Electoral Carlism (Second Republic)

In terms of electoral success Carlism of the Second Republic remained a medium-small political grouping, by far outperformed by large parties like PSOE and CEDA though trailing behind also medium-large contenders like Izquierda Republicana. During 3 electoral campaigns to the Cortes combined the Carlists seized less than 50 seats, which is below 3% of all seats available. Disorganized during the 1931 elections, the Carlist candidates were a first-choice political option for some 50,000 voters; following re-organization in successive campaigns the number grew to 420,000 (1933) and 365,000 (1936), respectively 4.9% and 3.8% of active electors. In the mid-1930s as a second-choice option the Carlists were acceptable candidates for some 1.8m voters (18%). The movement enjoyed support mostly in the Northern belt of Spain; the party stronghold was Navarre, the only region where Carlism remained a dominating force; it was a minority group still to be reckoned with in Vascongadas, Old Castile and Aragón, with rather testimonial presence in some other regions. The best known Carlist Cortes personality was Tomás Domínguez de Arévalo, who held the mandate during all three Republican terms.

Carlist standard

Background
Further information: Carlist Wars and Electoral Carlism (Restoration)
Exaltation of belligerent Carlism, painting by Augusto Ferrer-Dalmau

Carlism has been known for waging wars rather than for electoral efforts,[1] and the principal Carlist tool when striving for political power has always been a rifle, not a ballot paper.[2] When competing for parliamentary mandates the party calibrated its efforts as means of political mobilization and the way to maintain momentum before the next opportunity for a violent overthrow arises. This is how the Carlist contingent in the Cortes operated in the Isabelline period and during the Restoration era; usually reduced to a tiny group, only periodically it was growing to a sizeable yet still minoritarian parliamentary force. It was most numerous in the early 1870s, when 50 Carlist MPs made up 13% of the entire chamber;[3] in the later Alfonsine monarchy era they were reduced to 1-4% of all deputies. The Carlist strategy and position in the parliamentarian realm of the Second Spanish Republic was not very much different; the Carlists viewed the republican system as a transitory regime to be toppled one way or another.[4] They engaged in all three electoral campaigns to the Cortes, yet their efforts were formatted as means of political mobilization rather than as a path to power.[5]

exterior of the Cortes building

In Spain of the early days of the Republic Carlism was generally considered "already dead, though not buried yet". The phrase expressed a popular belief that in the early 1930s the movement was nothing but an archaic relic of the Spanish past. Born hundred years earlier as epigone of feudalism, pathetically obsolete already in the late 19th century, it was supposedly delivered a mortal blow by the 1919 breakup. If there were still Carlist periodicals issued and some politicians active, it was – the theory went – only because few old partisans of the cause refused to acknowledge the new times. With their passing away Carlism was expected to be laid to rest on the ash heap of history; poor results of the 1931 elections seemed to confirm this view.[6] The years to come proved that with over 2m votes gained in each electoral campaign the movement demonstrated a revival.[7] Scholars offer differing explanations of the phenomenon. According to one theory, sectarian Republican milieu drove many voters to extremes, and Carlism as an extreme Right-wing party was beneficiary of the process.[8] According to another reading, in turbulent times Carlism has always thrived as an amalgamating force; in the 1830s it attracted absolutist defenders of the ancién regime, in the 1870s it attracted neocatólicos, in the 1930s it attracted all these anxious to prevent revolution.[9] However, there were limits to Carlist appeal. As defenders of Catholic values they were outperformed by modern large Christian parties like CEDA. As advocates of the royal rule they struggled against the mainstream monarchist grouping, the Alfonsists. As campaigners for de-centralization and separate regional establishments they were no match for Basque and Catalan nationalists.[10] A combination of the above features, plus issues related to electoral strategy, are deemed responsible for overall Carlist performance at the polls.

Performance at the polls: Carlism and around
overall Carlist performance[11]
year% of voters[12]% of seats[13]
19311.2% (4.8%)1.1%
19334.9% (17.7%)5.1%
19363.8% (18.3%)2.1%

Scholarly works provide various numbers of Carlist candidates[14] and Carlist deputies between 1931 and 1936;[15] depending upon a combination of sources, aggregate figures might range from 32 MPs to 50 MPs (2.3% to 3.5% of all seats available in 3 legislatives combined). In case of the 1931 campaign only 3 mandates are beyond doubt[16] and the other 8 remain debated,[17] which brings the share of mandates gained to a range between 0.6% and 2.3%. In case of the 1933 balloting the number of Carlist deputies listed by various authors ranges from 19 to 24[18] (4.0% to 5.1%) and in case of the 1936 elections the discrepancy is between 10 and 16[19] (2.1% to 3.5%). Regardless of the differences, the Carlist performance at the polls lagged far behind that demonstrated by the most successful parties, CEDA, PSOE and the Radicals, who in all three campaigns combined seized around 200 seats each; the Carlists were outperformed also by medium-large parties like Esquerra or various breeds of Republicanism, who between 1931 and 1936 won between 50 and 100 mandates each. The Carlists rank in the group of medium-small contenders claiming 25-50 seats each, like the Agrarians, Lliga, Renovación Española or PNV. In turn their score was above the results obtained by minor Republican parties, PCE, other workers’ organizations and various ephemeral groupings.[20]

Differences in number of Carlist mandates reported result mostly from categorization issues, as a deputy in question might have been listed in one or another political rubric.[21] By and large the question is about telling Traditionalism from Carlism. Some scholars discuss candidates related to various breeds of Traditionalism as Carlists,[22] other students also group them together but ignore the Carlist denomination and prefer the Traditionalist heading,[23] one more group of authors reserve the Traditionalist name for the Jaimistas only.[24] In 1931 three Traditionalist branches, the Integristas, the Jaimistas and the Mellistas, were in transition,[25] drawn together yet not formally re-united.[26] The united Carlist organization which co-ordinated electoral efforts of 1933 and 1936, Comunión Tradicionalista (CT), formally took shape in early 1932.[27] However also after that date the numbers are subject to doubt.[28] Some hopefuls remained ambiguous in their party allegiances, while in 1936 Comisión de Actas cancelled few Carlist mandates; some scholars quote original results and some opt for these announced after the by-election.[29]

1931: Carlist leadership

Categorizing candidates and deputies in terms of their political identity is a major problem for historians of the Second Republic. Javier Tusell, a scholar expert in electoral history of the period, put forward a general proposal; it is based on analysis of political allegiances demonstrated by politicians in question afterwards.[30] According to this methodology, only the candidates who later joined the Carlist Cortes minority or engaged in CT would qualify as Carlists. Others scholars ignore the proposal and apply their own criteria, e.g. when claiming that since 1931 the parliamentarian "minoria carlista" was divided into 2 formal factions, católico-fueristas and agrarios;[31] some consider Tusell's approach anachronistic and useless when gauging electoral support for specific parties.[32]

Program and alliances
Carlist meeting, 1932

Two threads marking the general tone of all Carlist electoral campaigns were defense of Catholicism, perceived as endangered by militantly secular republican legislation, and countering the revolution, reportedly advanced by parties of the Left. In 1931 another major thread was promotion of the fueros, though the feature was sidelined and marginalized later on. As the republican regime demonstrated extreme vigilance towards all monarchist references, in Carlist propaganda they appeared rather veiled, though there were exceptions.[33] Dynastic overtones were also somewhat muted; in case Don Jaime or later Don Alfonso Carlos was mentioned, he appeared as "nuestro augusto caudillo".[34] Other motives, repeatedly featured during Carlist electoral meetings, were exaltation of Patria and patriotism, protection of traditional values, especially the family, and defense of law and order, including private property.[35] Remarks tackling social issues were rare, either maintained within the framework of Christian solidarity or calibrated as buttressing agrarian interests.[36] The traditional Carlist negative point of reference, Liberalism, was gradually giving way to Marxism in both its Socialist and Communist incarnations; occasionally anti-Masonic and anti-Jewish motives surfaced in Traditionalist electoral discourse.[37]

