1792 and 1793 United States House of Representatives elections
Elections to the United States House of Representatives for the 3rd Congress were held in 1792 and 1793, coinciding with the re-election of George Washington as President. While Washington ran for president as an independent, his followers formed the nation's first organized political party, the Federalist Party, whose members and sympathizers are identified as pro-Administration on this page. In response, followers of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison created the opposition Democratic-Republican Party, who are identified as anti-Administration on this page. The Federalists promoted urbanization, industrialization, mercantilism, centralized government, and a broad interpretation of the United States Constitution. In contrast, Democratic-Republicans supported the ideal of an agrarian republic made up of self-sufficient farmers and small, localized governments with limited power.
Despite nearly unanimous support for Washington as a presidential candidate, Jeffersonian ideas edged out Hamiltonian principles at the ballot box for congressional candidates, with the Democratic-Republicans taking 24 seats more than they had prior to the organization of their political movement. Most of the increase was due to the addition of new seats in Western regions as a result of the United States census of 1790. Dominated by agrarian culture, these Western territories offered strong support to Democratic-Republican congressional candidates. As a result, they secured a thin majority in the legislature.
Election summaries
In this period, each state fixed its own date for a congressional general election, as early as August 1792 and as late as September 1793. In some states, the congressional delegation was not elected until after the legal start of the Congress, but as the first session of Congress typically began in November or December, the elections took place before Congress actually met. The 3rd Congress first met on December 2, 1793.These were the first elections held after reapportionment following the first census. Thirty-six new seats were added, with 1 state losing 1 seat, 3 states having no change, and the remaining 11 states gaining between 1 and 9 seats. This was the first apportionment based on actual census data, the apportionment for the 1st and 2nd Congresses being set using estimated populations.
House composition
End of the [2nd [United States Congress|2nd Congress]]
With new seats, due to reapportionment, outlined.Result of the elections
Special elections
There were special elections in 1792 and 1793 during the 2nd United States Congress and 3rd United States Congress.Elections are sorted here by state then district.
2nd Congress
3rd Congress
Connecticut
Connecticut gained two seats in reapportionment following the 1790 census.Three special elections followed the 1792 elections in Connecticut after Representatives-elect Sturges and Huntington resigned before the start of Congress and Mitchell was elected to the Senate.
Delaware
Delaware's apportionment did not change following the 1790 census. As in the 1st and 2nd Congresses, each voter cast votes for two separate candidates, at least one of whom had to be from a different county as the voter.| District | Incumbent | Party | First elected | Result | Candidates |
| John M. Vining | Pro-Administration | 1789 | Incumbent lost re-election. New member elected. Anti-Administration hold. Election was later challenged and overturned. | John Patten 38.8% Henry Latimer 38.3% Francis Many 11.7% Edward Roche 7.9% Andrew Barrett 3.3% |
Georgia
Following the 1790 census, Georgia's apportionment was decreased from 3 seats to 2. Georgia switched from separate districts to at-large seats.| District | Incumbent | Party | First elected | Result | Candidates |
| John Milledge | Anti-Administration | 1792 | Incumbent lost re-election. New member elected. Anti-Administration hold. | Abraham Baldwin 44.5% Thomas P. Carnes 29.5% George Mathews 10.8% John Milledge 8.1% Scattering 7.0% Francis Willis 0.3% | |
| Abraham Baldwin | Anti-Administration | 1789 | Incumbent re-elected. | Abraham Baldwin 44.5% Thomas P. Carnes 29.5% George Mathews 10.8% John Milledge 8.1% Scattering 7.0% Francis Willis 0.3% | |
| Francis Willis | Anti-Administration | 1791 | Incumbent lost re-election. New member elected. Anti-Administration loss | Abraham Baldwin 44.5% Thomas P. Carnes 29.5% George Mathews 10.8% John Milledge 8.1% Scattering 7.0% Francis Willis 0.3% |
Kentucky
| District | Incumbent | Party | First elected | Result | Candidates |
| Christopher Greenup | Anti-Administration | 1792 | Incumbent re-elected. | Christopher Greenup | |
| Alexander D. Orr | Anti-Administration | 1792 | Incumbent re-elected. | Alexander D. Orr |
Maryland
Maryland increased from 6 to 8 representatives after the 1790 census. The previous mixed district/at-large system was replaced with a conventional district system.Massachusetts
Following the 1790 Census, Massachusetts's representation increased from eight to fourteen Representatives and was redistricted into four plural districts, plus a single at-large district. The covered the District of Maine. The plural districts were concurrent tickets rather than a single general ticket, though the and s appear to have also had a general ticket alongside the more specific tickets.As before, a majority was required for election, in those districts where a majority was not achieved, additional ballots were required.
New Hampshire
New Hampshire increased from 3 seats to 4 seats after the 1790 census.New Jersey
Following the 1790 census, New Jersey's apportionment increased from 4 to 5 seats.New York
Due to re-apportionment following the 1790 census, New York's congressional delegation grew from 6 to 10. Three incumbents ran for re-election, two of whom won, and the other three incumbents retired. With the increase following re-apportionment, this left seven open seats.North Carolina
Following the 1790 census, North Carolina's apportionment increased from 5 to 10 seats.Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania switched from using districts to electing its representatives on an at-large basis for the 3rd Congress, just as it had done for the 1st Congress. This would be the last time that Pennsylvania would elect all of its Representatives at-large. Due to re-apportionment following the 1790 census, Pennsylvania's delegation increased from 8 representatives to 13.Rhode Island
Rhode Island gained a second representative from the results of the 1790 census. Rhode Island did not divide itself into districts, but elected two at-large representatives.South Carolina
South Carolina gained one representative as a result of the 1790 census, increasing from 5 to 6.Vermont
Vermont had no apportionment in the House of Representatives before 1790 census because it was not admitted to the Union until 1791. Vermont's election laws at the time required a majority to win election to the House of Representatives. If no candidate won a majority, a runoff election was held, which happened in the.| District | Incumbent | Party | First elected | Result | Candidates |
| Israel Smith | Anti-Administration | 1791 | Incumbent re-elected. | First ballot: Israel Smith 44.2% Matthew Lyon 33.8% Isaac Tichenor 17.8% Samuel Hitchcock 4.2% Second ballot: Israel Smith 51.0% Matthew Lyon 44.0% Isaac Tichenor 4.3% Samuel Hitchcock 0.6% Others 0.1% | |
| Nathaniel Niles | Anti-Administration | 1791 | Incumbent re-elected. | Nathaniel Niles 60.3% Elijah Paine 14.0% Stephen Jacob 7.7% Paul Brigham 4.4% Samuel Cutler 3.9% Daniel Buck 3.5% Isaac Tichenor 2.2% Others 4.0% |