Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1841-1853, 1843-09-05

majority or. shall we cut the State up into /
Districts, and ask the majority Of each District /
whom they prefer " ould their answer be /
of any utility in asccrtainng whom the ma
joriiy Of the State precr-that majority which /
Is to give the voter Why not ask that major
lily at once, instead of the majoritics of Dis
trict, Not to do so, is rs wise rs to ask .
George what John intends to do, when John I
Is standing by. ready to answer for himself
y ''5risc, though not so ridiculous and
not ridicuIo1s, because it not only may not
Proolo'e, but may actually defeat the very OBJ
lcct for which a Convention i to be held.
New York has tlirty-siX votes in the election
OF President and Vice President, and South
Carolina. nine, TO be given By a mnjorjty of
each Suite. Ask majority of the New orl<
Democracy, whom do YOU prefer The an
swcr i. Mr.. Van Buren,. Ask majority of
the South Carolina Democracy, whom DO YOU
prefer The answer Is, Mr.. Calhoun. The
Convention thus asccrtains that in those two
States. Mr.. Van Buren, would probably re-
ccivc thrty-six votes, and Mr.. Calhoun. nine.
But cut up the States into rs many districts
as they have electors. and ask majority of
each District whom they prefer Twenty
Districts In New \ ork may answer. Mr.. Van
Buren,. and sixteen in New York and
nine in South Carolina. may answer,
Mr.. Calhoun. Thus, in these two States,
Mr.. Van Buren, would get twenty votes and
Mr.. Calhoun tsrcphJ-fce, when those arho arc
10 gire The rotss, declare that. by no possibii-
u. in "A contest for the Presidency between
the two. could Mr.. Calhoun command more
than nine votes out of the fortY-fvc. !, it by
process like this, that the Convention can
arrive at the relative c0cctirc strength of the
candidates
Yet. such is the practical character of the
plan of nomination proposed and urged by
the South Carolina Convention and those
who adopt lis views. While. by the Con,t-
tuition ana laws. the nqjoritics If Statrs CON
troll the entire vote Of the States. they pro-
pose to vest the nomination in mqjoritics Of
Districts. They propose TO place the P1r'r
to non,inate in the hands of those who have
not the po'rer u eject.
che Majority Principle.
How Is this incongruty justified One ar
gumcnt in lis favor is. that the representation
by Districts i more likely to elicit the will Of
the majority OF thc party, than the rcprcscn-
tation BY States. This IS by no means ncccs-
>ary consequence. On the contrary. it is mt
so likely to elicit the will of The majority in
any State. Is a State vote. Divide New
York into thirty six districts suppose one
District to have one thousand majority
for Mr.. Van Buren,, and the other thir-
ty-livc an average majority of ten each
for Mr.. Calhoun, making three hundred
and fifty in all IL Is obvious. that while Mr..
Van Buren, would have in The State a major
ty Of six hundred and fifty popular vote.
Mr.. Calhoun would get MiHv-Guc votes to
oHe in the nominating Convention 4 mo-
mcnt's reflection will satisfy any man, that.
if the popltiqr ,rW be the object in view. the
surcst way to arrive nj it i, to take the sense
OF the ,rhoic boiy, without any division or
subdivision. Jt~t IN proportion as you divide
dnd subiiciic, yoa increase The dmgre # hyoU-
inc p),rc, into The hands Of minority. 1t
has sometimes happened in our county, that
a majority of our State Legislatures. being
elected by maioriticS of counties or towns.
was of one political party, when the Cover
nor,. elected by maioritics of States. com
posed ofcxactly the same voters. were of ano
thcr. \ few large maoritics ovcrbalancc
many small ones. and make District repro
scntation a very unsafe guide in arriving at
the will of the majority. The entire dcnl0-
craCy If he Union, voting rs one bOdy.wOuld
afford the only cOuciusirc testimony OF Its
own preferences. But this mode Is obvious
" impracticablc. The next surcst guide IS,
Il vote by States. BY this mode. the true
majority in each SAFE is a>ccrtaincd. BY Il
diviion of s atcs into Districts, you hazard
that result and make the evidence furnished
inconclusvc. And it is absurd to maintain.
that a process which, in twcnty-six States.
concerts certainty into doubi. affords more reli-
able testimony of the will of the majority.
You might rs nationally say, that twcnty-six
doubts arc better evidences OF truth than
twcm.y-siv ccrtau,iies.
Hence. the position that representation
BY Districts afford, better evidence OF the
will of the majority than arcprese 9tatlon by
States. IS palpably indcfcnsibe. But NHat
if it were not However sound the genera
principle that a majority should govern. such
i no. the fact. either practically or thcorcti-
Cally in the government ofthc Unitcd States.
1t was not the majority of one consolidated pco-
pie which gave vitality to our Constitution.
but plajoriiics Of States. Neither the l.cgis-
ativc nor Executive branches of the Govern
mcnt ) based upon the consolidated majority
principle.
The House Of Representatives Is organic
cd upon an approximation TO that principle
but the Senate has no regard to teach
State having therein equal representation
/ with all the rest and these together consti-
I tute the Legislative power. The Electors OF
: President and Vice President are not chosen
by majority of the people Of the United
=. &c ,r-. .. x-ot