General and vaguely specified objectives of Carlist candidates in theory seemed to facilitate their access to many Right-wing coalitions; however, in practice the party tended to rigidity when discussing would-be alliances with potentially akin political groupings. The champion of Catholic rights, CEDA, was approached by the Carlists with suspicion due to its Christian-Democratic format of religiosity and the accidentalist political outlook. Another monarchist grouping, Renovación Española, generated even more mistrust because of its strongly Alfonsist leaning. The parties standing for regional regulations, the Basque PNV or the Catalan La Lliga, provoked skepticism about perceived support for separatist nationalisms and dubious Spanish loyalty. Perhaps the party which turned the most likely Carlist alliance partner was Partido Agrario, a conservative grouping of landowners and small-to-medium farmers;[38] candidates of both organizations particularly frequently appeared on common election lists, some posed as representing both parties and some Agrarians were indeed officially backed by the Carlists.[39]

1933: sitting of TYRE (Tradicionalistas y Renovación Española), a monarchist electoral co-ordination bureau

The party remained divided over its alliance policy, most inclined towards coalition deals during leadership of Rodezno (mid-1932 to mid-1934). The result was that the Carlists have never signed a fully-fledged nationwide pact with another party. Twice they concluded electoral deals nearing such an alliance. Prior to the 1931 campaign the Carlists formed a joint "católico-fuerista" list with PNV, though it was limited to Vascongadas and Navarre only.[40] Prior to the 1933 campaign they joined Renovacion Española in TYRE,[41] an electoral co-ordination bureau;[42] half-heartedly supported,[43] the initiative was barely revived in 1936.[44] The result was that in 1933 and 1936 all cases of Carlists joining multi-party lists[45] were agreed on provincial level; except Navarre, the Carlists were always a minority partner.[46] If talks failed a Carlist candidate ran on his own,[47] usually unsuccessfully.[48] Dislike of inter-party bargaining, demonstrated particularly in 1936, translated into electoral results. In 1933 and 1936 all party candidates combined gathered some 2.1m votes in each campaign; in 1933 the candidates supported obtained 24 mandates, while in 1936 the result was merely 10 seats.

Electorate
Carlist electorate (older Liberal cartoon)

The Republican electoral system strongly encouraged coalitions[49] and voters tended to block-vote all candidates from a specific electoral list;[50] the result is that according to expert historians, the size of particular party electorate is impossible to be defined exactly.[51] The simplest estimate of general Carlist electoral support is based on aggregating all votes obtained by candidates identified as Carlists; in 1931 this total was 0.27m votes (0.45m in case also disputed candidates are counted in), in 1933 it neared 2.11m and in 1936 it stood at 2.21m votes.[52] Apart from the fact that due to different legislation the numbers from 1931 and from 1933/36 are not comparable[53] and that there is some de-duplication needed,[54] the aggregates by no means indicate how many voters preferred Carlism as their first-choice political option. Since every voter was entitled to choose a number of candidates, the figures might at best demonstrate that in the mid-1930s some 1,8 million Spaniards above 23 years of age (13% of the electorate and 18% of active voters) were prepared to support a Carlist candidate, either as a first-choice option or as an acceptable alliance partner.[55]

Though dividing the entire Spanish electorate by strict party allegiances seems impossible on basis of electoral results only, historians devised workarounds intended to arrive at least at some estimates.[56] One method is based on calculating "proporción de decisiones" (PdD),[57] another one focuses on calculating so-called "media de votos" (MdV);[58] in most circumstances PdD and MdV methods return quite similar results.[59] Since one component of the PdD method is available for 1931 only,[60] the MdV method is followed to calculate figures for 1933 and 1936 campaigns. The number of voters who preferred Carlism as their first-choice political option is hence estimated at 51,000 people in 1931 (99,000 in case also dubious candidates are counted in), 422,000 people in 1933 and 366,000 people in 1936.[61] In relative terms these figures amounted to 1.2% of all active voters in 1931 (0.8% of all those entitled to vote), 4.9% in 1933 (3.3%) and 3.8% in 1936 (2.7%).[62] As there were probably some Carlist voters in districts with no Carlist candidate running the above figures should be understood as the lowest acceptable estimates, yet any substantial revision upwards does not seem likely.[63]

Rural Carlist feast

None of the works consulted attempts to define a social profile of the Carlist electorate, be it in terms of sex, age, education, occupation, residence or any other feature.[64] Some approximation is offered by electoral studies dedicated to specific areas – not necessarily representative for the entire Spain[65] – and by works providing social analysis of Carlism at the outbreak of the Civil War.[66] Both types of analysis suggest that Carlism was generally a heterogeneous, inter-class movement, yet popular particularly in rural milieu of small towns and villages rather than in major urban centers; only 3 mandates were obtained by the Carlists in a strictly urban constituency of a large city.[67] However, many scholars note also that implantation of Carlism was not equal in all rural areas; it was small- and mid-size farmers rather than landless rural proletariat who were particularly attracted.[68]

Geography
Geography of Carlist deputies

Carlism was not a genuinely nationwide grouping; its so-called Mass Party Index, a parameter devised to gauge capacity to compete in all electoral districts, ranged from meager 20% (1931) to 48% (1933) and 43% (1936).[69] Measured in terms of the number of mandates won, geographical support for Carlism during the Republican period remained uneven; some two thirds of seats were obtained in the Northern half of the country. However, the result was far more balanced than in the Restoration period, when no seat was won South of Sierra de Guadarrama; in the 1930s the party recorded some modest revival in New Castile and Andalusia.[70] Under the Liberal democratic regime of 1876-1923 the three Carlist strongholds, Catalonia, Navarre and Vascongadas, provided 81% of all seats gained; in 1931-1936 the three regions were responsible for only 46% of Carlist seats. Navarre clearly remained the Carlist nucleus and ensured 26% of all seats gained; however, the party reduced its dependence on the province from 35% during the Restoration era. The Carlist centre of gravity moved away particularly from Vascongadas and Catalonia; the former ensured only 13% of seats compared to 30% during the Alfonsine monarchy; for Catalonia the number was 8% compared to 16%.

most Carlist regions (% of seats won)[71]
nodistrict193119331936total
1Navarre28.6%57.1%57.1%47.6%
2Vascongadas11.8%11.8%5.9%9.8%
3Aragon0.0%9.5%4.8%4.8%
4Old Castile0.0%9.8%2.4%4.1%
5Asturias0.0%6.3%0.0%2.1%
6Catalonia0.0%3.8%1.9%1.9%
7Andalusia0.0%4.5%1.1%1.9%
8Valencia0.0%5.4%0.0%1.8%
9New Castile1.6%1.6%1.6%1.6%
10Leon0.0%4.5%0.0%1.5%
11Galicia0.0%2.1%0.0%0.7%
12Baleares0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
12Canarias0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
12Extremadura0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
12Murcia0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
SPAIN1.1%5.1%2.1%2.8%

