How many 'rotten boroughs' are in this election? Quite a few, apparently.

Online interest in an old British phrase spiked as several stories on US politics used it in reference to the current election campaign.

Shannon Stapleton /Reuters
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton speaks during a campaign event at the Pierce Arrow Museum in Buffalo, N.Y. on April 8, 2016.

Rotten borough: An 18th-century British expression, it refers to an election area with an imbalance between its population and its degree of representation.

In British parlance, “rotten boroughs” were those that had lost most if not all of their residents, yet still had the right of representation in the House of Commons. Merriam-Webster found the earliest use dating back to a 1761 pamphlet inveighing against “such corrupting and bribing in poor rotten Borough Towns.” 

The dictionary’s “Trend Watch” reported this week that online searches for “rotten borough” shot up after the phrase appeared in two separate U.S. politics articles. Conrad Black of the conservative National Review brought it up to dismissively describe former First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton’s career as a senator: “She won two elections in what was a large rotten borough in New York, having been the Wronged Lady of America.”

Meanwhile, in New York magazine, Ed Kilgore used it to discuss Donald Trump’s campaign. “The estimated 58 percent of delegates he needs to win the nomination remains feasible if he wins big in the Northeast and remains sufficiently competitive in California to win some rotten-borough congressional districts mainly populated by minority folk who are feared and resented by their few Republican neighbors,” he wrote.

Liberal New York Times columnist Paul Krugman also invoked the term last month to describe how GOP-driven redistricting has made it likely that the party will retain control of the House. “While Donald Trump could win the White House – or lose so badly that even our rotten-borough system of congressional districts, which heavily favors the GOP, delivers the House to the Democrats – the odds are that come January, Hillary Clinton will be president,” Krugman wrote.

With July’s Republican National Convention increasingly looking like it will be contentious, the Daily Beast noted former President Theodore Roosevelt’s use of the phrase in a letter describing another monumentally testy GOP gathering – the 1912 convention in Chicago in which he battled incumbent President William Howard Taft. Though Roosevelt had endorsed Taft, the latter’s drift to the right angered him, inspiring him to wage an unsuccessful challenge. Roosevelt eventually ran as part of the Progressive or “Bull Moose” Party, with both he and Taft losing to Democrat Woodrow Wilson.

“In the Convention at Chicago last June,” an angry Roosevelt wrote later, “the breakup of the Republican Party was forced by those rotten-borough delegates from the South … representing nothing but their own greed for money or office” who had “betrayed the will of the mass of the plain people of the party.”

Chuck McCutcheon writes his “Speaking Politics” blog exclusively for Politics Voices.

Interested in decoding what candidates are saying? Chuck McCutcheon and David Mark’s latest book, “Doubletalk: The Language, Code, and Jargon of a Presidential Election,” is now out.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.