UMaine Honors College Spring 5-2018 The Electoral College: A System “for the People?” Maria Maffucci University of Maine Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/honors Part of the Political Science Commons Recommended Citation Maffucci, Maria, "The Electoral College: A System “for the People?”" (2018). Honors College. 350. https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/honors/350 This Honors Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@UMaine. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors College by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UMaine. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE: A SYSTEM “FOR THE PEOPLE?” by Maria Maffucci A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for a Degree with Honors (Political Science) The Honors College University of Maine May 2018 Advisory Committee: Mark Brewer, PhD, Professor of Political Science and Honors, Advisor Melissa Ladenheim, PhD, Honors College Associate Dean, Honors Preceptor Richard Powell, PhD, Professor of Political Science Harold Daniel, PhD, Associate Professor of Marketing Stefano Tijerina, PhD, Lecturer in Management, Maine Business School ABSTRACT This research project investigates the thoughts and opinions of the University of Maine faculty and undergraduate students regarding the Electoral College system. I chose to collect this information through an online survey of twenty questions that I created on the software, Qualtrics, and sent it to the various classes and faculty who gave approval. Once I got a sufficient number of results, it was then time to analyze it all. Overall, my results were mostly what I had predicted; most undergraduates and faculty are in favor of replacing the Electoral College with either a direct popular voting system or a candidate ranking system.
    [Show full text]
  • How an Outdated Electoral Structure Has Led to Political Polarization in the United States
    The United States Election System: How an Outdated Electoral Structure has led to Political Polarization in the United States by Jake Fitzharris A THESIS submitted to Oregon State University Honors College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Honors Baccalaureate of Science in Political Science and Psychology (Honors Associate) Presented January 24, 2019 Commencement June 2019 AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF Jake Fitzharris for the degree of Honors Baccalaureate of Science in Political Science and Psychology presented on January 24, 2019. Title: The United States Election System: How an Outdated Electoral Structure has led to Political Polarization in the United States. Abstract approved:_____________________________________________________ Christopher Nichols Political Polarization in the United States is at a level higher today than at any point in the past few decades. Possible causes of this rise in polarization have been provided from various sources, including explanations such as mass media and income inequality. Through historical analysis and a wide literature review, this thesis explores a major factor in political polarization, the United States election system. The thesis argues that the election system in the United States exacerbates the intensely polarized political climate of the modern day United States in three main ways: the electoral college, which produces the persisting two party system, primary elections, which reinforce extreme candidate views, and districting, which tends to increase politically uniform districts and lead candidates to position themselves at the poles rather than in the center. The thesis concludes that the only way to eliminate political polarization stemming from all of these sources would be to implement a unique proportional representation system for the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • ELECTORAL VOTES for PRESIDENT and VICE PRESIDENT Ø902¿ 69 77 50 69 34 132 132 Total Total 21 10 21 10 21 Va
    ¿901¿ ELECTORAL VOTES FOR PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT ELECTORAL VOTES FOR PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT 901 ELECTION FOR THE FIRST TERM, 1789±1793 GEORGE WASHINGTON, President; JOHN ADAMS, Vice President Name of candidate Conn. Del. Ga. Md. Mass. N.H. N.J. Pa. S.C. Va. Total George Washington, Esq ................................................................................................... 7 3 5 6 10 5 6 10 7 10 69 John Adams, Esq ............................................................................................................... 5 ............ ............ ............ 10 5 1 8 ............ 5 34 Samuel Huntington, Esq ................................................................................................... 2 ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ 2 1027 John Jay, Esq ..................................................................................................................... ............ 3 ............ ............ ............ ............ 5 ............ ............ 1 9 John Hancock, Esq ............................................................................................................ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ 2 1 1 4 Robert H. Harrison, Esq ................................................................................................... ............ ............ ............ 6 ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ...........
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Record United States Th of America PROCEEDINGS and DEBATES of the 104 CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION
    E PL UR UM IB N U U S Congressional Record United States th of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 104 CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION Vol. 141 WASHINGTON, MONDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1995 No. 196 House of Representatives The House met at 12 noon and was forward and lead the House in the December 8, 1995 at 4:25 p.m. and said to con- called to order by the Speaker pro tem- Pledge of Allegiance. tain a message from the President whereby pore [Mr. YOUNG of Florida]. Mr. SCHIFF led the Pledge of Alle- he reports on actions to order the selected reserve of the armed forces to active duty. f giance as follows: With warm regards, DESIGNATION OF THE SPEAKER I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the ROBIN H. CARLE, United States of America, and to the Repub- PRO TEMPORE Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives. lic for which it stands, one nation under God, f The SPEAKER pro tempore laid be- indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. fore the House the following commu- f ACTIONS TO ORDER SELECTED RE- nication from the Speaker: SERVE OF ARMED FORCES TO COMMUNICATION FROM THE WASHINGTON, DC, ACTIVE DUTYÐMESSAGE FROM December 11, 1995. CLERK OF THE HOUSE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED I hereby designate the Honorable The SPEAKER pro tempore laid be- STATES (H. DOC. 104±144) C.W. BILL YOUNG to act as Speaker pro fore the House the following commu- The SPEAKER pro tempore laid be- tempore on this day. nication from the Clerk of the House of fore the House the following message NEWT GINGRICH, Representatives: from the President of the United Speaker of the House of Representatives.