In terms of support measured as the number of seats gained compared to the number of seats available, the region which remained a Carlist stronghold was Navarre, where the party seized 48% of all seats contested in 1931-1936. In three regions electoral Carlism remained a secondary force still to be reckoned with: Vascongadas (10% of all seats available), Old Castile (5%) and Aragón (5%). In 6 regions electoral presence of the party was merely testimonial, the ratio of mandates won ranging from 1,5% to 2%: Andalusia, Asturias, Catalonia, León, New Castile and Valencia. Compared to the Alfonsine period[72] the Carlist success ratio deteriorated visibly though not dramatically across most of the country, detrimental especially in former bulwarks of Vascongadas and Catalonia.[73] However, there were exceptions; in Navarre the Carlist share of seats gained rose from 36% in the Restoration period, with relative growth also in Old Castile[74] and regions where the party failed to obtain a single seat prior to 1923.[75] Application of MdV method to calculate Carlist share of votes (not seats) across regions suggests that it ranged from some 40% in Navarre[76] to 15-17% in the Vascongadas,[77] 3-7% in Old Castile,[78] 2-6% in Valencia,[79] 4-5% in Aragón[80] and Catalonia[81] and 2-4% in Andalusia,[82] León[83] and New Castile.[84]

Because single-mandate smaller electoral districts of the Restoration period were replaced with multi-mandate larger districts of the Republic no detailed geographic comparison is possible. On provincial level – the lowest one available – the entities which recorded the highest Carlist success ratio were Navarre (48%), Álava (33%), Tarragona (10%) and Zaragoza (aldea, 9%); the most striking change was recorded in Gipuzkoa, where prior to 1923 the Carlists grabbed 33% of all seats available; in 1931-1936 this ratio fell to 6%. Also other provinces with traditionally noticeable Carlist support, especially these on the Mediterranean coast, turned increasingly lukewarm in their Carlist preferences; these were the Catalan cases of Girona and Barcelona.[85]

Personalities
3 x failed: Larramendi

There were 65 individuals who represented Carlism competing for the Republican Cortes tickets; out of these, 30 were successful. One person, Tómas Domínguez de Arévalo or conde de Rodezno, won the mandate in all 3 campaigns, while 5 Carlist politicians sat in the chamber during 2 terms: Luis Arellano Dihinx, Joaquín Bau Nolla, Jesús Comín Sagüés, Gínez Martínez Rubio and José Luis Oriol Uriguen.[86] However, none of the Carlist MPs gained esteem comparable to this enjoyed by such Right-wing parliamentary tycoons like José Calvo Sotelo or José María Gil-Robles. Though there were Carlist politicians recognized for their intellectual format, some – like Víctor Pradera – did not aspire to the Cortes mandate, and some – like Luis Hernando de Larramendi – failed in their bids. The figure of Larramendi stands out for another reason – he was the sole Carlist candidate who ran in 1931, 1933 and 1936 and who lost in all 3 campaigns.[87]

Detailed profiling of all Carlist candidates is not possible due to data shortages, perhaps except noting that they were 64 males and 1 female. The MP contingent was made mostly of lawyers, landowners and entrepreneurs;[88] 13 were in their 30s, 12 in their 40s, 10 in their 50s and few individuals remained either below 30 or above 60.[89] Among the Carlist deputies 5 gained parliamentary practice in the Restoration Cortes; the most experienced of them, Esteban Bilbao, served three terms prior to 1923. His record pales in comparison with this of Manuel Senante, who served 8 terms as the Integrist deputy during the Restoration period; however, Senante failed in his two Republican parliamentarian bids. The MP who eventually rose to highest honors was Bilbao, in the Francoist Spain the minister of justice and the longtime president of the Cortes; on the other end, 6 Carlist MPs were later killed by their political opponents.[90]

3 x elected: Rodezno

It might look paradoxical that out of 10 candidates who gathered the largest number of votes 7 failed; the phenomenon resulted from their standing in large urban constituencies, usually at best lukewarm towards Carlism, and its key victim was Roman Oyarzun; in Madrid in 1936 he was supported by 186.000 voters.[91] In terms of the largest share of votes gathered the best performing Carlist candidate was Miguel de Miranda y Mateo, who in Logroño in 1933 was supported by 87% of active voters.[92] The worst recorded result was this of Francisco Martínez García, who in Murcia in 1936 gathered 1.469 votes only;[93] similarly disastrous appears to be the result of José Roca y Ponsa in the Canarias in 1931, yet his 735 votes were gathered under the legislation which allowed only male suffrage. The post of Carlist political leader, jefe delegado, was held by 3 individuals; in 1931 marqués de Villores ran on his own in Valencia and lost miserably, in 1933 conde de Rodezno won comfortably in Navarre, and in 1936 Fal Conde, who unsuccessfully tried his luck as Integrist in 1931, refrained from fielding his candidature.[94] During the 1931-1933 term there was no formal Carlist minority, yet the Catholic-Fuerista bloc they formed part of was headed by Joaquin Beunza; during the 1933-1935 term and the term which commenced in 1936 it was Conde de Rodezno who formally headed the Carlist Cortes parliamentary group.

