Electoral History
| Indiana gubernatorial election, 1904 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Party | Candidate | Votes | Percentage | |
| Republican | Frank Hanly | 359,362 | 53.5% | |
| Democratic | John Kern | 274,998 | 41.0% | |
| Prohibition | McWhirter | 22,690 | 3.4% | |
| Socialist | Hallenberger | 10,991 | 1.6% | |
| Populist | Leroy Templeton | 2,605 | 0.4% | |
| Indiana gubernatorial election, 1916 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Party | Candidate | Votes | Percentage | |
| Republican | James P. Goodrich | 337,831 | 47.8% | |
| Democratic | John A. M. Adair | 325,060 | 46.0% | |
| Prohibition | William Hickman | 16,401 | 2.3% | |
| Progressive | Frank Hanly | 7,067 | 1% | |
| Presidential candidate | Party | Home state | Popular vote | Electoral vote |
Running mate | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Count | Pct | Vice-presidential candidate | Home state | Elect. vote | ||||
| Woodrow Wilson | Democratic | New Jersey | 9,126,868 | 49.2% | 277 | Thomas Riley Marshall | Indiana | 277 |
| Charles Evans Hughes | Republican | New York | 8,548,728 | 46.1% | 254 | Charles Warren Fairbanks | Indiana | 254 |
| Allan Louis Benson | Socialist | New York | 590,524 | 3.2% | 0 | George Ross Kirkpatrick | New Jersey | 0 |
| James Franklin Hanly | Prohibition | Indiana | 221,302 | 1.2% | 0 | Ira Landrith | Tennessee | 0 |
| Other | 49,163 | 0.3% | — | Other | — | |||
| Total | 18,536,585 | 100% | 531 | 531 | ||||
| Needed to win | 266 | 266 | ||||||
Source (Popular Vote): Leip, David. 1916 Presidential Election Results. Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections (July 28, 2005).Source (Electoral Vote): Electoral College Box Scores 1789–1996. Official website of the National Archives. (July 31, 2005).
Read more about this topic: Frank Hanly
Famous quotes containing the words electoral and/or history:
“Power is action; the electoral principle is discussion. No political action is possible when discussion is permanently established.”
—Honoré De Balzac (1799–1850)
“When the coherence of the parts of a stone, or even that composition of parts which renders it extended; when these familiar objects, I say, are so inexplicable, and contain circumstances so repugnant and contradictory; with what assurance can we decide concerning the origin of worlds, or trace their history from eternity to eternity?”
—David Hume (1711–1776)