Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1823-10-07
Let New Hampshire be Tor ain, "a majority OF ia
5 representatives is
A MINORITY orseven states. is

personalities, is 156.
Voices in favor of the president, are two state
electors, aud Is rem esenta,iyes which are in
IL
all So that the president may be re -elccied by
l3y
the voices II against 1885, II may he said, that
thus is An exravagan case, and will happen. In
my opinion, IT will often happen. person who is
i,onrte OF congress, he gets but of cleo
tors, may, hy the subsequent choice Of Is representa-
lives, be elected president. Surely possibility of
such a case, ought To be excluded. ] shall postpone
me ntoning ~ what manner he ought TO he elected,
I'LL we come to offer amendments
Mr.. George Mason (anuther anti federalist) |
majority Of The tcioie number of electors is ne
cessary To elect the president is not the greatest
number of votes that is required, hut majority OF the
whole number OF electors. IL there he than
having sucl majority, and equal number, one OF
them is TO be CHOSEN by ballot OF the house of repre-
seniaiives. But II no one have majority Of the
ual number of electors appointed, how IS he 10 he
choscn' From the five highest the list, by ballot
OF the lower house, and the votes 20 be taken by
states - conceive he ought TO lie chosen from the
Two highest on the list. This would he simple and
easy. Then indeed the people would have some
agency IN the election
Mr. Nadisom.--I will take the liberty Of making
lew observations which may place this such light
| as may obvaie objections IL is observable, that
none of the honorable members obj.ctng to this
have pointed out the right mode of election Ii was
found difficult IN the convention, and will he found
by any Gentleman who will lake the liberty of dcn-
eaiisg mode of electing the president, thar would
exclude those Inconvenience which they apprehend.
would not contend against some Of the principles
laid down by some gentlemen II The interests Of some
states only were To he consulted. But there is great
diversity Of interests. The choice OF the people
ought 10 be attended 10. have found no better way
OF selecting the man 10 whom they place The highest
confidence, ;han that deiineated IN The plan of the
convesiion-nor has the gcnems old MS. Perhaps
II will he found impraciicable TO e, him hy tie
mediate SURFACES OF the people. Difficulties would
arise from, the extent and population of the
IAN be done with and convenience, and will
| render the choice more judcious As 10 the evenu-
al voting by states, it has my APPROPRIATIONS The les
ser states, and some large states, will he generally
pleased by that mode. The deputies from the small
states argued (and there force in their
somng) tina, when the people voted, the large states
evidently had The advantage the rest, and with
out varying the mode, the interests of the ile states
| might he neglected or sacrificed. Here is a compro-
msc.-For IN ,ie eventual election, the small states
will have the advantage. In so extensive - country,
IT is probable that many will he voted for, and
he lowest of The five highest the list may be
| so inconsiderabie us he supposes With respect
the possibility, that "A small number oil votes MY de-
| eide his election, do not know how, do think
that bare calculation of possibility ought govern
| us. One honorable gentleman has said, tha, The
eastern states may, 10 The eventual eeciion choose
him. But la The exiravagani calculation he has made
he has been obliged associate North Carolina an
Georgia. with The five smallest northern There
| can he no union OF interests sentiments between
states SO differently situated.
What these politicians would now say, if all
| of them were yet among the liviBg-what they
would say, with the actual experience Ofthe
effects of the constitution for 80 years, is but
matter of conjecture. Suppose they could
have anticipated the struggle of Sol when il re-
CURED S6baotiings iO elect even the ma whom
the clear Voice of the nation had announced
to be its iavorite and its choce-Suppose they
could have anticipated such an Inequality
among the states that one should have SO
representatives and another only one Sup
pose they could have foreseen, what we now
see before us, So five Richmonds" AT least in the
| field, aud no chance whatever of e!ecting Ell
| Their by the ballots of the electors, hui. that
| the question must go TO an agiiated Ii. of r.,
in the view of an agitated people, where (" The
small votes will have the advantage - sup
| pose all these visions To have burst ike nspi-
ration upon their minds-and then let the
question be put Would you, Messrs. GRAY
son, and Mason, and Madison and Monroe,
rather that the I'll. of 4. should meet together
and fairly recommend one candidate 10 the
people, or that the reople should have no de-
cisre voice IN the election and the final choice
he transferred 10 the same Ii. of k. broken UP
| into States where Pennsylvania and New
York shall! be reduced To the footing of Della
ware and K. Island-aDd one-sevenih cf the
Representatives shall assign Chief AIagis-
trae tn the Union ? Can we believe that these
choice I?
We consider Caucus, as most other mea
sures when the constitution does not forbid
them, relative ihings.-lf there were less
objectionable mode Of coDce ntrating the pub
lie voice upon any one candidate, we are pre-
pared to allure a congressional caucus. Ii is
/ liable TO exceptions but those exceptions are
not as strong, 10 our eyes, as an eventual cleo
ton by the III. of r. Give us better mode.
of cooperation; and we would abjure it to-
morrow. We have proposed another scheme,
that we deemed less exceptionable /; but we
have had not voice, not one paper To
second our proposition.--W We were anxious for
Col. Taylor's amendment TO the constitution
To prevail but the lateness of the period, or
the Influence of the small states. arrested its
progress. what then can t0e nOtC do? We would
hail the man who would answer this question
fairly and Concluslyely, in the words of Virgil
I" tn eriS mthi DGgnuS .4poHo."-Ws have
aeon no such proposition.-W must abide by
the issue. 1t is too late even To project such
a substitute. We bow to the necessity of
the case. -Four years ago no caucus was
| necessary-because Mr.. Monroe swan upon
the iide-but will any man seriously compare
thatsperlod with the present?
Mr.. Niles may split hairs, fine peascs He
may say, a caucus was constitutional iD 1916,
or l820-but prohibited in lS24--ihat at the
one era 1t was necessary To carry the princ-
pies of party into cfIcct--but in another, un-
necessary because we have only tu choose be-
tween persons. Does this argument deserve
| a serious answer Is the constitution such
nose OF wax, as thus 10 be shifted backward
or forward? Does the constitution wink NJ
the acts of party2 and yet when we are TO
secure the great principle of republic, The
TiH Of The minority, the same constitution
binds us baud and foot To- the car oltbe mno-