Appendix. Carlist candidates, 1931–1936
yearnamedistrict[95]regionvotes[96]MdV[97]result[98]
1933ORIOL Y URIGUEN, JOSE LUIS DEALAVAVASCONGADAS2071820718ELECTED
1936ORIOL Y URIGUEN, JOSE LUIS DEALAVAVASCONGADAS1387313873ELECTED
1933SENANTE MARTINEZ, MANUELALICANTEVALENCIA400155002FAILED[99]
1936SENANTE MARTINEZ, MANUELALICANTEVALENCIA110001375FAILED[100]
1936RADA PERAL, RICARDOALMERIAANDALUSIA496239925FAILED[101]
1933QUINT ZAFORTEZA, JOSEBALEARESBALEARES94851897FAILED[102]
1931GAMBUS RUSCA, FRANCISCOBARCELONA (C)CATALONIA241311724FAILED[103]
1936GOMIS CORNET, JOAQUINBARCELONA (C)CATALONIA15101810787FAILED[104]
1936PRAT PIERA, JOSEBARCELONA (P)CATALONIA14467012056FAILED[105]
1931SOLER JANER, JUANBARCELONA (P)CATALONIA3500292FAILED[106]
1933SOLER JANER, JUANBARCELONA (P)CATALONIA640005333FAILED[107]
1933TRAVERIA PUBILL, JUANBARCELONA (P)CATALONIA630005250FAILED[108]
1931OLEAGA MUGURUZA, NAZARINOBISCAY (C)VASCONGADAS130003250FAILED[109]
1931OREJA ELOSEGUI, MARCELINOBISCAY (C)VASCONGADAS159823996ELECTED
1936JUARISTI LANDAIDA, JOSE MARIABISCAY (C)VASCONGADAS301277532FAILED[110]
1933LEZAMA LEGUIZAMON, LUISBISCAY (C)VASCONGADAS184984625FAILED[111]
1936GAYTAN DE AYALA Y COSTA, JOSE LUISBISCAY (P)VASCONGADAS2472612363FAILED[112]
1933OREJA ELOSEGUI, MARCELINOBISCAY (P)VASCONGADAS2025910130ELECTED
1933ROJO BARONA, HERMOGENESBISCAY (C)VASCONGADAS188349417FAILED[113]
1936ESTEVANEZ RODRIGUEZ, FRANCISCOBURGOSOLD CASTILE6632411054FAILED[114]
1933ESTEVANEZ RODRIGUEZ, FRANCISCOBURGOSOLD CASTILE6803711340ELECTED
1933GOMEZ ROJI, RICARDOBURGOSOLD CASTILE188913149FAILED[115]
1936VALIENTE SORIANO, JOSE MARIABURGOSOLD CASTILE9498615831ELECTED
1933MARTINEZ DE PINILLOS SAENZ, MIGUELCADIZANDALUSIA472995912ELECTED
1936PALOMINO JIMENEZ, JUAN JOSECADIZANDALUSIA558026975FAILED[116]
1933PALOMINO JIMENEZ, JUAN JOSECADIZANDALUSIA463625795ELECTED
1931CHICHARRO SANCHEZ GUIO, JAIMECASTELLONVALENCIA108672717FAILED[117]
1933CHICHARRO SANCHEZ GUIO, JAIMECASTELLONVALENCIA4947912370FAILED[118]
1933GRANELL PASCUAL, JUANCASTELLONVALENCIA5619914050ELECTED
1936SOLER MARTI, JUAN BAUTISTACASTELLONVALENCIA118442961FAILED[119]
1933ARAUZ DE ROBLES, JOSE MARIAGERONACATALONIA4747949FAILED[120]
1936HERNANDO DE LARRAMENDI, LUISGERONACATALONIA5433310867FAILED[121]
1933LLANAS DE NIUBO, RENEGERONACATALONIA4558912FAILED[122]
1936MUGICA MUGICA JOSEGIPUZKOAVASCONGADAS4574311436FAILED[123]
1936OREJA ELOSEGUI, RICARDOGIPUZKOAVASCONGADAS4475911190FAILED[124]
1933PAGOAGA Y PAGOAGA, ANTONIOGIPUZKOAVASCONGADAS320558014FAILED[125]
1936PAGOAGA Y PAGOAGA, ANTONIOGIPUZKOAVASCONGADAS4456011140FAILED[126]
1933TELLERIA MENDIZABAL, AGUSTINGIPUZKOAVASCONGADAS317087927FAILED[127]
1931URQUIJO IBARRA, JULIOGIPUZKOAVASCONGADAS358198955ELECTED
1933URRACA PASTOR, MARIA ROSAGIPUZKOAVASCONGADAS316187904FAILED[128]
1936ARAUZ DE ROBLES, JOSE MARIAGRANADAANDALUSIA14593420848FAILED[129]
1936GARZON MARIN, ANTONIOJAENANDALUSIA13150613151FAILED[130]
1933DIAZ AGUADO Y SALABERRY, RAFAELLA CORUNAGALICIA160061334FAILED[131]
1936SANGENIS BERTRAND, CASIMIRO DELERIDACATALONIA4695311738FAILED[132]
1933SANGENIS BERTRAND, CASIMIRO DELERIDACATALONIA5186912967ELECTED
1933MIRANDA Y MATEO, MIGUEL DELOGRONOOLD CASTILE3745612485ELECTED
1936TOLEDO Y ROBLES, ROMUALDO DELOGRONOOLD CASTILE89202973FAILED[133]
1931HERNANDO DE LARRAMENDI, LUISMADRID (C)NEW CASTILE75212507FAILED[134]
1933HERNANDO DE LARRAMENDI, LUISMADRID (C)NEW CASTILE13059443531FAILED[135]
1936OYARZUN OYARZUN, ROMANMADRID (C)NEW CASTILE18574813268FAILED[136]
1933TOLEDO Y ROBLES, ROMUALDO DEMADRID (P)NEW CASTILE7148610212ELECTED
1933HINOJOSA LASARTE, JOSE MARIAMALAGA (P)ANDALUSIA347114959FAILED[137]
1936HINOJOSA LASARTE, JOSE MARIAMALAGA (P)ANDALUSIA464787746FAILED[138]
1936MARTINEZ GARCIA, FRANCISCOMURCIAMURCIA1469294FAILED[139]
1936ARELLANO DIHINX, LUISPAMPLONANAVARRA7886115772ELECTED
1936DOMINGUEZ AREVALO, TOMASPAMPLONANAVARRA8177016354ELECTED
1936ELIZALDE Y SAINZ DE ROBLES, JESUSPAMPLONANAVARRA7815915632ELECTED
1936MARTINEZ DE MORENTIN, FRANCISCO JAVIERPAMPLONANAVARRA7922415845ELECTED
1933ARELLANO DIHINX, LUISPAMPLONANAVARRA7237714475ELECTED
1931BEUNZA Y REDIN, JOAQUINPAMPLONANAVARRA461029220ELECTED
1933BILBAO Y EGUIA, ESTEBANPAMPLONANAVARRA7771415543ELECTED
1931DOMINGUEZ AREVALO, TOMASPAMPLONANAVARRA459409188ELECTED
1933DOMINGUEZ AREVALO, TOMASPAMPLONANAVARRA8990117980ELECTED
1933MARTINEZ DE MORENTIN, FRANCISCO JAVIERPAMPLONANAVARRA7948715897ELECTED
1936DELAGE SANTOS, RAMONORENSEGALICIA253003614FAILED[140]
1933MERAS NAVIA OSORIO, GONZALOOVIEDOASTURIAS12464510387ELECTED
1933LIS QUIVEN, VICTOR[141]PONTEVEDRAGALICIA671117457ELECTED
1936LAMAMIE DE CLAIRAC, JOSE MARIASALAMANCALEON6490612981FAILED[142]
1933LAMAMIE DE CLAIRAC, JOSE MARIASALAMANCALEON7802015604ELECTED
1933ZAMANILLO Y GONZALEZ-CAMINO, JOSE LUISSANTANDEROLD CASTILE6895013790ELECTED
1936ZAMANILLO Y GONZALEZ-CAMINO, JOSE LUISSANTANDEROLD CASTILE117352347FAILED[143]
1936MARTINEZ RUBIO, GINESSEVILLA (C)ANDALUSIA4309110773ELECTED
1933DIAZ CUSTODIO, JUANSEVILLA (P)ANDALUSIA261503269FAILED[144]
1933MARTINEZ RUBIO, GINESSEVILLA (C)ANDALUSIA371559289ELECTED
1933TEJERA DE QUESADA, DOMINGOSEVILLA (P)ANDALUSIA427985350ELECTED
1933BAU NOLLA, JOAQUINTARRAGONACATALONIA5975511951ELECTED
1936BAU NOLLA, JOAQUINTARRAGONACATALONIA6940513881ELECTED
1931ROCA CABALL, JUAN BAUTISTATARRAGONACATALONIA103152063FAILED[145]
1936URRACA PASTOR, MARIA ROSATERUELARAGON158213955FAILED[146]
1931MADARIAGA ALMENDROS, DIMASTOLEDONEW CASTILE315763947ELECTED
1936REQUEJO SAN ROMAN, JESUSTOLEDONEW CASTILE12551315689ELECTED
1933MANGLANO Y CUCALO, JOAQUINVALENCIA (C)VALENCIA5476710953ELECTED
1931SELVA MERGELINA, JOSE DEVALENCIA (C)VALENCIA131722634FAILED[147]
1931DIAZ AGUADO Y SALABERRY, RAFAELVALENCIA (P)VALENCIA113571136FAILED[148]
1933LINARES ARINO, CARLOSVALENCIA (P)VALENCIA877258773FAILED[149]
1936PUIGDOLLERS OLIVER, MARIANOVALENCIA (P)VALENCIA12641412641FAILED[150]
1933CALZADA RODRIGUEZ, LUCIANO DE LA[151]VALLADOLIDOLD CASTILE6435816090ELECTED
1931ROCA PONSA, JOSELAS PALMASCANARIAS735735FAILED[152]
1933COMIN SAGUES, JESUSZARAGOZA (P)ARAGON5412510825ELECTED
1936COMIN SAGUES, JESUSZARAGOZA (P)ARAGON7046214092ELECTED
1933RAMIREZ SINUES, JAVIERZARAGOZA (P)ARAGON5481910964ELECTED
gollark: Why do your socks not include built-in GPS trackers?
gollark: You can borrow one of the GTech™ nanofabricators for it.
gollark: GTech™ does not offer a /dev/null-as-a-service API at this time, but you can use the multitude of hosted services available for this.
gollark: It's mean to place housing into GTech™ untime chambers.
gollark: You *can* do that, right?