    [Show full text]
  • Oakland City Council Resolution No. 86 5 £1 C.M.S
    FILED OFFICE OF THE ern CLERK Approved as to Form and Legality OAKLAND 16 DEC-8 PM/li'IS City\Attorney's Office OAKLAND CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 86 5 £1 C.M.S. INTRODUCED BY COUNCILMEMBERS DAN KALB AND REBECCA KAPLAN RESOLUTION (1) IN SUPPORT OF SENATOR BARBARA BOXER'S BILL TO ABOLISH THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE AND (2) DIRECTING THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR AND CITY LOBBYIST TO WORK WITH ALL RELEVANT STATE AND FEDERAL ELECTED OFFICIALS TO (A) DEVELOP AND RATIFY AN AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION TO REPLACE THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE WITH A NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OR, ALTERNATIVELY, TO APPROVE THE NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE INTERSTATE COMPACT, (B) ADDRESS GERRYMANDERING IN CONGRESSIONAL APPORTIONMENT BY REQUIRING REDISTRICTING REFORM, SUCH AS BY HAVING INDEPENDENT STATE REDISTRICTING COMMISSIONS CONDUCT REDISTRICTING INSTEAD OF STATE LEGISLATURES, AND (C) ELIMINATE BARRIERS TO VOTING WHEREAS, as provided by Article II of the United States Constitution, the President and Vice President are selected by the Electoral College, comprised of a slate of Electors from each state and the District of Columbia, with each state having a number of Electors equal to its number of congresspersons (total Representatives plus two Senators) and the District of Columbia having three Electors; and WHEREAS, U.S. citizens casting votes in the general election for a presidential candidate are actually not directly voting for that candidate but instead vote for a slate of Electors in their state representing the candidate, with the
    [Show full text]
  • 5.8 Electing a President Explain How the Different Processes Work in a U.S. Presidential Election. Explain How the Electoral College Impacts Democratic Participation
    Room 2B HIVE mrreview.org 5.8 Electing a President Explain how the different processes work in a U.S. presidential election. Explain how the Electoral College impacts democratic participation. Institutional rules along with campaign norms go a long way in explaining American government and politics. The outcomes of federal elections are greatly impacted by process. The impact of federal policies on campaigning and electoral rules continues to be contested. With representative democracy as the standard, many political scientists wonder if our current electoral process delivers the best results. To win an election here, candidates must navigate through a maze of rules, regulations and practices many of which are rooted in traditions rather than best practice. Nevertheless, many would argue today that the process of federal elections has grown increasingly democratic. This too is contested. The federal election process has two important stages. The first stage of any electoral process is winning a political party’s nomination. Party candidates used to be selected by the party bosses in small caucuses. Party caucuses were nothing more and nothing less than conversations between small groups of empowered citizens. Benefits were doled out by and for party loyalists. This was called a spoils system. Everyday citizens were left out of the process. Early elites were fearful of common passions. The average person was not trusted to make important party decisions. It did not take long for this to change. As suffrage rights expanded voters demanded more and more power in voicing their candidate preferences. This first manifested itself in political party conventions. These conventions were held so that many more citizens could participate in the nominating process.
    [Show full text]
  • CHAIRMEN of SENATE STANDING COMMITTEES [Table 5-3] 1789–Present
    CHAIRMEN OF SENATE STANDING COMMITTEES [Table 5-3] 1789–present INTRODUCTION The following is a list of chairmen of all standing Senate committees, as well as the chairmen of select and joint committees that were precursors to Senate committees. (Other special and select committees of the twentieth century appear in Table 5-4.) Current standing committees are highlighted in yellow. The names of chairmen were taken from the Congressional Directory from 1816–1991. Four standing committees were founded before 1816. They were the Joint Committee on ENROLLED BILLS (established 1789), the joint Committee on the LIBRARY (established 1806), the Committee to AUDIT AND CONTROL THE CONTINGENT EXPENSES OF THE SENATE (established 1807), and the Committee on ENGROSSED BILLS (established 1810). The names of the chairmen of these committees for the years before 1816 were taken from the Annals of Congress. This list also enumerates the dates of establishment and termination of each committee. These dates were taken from Walter Stubbs, Congressional Committees, 1789–1982: A Checklist (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1985). There were eleven committees for which the dates of existence listed in Congressional Committees, 1789–1982 did not match the dates the committees were listed in the Congressional Directory. The committees are: ENGROSSED BILLS, ENROLLED BILLS, EXAMINE THE SEVERAL BRANCHES OF THE CIVIL SERVICE, Joint Committee on the LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, LIBRARY, PENSIONS, PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS, RETRENCHMENT, REVOLUTIONARY CLAIMS, ROADS AND CANALS, and the Select Committee to Revise the RULES of the Senate. For these committees, the dates are listed according to Congressional Committees, 1789– 1982, with a note next to the dates detailing the discrepancy.
    [Show full text]