See also

Footnotes
  1. "ningún movimiento político de la España contemporánea ha mostrado, como el tradicionalismo carlista, una predisposición tan franca y tan persistente a la violencia, hasta hacerla formar parte indisociable de su praxis política, de su identidad colectiva y de su acervo cultural", Eduardo González Calleja, Aproximación a las subculturas violentas de las derechas antirrepublicanas españolas (1931-1936), [in:] Pasado y memoria 2 (2003), p. 113
  2. sort of "official" Carlist history is a monumental series by Melchor Ferrer, Historia del tradicionalismo español, Seville 1949-1979; out of its 30 volumes, some 22 are dedicated to Carlist military efforts
  3. Jordi Canal, El carlismo, Madrid 2000, ISBN 8420639478, p. 168
  4. there is no scholarly monograph dedicated to Carlist electoral or - in somewhat broader terms - parliamentarian activity at all, let alone during the Second Republic years. The closest thing is a work discussing Carlism in 1931-1936, with some sections focusing on electoral/parliamentarian issues, Martin Blinkhorn, Carlism and Crisis in Spain 1931-1939, Cambridge 2008, ISBN 9780521086349. The Carlists first engaged in anti-Republican conspiracy in January 1932, followed by another episode of the summer of 1932. If in both cases the party decided not to proceed on violent path it was not because they preferred peaceful means; the time was considered not ripe yet, Canal 2000, p. 299
  5. especially the campaign of 1936 was viewed by the Carlist political leader Manuel Fal Conde as a secondary issue; unlike his predecessors on the post of Jefe Delegado, he did not bother to run himself, Blinkhorn 2008, pp. 228-236
  6. Canal 2000, p. 287
  7. Canal 2000, p. 308
  8. there is abundant literature on politics of the Second Republic and most authors agree that its sectarian penchant contributed to the final collapse of the republican regime: "una de las explicaciones clásicas que se han dado a la proliferación de la violencia durante la Segunda República ha girado en torno a un déficit de cultura política que habría favorecido el auge de los extremismos", González Calleja, 2003, p. 107. For a classic study which tends to focus on Left-wing violence see Stanley G. Payne, The Collapse of the Spanish Republic, 1933-1936, New York 2006, ISBN 9780300110654; similarly classic study focusing on Right-wing violence, including the Carlist one, is Paul Preston, The Coming of the Spanish Civil War: Reform, Reaction and Revolution in the Second Republic, London 1994, ISBN 9780415063548. A monograph dedicated to Carlism of the Second Republic is formatted as "a study of political extremism in the Spain of the Second Republic", Blinkhorn 2008, p. VII
  9. "el carlismo se había erigido de nuevo como núcleo cohesivo de otra alamgama conterrevolucionaria, aungque de dimensiones bastante más modestas que las del siglo XIX", Jordi Canal i Morell, Banderas blancas, boinas rojas: una historia política del carlismo, 1876-1939, Madrid 2006, ISBN 9788496467347, p. 324
  10. Blinkhorn 2008; see especially the chapter Rivals on the right, pp. 94-118
  11. for classification of candidates and deputies see footnote #32. Votes gathered calculated accordingly using the MdV method, see footnote #58
  12. voters who supported the Carlists as their first choice (calculated according to the MdV method, see footnote #58) as percentage of all active voters. In brackets voters who supported the Carlists in general (total number of votes gathered by the Carlists de-duplicated in case of districts with more than 1 Carlist candidate running, see footnote #54) as percentage of all active voters
  13. number of seats taken by Carlist MPs as percentage of all seats available in the chamber
  14. e.g. for the 1933 campaign one scholar claims there were 39 candidates, Blinkhorn 2008, p. 123, while another one gives the figure of 38, Roberto Villa García, La república en las urnas: el despertar de la democracia en España, Madrid 2011, ISBN 9788492820511, p. 180
  15. e.g. for the 1931 campaign one scholar claims there were 8 Carlist candidates elected with further 2 supported by the Carlists, José Carlos Clemente Muñoz, El carlismo en el novecientos español (1876-1936), Madrid 1999, ISBN 9788483741535, p. 80; another author claims there were 4 Traditionalists were elected, Octavio Ruiz-Manjón Cabeza, Genoveva García Queipo de Llano, Javier Tusell Gómez, Las constituyentes de 1931; unas elecciones de transición (II), [in:] Revista de derecho político 13 (1982), p 177. For the 1936 campaign one study claims 12 Carlist MPs, see Blinkhorn 2008, p. 346; another work advances the figure of 16, Carlos Barciela López, Albert Carreras, Xavier Tafunell (eds.), Estadísticas históricas de España: siglos XIX-XX, vol. 3, Madrid 2005, ISBN 9788496515000, p. 1100
  16. conde de Rodezno and Joaquín Beunza were active Jaimistas; another deputy, Julio Urquijo, used to be a Carlist activist in the 1910s and remained personal friend of the claimant. Though since the 1920s he somewhat distanced himself from politics, Urquijo was still clearly associated with Carlism
  17. Estevanez Rodrigúez and Lamamie de Clairac were Integrist activists; three Catholic priests, Fernandez González, Gómez Roji and Pidaín Zapiain were loosely associated with Integrism; none of the 5 had been earlier related to Carlism, though Lamamie joined it later and Estevanez approached the movement. Oreja Elosegui and Madariaga Almendros used to be active Carlists who joined the Mellista secessionists in 1919 and seemed re-approaching Carlism in the early 1930s; the former indeed re-joined, while the latter eventually opted for CEDA. Oriol Uriguen prior to 1931 was loosely related to various breeds of Conservatism; during the campaign he animated Hermandad Alavesa, an organisation he created as his unofficial private election vehicle; after 1931 he joined the Carlist ranks. Out of these 8 deputies, Pildain, Oreja and Oriol joined the Carlists and the Basque nationalists on the common Catholic-fuerista lists; others ran as Agrarios
  18. Barciela, Carreras, Tafunell 2005 claim 19 (unnamed) MPs, Blinkhorn 2008, pp. 332-333 names 21 MPs, and a Carlist publication Album histórico del Carlismo, Barcelona 1933, p. 296, claimed 23 MPs. The difference between Blinkhorn and Album histórico is made by Luciano de la Calzada and Miguel de Miranda y Mateo
  19. Barciela, Carreras, Tafunell 2005 claim 16 (unnamed) MPs, Blinkhorn 2008, p. 347 claims 13 successful candidates reduced to 10 once Comisión de Actas stripped Lamamie, Arauz and Estevanez of their mandates, and, Eduardo Ros, Las elecciones del Frente Popular, Valencia 2015, p. 35 lists 12 (unnamed) MPs
  20. the most recent general study dedicated to electoral history of the Second Republic is Villa García 2011
  21. the denominations applied by contemporary press might have been these of agrario, agrario independiente, carlista, católico fuerista, cedista, independiente, integrista, jaimista, mellista, monarquico, nacional agrario or tradicionalista, compare Ahora 10.06.31, available here
  22. Blinkhorn 2008, pp. 55-57
  23. Leandro Alvarez Rey, La derecha en la II República: Sevilla, 1931-1936, Sevilla 1993, ISBN 9788447201525, p. 139
  24. Ruiz-Manjón, García, Tusell 1982, p. 177
  25. first public rallies organized jointly by Jaimistas, Integristas and former Mellistas took place in June 1931, even before the general elections, Canal 295-296
  26. all three groups tended to rapprochement and since the early days of the Republic there was already a widespread talk about their unity, Octavio Ruiz-Manjón Cabeza, Javier Tusell Gómez, Genoveva García Queipo de Llano, Las Constituyentes de 1931: unas elecciones de transición (I), [in:] Revista de derecho político 12 (1981-1982), p. 224. Their candidates did not compete one against another and in few cases joined the same alliance lists - e.g. in Gipuzkoa, where an Integrist candidate Pildain and a Jaimista candidate Urquijo both ran on the "coalición católico-fuerista" ticket
  27. once Primo de Rivera banned all political parties in 1923 there was no general Carlist organization. Starting 1930 Carlist groupings emerging across various regions of Spain assumed different names, like Comunión Tradicionalista (e.g. in Catalonia, see La Vanguardia 08.03.31, available here), Comunión Tradicionalista Vasco-Navarra (in Vascongadas and Navarre, see Heraldo Alaves 11.06.31, available here), Comunión Católico-Monárquica or Comunión Legitimista (in Madrid, see El Cruzado Español 05.09.30, available here), Comunión Tradicionalista-Integrista (in Canarias) or Partido Tradicionalista (in Gipzukoa, El Siglo Futuro 07.03.31, available here)
  28. Blinkhorn 2008, pp. 332-333
  29. most scholars consider the 1936 activity of Comisión de Actas at least incompatible with the spirit of electoral legislation; some refer to manipulation, and some apply the name "pucherazo", a classic Spanish term for electoral fraud. A work dealing with 1936 elections in Granada, where the results were entirely nullified, draws a parallel between 1936 elections and the fraudulent Restoration elections, see Roberto Villa García, The Failure of Electoral Modernization: The Elections of May 1936 in Granada, [in:] Journal of Contemporary History 44/3 (2009), pp. 402-429
  30. "la identificación de los candidatos con la derecha se hace teniendo en cuenta posteriores identificaciones políticas", Ruiz-Manjón, García, Tusell 1982, p. 146
  31. Clemente 1999, p. 80
  32. a voter making his electoral decision in e.g. 1931 was obviously unaware of later political allegiances assumed by a candidate he voted for; voters based their decisions on political allegiances assumed prior to the date. The rule adopted here is that unless clearly running on another party ticket, candidates who at any point in time prior to the election date had been known as Carlist activists are counted in - this is the case e.g. of Jaime Chicharro, Marcelino Oreja or Dimas de Madariaga in 1931. By the same token, candidates who until the election date had never been involved in Carlism are counted out, even these who later would turn into iconic Carlist personalities - this is the case e.g. of Manuel Fal Conde, José María Lamamie de Clairac or José Luis Oriol running in 1931; however, having joined Comunion Tradicionalista Lamamie and Oriol are counted in for the 1933 and 1936 elections
  33. El Siglo Futuro 15.02.36, available here
  34. El Siglo Futuro 04.11.33, available here or El Siglo Futuro 16.02.36, available here
  35. El Siglo Futuro 18.11.33, available here
  36. El Siglo Futuro 03.02.36, available here
  37. El Siglo Futuro 18.11.36, available here
  38. detailed discussion in Luis Teófilo Gil Cuadrado, El Partido Agrario Español (1934-1936); un alternativa conservadora y republicana [PhD thesis Universidad Complutense], Madrid 2006
  39. e.g. the case of Dimas de Madariaga in 1931, Josep Carles Clemente, Breve historia del carlismo, Madrid 2001, ISBN 9788475600413, p. 150
  40. according to the alliance deal the candidates running in Vascongadas had to be Basque, which eliminated Rafaél Díaz Aguado Salaberry , initially to be fielded in the region, Idoia Estornés Zubizarreta, La construcción de una nacionalidad vasca, Donostia 1990, ISBN 9788487471049, pp. 496-497
  41. TYRE was abbreviation of Tradicionalistas Y Renovación Española
  42. TYRE was not a common electoral list, Blinkhorn 2008, pp. 109-110, 132
  43. Blinkhorn 2008, p. 139
  44. Blinkhorn 2008, p. 202; for detailed discussion of monarchist alliance and interesting comparison of RE and CT, see Julio Gil Pecharromán, El alfonsismo radical en las elecciones de febrero de 1936, [in:] Revista de Estudios Políticos 42 (1984), pp. 101-136
  45. typically named "Frente de Orden", "Union de Derechas", "Candidatura Contrarrevolucionaria" etc.
  46. general opinion as to the weight of Carlism within the electoral realm of the Right differs. One scholar talks about "el segundo partido nacional más importante de la Unión de Derechas, la Comunión Tradicionalista", Villa García 2011, p. 177. An earlier study claims that "en la tendencia derechista existían dos grandes partidos. El más popular era la CEDA, con Gil Robles, y más a la derecha, Renovación Española. de Calvo Sotelo", Juan J. Linz, Jesus M. De Miguel, Hacia un análisis regional de las elecciones de 1936 en España, [in:] Revista española de la opinión pública 48 (1977), p. 32
  47. e.g. in Levante in 1931 no-one wanted to ally with 3 Carlist candidates, including the party leader marqués de Villores, and they ran on their own, Blinkhorn 2008, p. 54
  48. anticipating defeat, the Carlist were particularly enraged by their Restoration Cortes veteran Manuel Senante being dropped off the common Right-wing list, see e.g. El Siglo Futuro 08.02.1936, available here
  49. the system offered a hefty majoritarian bonus to the most popular list of candidates in every district and "obviously favored multi-party coalitions", Stanley G. Payne, Spain’s First Democracy, Madison 1993, ISBN 9780299136741, pp. 47-48
  50. e.g. in case of 1936 elections in the district of Granada a right-wing list consisted of 10 candidates; they represented various parties, like CEDA, Comunión Tradicionalista, Partido Agrario or Renovación Española. The most-voted candidate from the list obtained 148,934 votes, while the least-voted of the 10 candidates obtained 145,934 votes (98% of votes cast for the most successful candidate), Villa García 2009, pp. 402-429
  51. "es prácticamente imposible segregar los votos de una determinada significación (por ejemplo, los radical-socialistas de los socialistas) en el caso de que hubiera una candidatura de coalición republicano-socialista", Ruiz-Manjón, García, Tusell 1982, p. 157, "resulta imposible determinar cuántos votos pertenecían por separado a cada formación política", Villa García 2011, p. 337
  52. see totals from the appendix
  53. females were first entitled to vote in the 1933 elections. In 1931 the total electorate was 6.2m people, while in 1933 and 1936 it was respectively 12.9m and 13.3m people
  54. de-duplication is needed in districts where there was more than 1 Carlist candidate running. It is likely that in most such cases a voter who voted for one Carlist candidate voted also for another/other Carlist candidates
  55. in 1933 the total number of votes gathered by Carlist candidates was 2.11m; following de-duplication, needed in districts where there was more than 1 Carlist candidate running, this number translates into 1.54m people who supported the Carlists. In 1933 the total number of Spaniards eligible to vote was 12.90m and the total number of voters was 8.68m. In 1936 the Carlists gathered 2.21m votes, which following de-duplication translates to 1.78m people; the electorate was 13.39m and the number of active voters was 9,73m. Provincial data for electorate and number of voters for 1933 and 1936 after Ros 2015, pp. 26-27; for 1931 after Ruiz-Manjón, García, Tusell 1982, pp. 141-142
  56. apart from PdD and MdV methods listed below, there are also other approaches used to estimate support obtained by specific parties; one focuses on the number of votes obtained by the most-voted (or first-listed) candidate from a given list), another, named "cantidad moda", calculates "cantidad que más veces se repite dentre de la liste de nombres que forman la candidatura". They are used to estimate support received by political parties, but are useless to calculate support received by specific individual candidates, compare Miguel Angel Mateos Rodríguez, Fuentes y metodología para el estudio electoral de la II República española, [in:] Ayer 3 (1991), pp. 139-164
  57. "influencia de un partido político puede ser medida por la proporción de decisiones en favor de los candidatos de una determinada significación con respecto al total de las decisiones efectuadas", Ruiz-Manjón, García, Tusell 1982, pp. 157, 162. Calculation to gauge electoral support of specific parties is based on comparing the total number of votes gathered by candidates of the party in question in a given district to the total number of votes cast in this district. The proposal is generally accepted as means of calculating the approximate share of votes – expressed as percentage – that the party received in the province - compare e.g. the calculation of votes received by major parties in Cuenca in 1933, Ángel Luis López Villaverde, Cuenca durante la II República: elecciones, partidos y vida política, 1931-1936, Cuenca 1997, ISBN 9788487319198, p. 255
  58. "media aritmética, dividiendo el total de los sufragios obtenidos por una candídatura entre el número de votos que el elector poseía en cada circunscripción"; historians note that it is merely "una ficción que crea el historiador para obtener los resultados nacionales y provinciales", Villa García 2011, p. 337; others define it as, "la estimación de los porcentajes de apoyo electoral obtenido por los partidos se ha realizado dividiento los votos de cada partido por el número de votos que el electór podía ultilizar en el distríto", Barciela López, Carreras, Tafunell 2005, p. 1100
  59. both PdD and MdV should return exactly the same result in case all voters exercised their rights to the full. Because a fraction of voters used to choose less candidates than they were entitled to, the phenomenon is responsible for slightly different results produced by both methods. E.g. in Navarre in 1931 there were 73.786 people who cast their ballots; each voter was entitled to choose 5 candidates ("make 5 decisions"), yet the total "number of decisions" made was 364.353 (and not 73.786*5=368.925). Of two clearly Carlist candidates, Joaquín Beunza obtained 46.102 votes and conde de Rodezno obtained 45.940 votes. According to the PdD methodology the Carlist share of the voters was (46.102+45.940)/364.353=25,3%. According to the MdV methodology the Carlist share of voters was [(46.102/5)+(45.940/5)]/73.786=24,9%. In absolute figures both percentages return similar number of voters: 18.640 and 18.408
  60. "total number of decisions" is published only for all districts in the 1931 campaign; it is not known for districts of 1933 and 1936
  61. a detailed attempt to break down all voters into party electorate was carried out for the 1936 elections only, see Linz, De Miguel 1977, pp. 27-68. The authors use the MdV method and arrive at the total Carlist electorate of 328,000, see table 9 [no pagination, in-between pages 66 and 67]
  62. see totals as in the appendices. Barciela, Carreras, Tafunell 2005, p. 1100, specify the Carlist share of votes as 1,0% (1931), 4,3% (1933) and 3.4% (1936); "la estimación de los porcentajes de apoyo electoral obtenido por los partidos se ha realizado dividiento los votos de cada partido por el número de votos que el electór podía ultilizar en el distríto". The same work specifies the Carlist share of seats as 0.8% (1931), 4.1% (1933) and 3.2% (1936). Linz, de Miguel 1977, p. 34 use the same method and specify the Carlist share of votes obtained in 1936 as 3,4%
  63. it is believed that the MdV method overestimates electoral support for mainstream parties, see comments on "sobrevaloriación de los partidos de centro que el mismo modelo de análisis introduce", Linz, De Miguel 1977, pp. 27-28
  64. in some areas women formed 40% of Carlist membership, Rafael Quirosa-Cheyrouze y Muñoz, Católicos, monárquicos y fascistas en Almería durante la Segunda República, Almeria 1998, ISBN 9788482401195, p. 53
  65. for key Carlist areas see e.g. José Antonio Rodríguez Ranz, Guipúzcoa y San Sebastián en las elecciones de la II República, Donostia 2003, ISBN 9788471732293, and Roberto Villa García, Las elecciones de 1933 en el País Vasco y Navarra, Madrid 2007, ISBN 9788498491159
  66. for another key Carlist area, Alava, see Javier Ugarte Tellería, La nueva Covadonga insurgente: orígenes sociales y culturales de la sublevación de 1936 en Navarra y el País Vasco, Madrid 1998, ISBN 9788470305313
  67. Gínes Martínez Rubio in Seville in 1933 and 1936, Joaquín Manglano in Valencia in 1933
  68. brief attempts to provide a general social overview in Canal 2000, pp. 309-310
  69. for 1936 see Linz, de Miguel 1977, p. 36. Out of some 40 parties competing, Comunión Tradicionalista recorded Mass Party Index inferior only to these of CEDA (95%), PSOE (92%), Izquierda Republicana (88%), Radicals (68%) and Unión Republicana (60%)
  70. geographical analysis of party support during the 1936 elections suggests surprisingly that after Navarre (63,000 people) and Vascongadas (58,000) the third region with the largest Carlist electorate was Andalusia (56,000); Catalonia (48,000) was coming fourth; see Linz, De Miguel 1977
  71. number of seats won as percentage of all seats available. 100% success was not possible, as electoral law reserved some 20% of seats (exact number differed by district) for a minority list
  72. the success ratio of the Republic elections is not mathematically comparable to the success ratio of the Restoration period. The Republican electoral system was a majoritarian-proportional one, while the Restoration one was majoritarian. In the Republican system no party could have gained 100% of seats in an electoral district, as the system reserved a fraction of seats, usually around 20%, to the second most popular list. In the Restoration system a successful party could have gained all seats available in a district
  73. in Vascongadas from 15,7% to 9,8%, in Catalonia from 2.7% to 1.9%
  74. from 1,3% in the Alfonsine period to 4,9% during the Second Republic
  75. Aragón, New Castile and Andalusia. The Carlist success ratio remained stable in Valencia (from 1,7% during Restoration to 1,8% during the Republic) and León (from 1,4% to 1,5%)
  76. 64,000 out of 190,000 in 1933, 64,000 out of 156,000 in 1936
  77. 67,000 out of 380,000 (1933), 67,000 out of 394,000 (1936)
  78. 56,000 out of 763,000 (1933), 32,000 out of 831,000 (1936)
  79. 51,000 out of 783,000 (1933), 17,000 out of 868,000 (1936)
  80. 21,000 out of 671,000 (1933), 18,000 out of 435,000 (1936)
  81. 37,000 out of 1,033,000 (1933), 59,000 out of 1,189,000 (1936)
  82. 35,000 out of 1,443,000 (1933), 62,000 out of 1,714,000 (1936)
  83. 16,000 out of 414,000 (1933), 13,000 out of 429,000 (1936)
  84. 54,000 out of 929,000 (1933), 29,000 out of 1,223,000 (1936)
  85. Carlist share of seats as percentage of all seats available during the Restoration period was 5,7% in Gerona and 2,5% in Barcelona; during the Republican period the Carlists failed to win a single seat in both districts (Barcelona both city and aldea)
  86. José Luis Oriol was successful in 1931, 1933 and 1936, but he is not counted as a Carlist representative during the 1931 campaign
  87. in 1931 and 1933 he ran in Madrid, the urban constituency where Carlist electorate - at least in relative terms - was minor. In 1936 he switched to Girona, but this did not help; he had had nothing to do with Girona earlier
  88. the contingent of Carlist MPs consisted of 10 lawyers, 9 landowners and 6 entrepreneurs (e.g. Juan José Palomino Jiménez, plus single academics (e.g. Mariano Puigdollers Oliver), workers, publishers and civil servants
  89. the only Carlist MP over 60 was Urquijo; those below 30 were Calzada and Arellano in 1933 and Elizalde in 1936
  90. Oreja was shot during the 1934 revolution; Beunza, Requejo, Meras, Sangenis and Madariaga were killed during the Civil War. The death toll included also a few Carlists who failed to win the Cortes ticket, like Juan Bautista Soler Martí
  91. La Nación 18.02.36, available here
  92. he obtained 37.456 votes with the number of active voters 43.152; data at Mateo y Miranda, Miguel de entry, [in:] Indice Histórico de Diputados service, available here, and Ros 2015, p. 26
  93. as the Carlists did not close a coalition deal with any alliance, he was running on his own
  94. yet eager to control the Carlist deputies, he presided over their sittings, Blinkhorn 2008, p. 219
  95. few large cities were singled out as separate electoral districts (C); the surrounding province was another district (P)
  96. number of votes received by a candidate. Since each voter was entitled to a few votes, it by no means indicates how many voters have voted for the candidate as their first-choice option. Results from 1931 and 1933/36 are not comparable, as in 1931 women were not entitled to vote
  97. "Media de Votos", fictitious indicator created by historians; it is supposed to estimate how many voters have voted for a candidate/party as their first-choice option. For details, see footnote #58
  98. results of the candidates elected are referred after the official Indice Historico de Diputados service, available here. Results for failed candidates are specified in appropriate footnotes
  99. El Siglo Futuro 21.11.33, available here
  100. Mariano Garcia Andreu, Alicante en las elecciones republicanas 1931-1936, Alicante 1985, ISBN 9788460041047, p. 209
  101. Cronica Meridional 22.02.36, available here
  102. José Viñarás y Domingo, Evissa y Formentera, 1931-1936: sociedad, economía, elecciones y poder político [PhD thesis Universitas Baliarica], Eivissa 2013, p. 358
  103. La Vanguardia 21.06.31, available here
  104. La Vanguardia 21.02.36, available here
  105. La Vanguardia 21.02.36, available here
  106. La Vanguardia 21.06.31, available here
  107. El Pueblo [Valencia] 28.11.33
  108. El Pueblo [Valencia] 28.11.33
  109. Heraldo de Madrid 19.06.31, available here
  110. El Nervion 21.02.36, available here
  111. El Siglo Futuro 21.11.33, available here
  112. El Nervion 21.02.36, available here
  113. El Siglo Futuro 21.11.33, available here
  114. Estevanez Rodriguez, Francisco entry for 1936, [in:] Indice Historico de Diputados service, available here
  115. Diario de Burgos 24.11.33, available here
  116. El Guagalete 18.02.36, available here
  117. ABC 04.07.31, available here
  118. El Siglo Futuro 21.11.33, available here
  119. El Sol 18.02.36, available here
  120. El Siglo Futuro 21.11.33, available here
  121. La Vanguardia 18.02.36, available here
  122. El Siglo Futuro 21.11.33, available here
  123. La Epoca 17.02.36, available here
  124. La Epoca 17.02.36, available here
  125. José Luis de la Granja Sainz, Nacionalismo y II República en el País Vasco: Estatutos de autonomía, partidos y elecciones. Historia de Acción Nacionalista Vasca, 1930-1936, Madrid 2009, ISBN 9788432315138, p. 449
  126. La Epoca 17.02.36, available here
  127. José Luis de la Granja Sainz, Nacionalismo y II República en el País Vasco: Estatutos de autonomía, partidos y elecciones. Historia de Acción Nacionalista Vasca, 1930-1936, Madrid 2009, ISBN 9788432315138, p. 449
  128. José Luis de la Granja Sainz, Nacionalismo y II República en el País Vasco: Estatutos de autonomía, partidos y elecciones. Historia de Acción Nacionalista Vasca, 1930-1936, Madrid 2009, ISBN 9788432315138, p. 449
  129. Villa Garcia 2009, p. 422
  130. La Manana 07.03.36, referred after Maria del Carmen Checa Godoy, Union Republicana en la provincia de Jaen, [in:] Elucidario: Seminario bio-bibliográfico Manuel Caballero Venzalá 4 (2007), p. 140
  131. El Siglo Futuro 21.11.33, available here
  132. Ahora 18.02.36, available here
  133. La Epoca 18.02.36, available here
  134. El Siglo Futuro 23.06.31, available here
  135. La Nacion 05.12.33, available here
  136. La Nacion 18.02.36, available here
  137. El Siglo Futuro 21.11.33, available here
  138. Gil Cuadrado 2006, p. 512
  139. Ahora 18.02.36, available here
  140. Julio Prada Rodriguez, El Fénix que siempre renace. El carlismo ourensano (1894-1936), [in:] Espacio, Tiempo y Forma, Series V, Historia Contemporánea 17 (2005), p. 142
  141. some sources do not count him as a Carlist, see e.g. Blinkhorn 2008. Indeed, he did not join the Carlist minority and did not seem to be a member of CT. However, during the electoral campaign he was advertised as a Carlist candidate, compare El Siglo Futuro 11.11.33, available here
  142. La Victoria 22.02.36, available here
  143. La Region 21.02.36, available here
  144. El Siglo Futuro 21.11.33, available here
  145. El Sol 30.06.31, available here
  146. La Epoca 18.02.36, available here
  147. Ruiz-Manjón, Tusell, García Queipo de Llano 1981-1982, p. 260
  148. La Correspondencia de Valencia 01.07.31, available here
  149. La correspondencia de Valencia 21.11.36, available here
  150. El Pueblo [Valencia] 23.02.36
  151. some sources do not count him as a Carlist, see e.g. Blinkhorn 2008. Indeed, he did not join the Carlist minority and did not seem to be a member of CT. However, during the electoral campaign he was advertised as a Carlist canddiate, compare El Siglo Futuro 21.11.33, available here
  152. María Luisa Tezanos Gandarillas, Roca Ponsa, católico jaimista: Canarias, [in:], María Luisa Tezanos Gandarillas, Los sacerdotes diputados ante la política religiosa de la Segunda República: 1931-1933 [PhD thesis Universidad de Alcalá], Alcalá de Henares 2017, p. 162. Roca y Ponsa ran as an independent Catholic candidate, yet due to his earlier longtime Carlist propaganda activity he was widely recognized as a Carlist candidate

Further reading
  • Martin Blinkhorn, Carlism and Crisis in Spain 1931-1939, Cambridge 2008, ISBN 9780521086349
  • Jordi Canal, El carlismo, Madrid 2000, ISBN 8420639478
  • Jordi Canal, Banderas blancas, boinas rojas: una historia política del carlismo, 1876-1939, Madrid 2006, ISBN 8496467341, 9788496467347
  • Melchor Ferrer, Historia del tradicionalismo español, vol. XXX, Sevilla 1979
  • Roberto Villa García, La república en las urnas: el despertar de la democracia en España, Madrid 2011, ISBN 9788492820511
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.