Southern standard. [volume] (Columbus, Miss.) 1851-1856, 1853-03-19
Should MajOritieS Rule 4?

Should MajOritiGS Rule
Wehave very faint recollection ofeher having heard or
read somewhere sometime that Repubcanism based
upon the idea, that in all Democratic communities Maoes
Ruled. That say the Of the larger number con-
troIled the smaller number. We had believe that
this settled dicain form of government quite
that this is modified somewhat in this that this Union
is combination OF State Sovereignties, may happen-it
has happened that Chief Magistrate may be elevated with
out the ofa majority of oil the People Nowih
standing this insist that had come believe that
form OF government based upon the will OF the majority
equally too aud disciple in this cause
laborng against startling Odds that, this government
combination of separate States tits held together by the will
Of the People of State and that the viola
eddy the arbitrary assumption OF the Many the One, by its
will possesses the right OF casting off the restraints self
imposed and every Sovereign right belonging it,
and which, for season, had vountaray ceased
else. Dcsposm simply unlimited power and despoc sway
may be exercised by majority well sing individual
pure democracy without restraint but its WILL is des
posn OF the Many and when freed from restraint has found
within its bosom the provocaons which have in all times past
pushed upon tyranny much dreaded of the
most bloody despO Government based will wheh
the majority minority, is equally arbitrary, and the
restraint is the characerzng feature of all despotc
governments and democracy without it. disguised des-
posn. When constitution be obligatory the
numerical power of the Nation will be felt and the section
obnoxious the ma ority OF the People, will visited with
all the evils incident note mob. There will be no
right recognized but u of the strongest-brue power will
triumph. Nowit happens that this is mixed democracy
very mxcd-that IS Nationally speaking, but in refer
State politics. 1t is demanded and under every
view OF the in which has been presented think
Justly the representation in State Convention should be
based upon numerical strength exhibited in county voting
We look at this question right in principle and just
theory an! Of those questions which gain by dis
cusson. II is the application of numerical power in
where the ends justice subscvcd where the minority
is oppressed and where the whole weight of the majority
is invoked by and obaon exercise its strength in eleva-
ting those il most seeks to honor.
We find in the the Pontotoc Soueren article so just so
well and ably put that adopt upon this sub
icct.
owe are gratllied to perceive that several oil
our contemporaries in the Northern section of the
Statc--thc Monroe Democrat in the lead--are
earnestly and justly cnveighing against the basis
of representation which has Hitherto been adopted
in holding our State Conventions.
That basis is the allowance to each county of al
many delegates it has members in the lower
branch of the Legislature.
If there has ecer been time in the past history
of State when equal justice to all the Counties
might be melted out by this basis, that time is
ly past; and it has now become duty of the de
mocracy to establish another and more equitable
one. The present basis is pal pably erroneous
unjust and nti-democratc and if adhered t.
cannot fail to foment and keep alive sectional pref
udces, and to produce discussions in part,
ranks.
Let us cite an instance to show its unjust ope
ration: In the late Presidential canvass Adam
county gave Genl. Pierce 442 votes and Lafayett
county gave him 900 votes--more than two t
one yet in the convention the former is entitle
to the same vote that the latter is. Take anothe
instance: Holmes county gave Pierce 400 votes
while Monroe gave him 992 votes-nearly two t
one,-yet in Convention the vote of these coun
ties is Just the same. Another instance Panel
o. -, he
354 votes; yet in Convention Pamela is entitled t
but one vote while Amite is allowed to cast two.
Without further comparing the vote of countie
it may be considered sufficient for the purpose
view to state that 90 counties in the Northern pal
of the State cast larger vote for Pierce by owe
twenty-five hundred, than all the other COuntit
in the State put together
But notwithstanding this majority of these tweI
ty counties in popular election when they go mi
State Convention, they find themselves who'll
powerless to accomplish any object however desl
able it may be, which may chance to conflict wit
the wishes and feelings of the other counties.
The Northern counties cast large majority
the Democratic vote of the State, while in dem
cratic convention they are represented by mno
ity of the delegates. They rule at the ballot b.
and are ruled in the Convention.
A Convention thus organised is a reproach
representative democracy. The wrong is MAJ
pa1pable to every mind by supposing for nome
the customary plan of meeting in Convention
representatives abolished, and every democrat
the State attending in propria persona Cow
cation of the party.
The result in such case would be of cour
that every county in the State would have wrig
based upon its numerical strength The MAJOR
would rule, as it should do and the minority
doping the great principle of democracy wou
cheerf1lly acquiesce in the decision of the gre
popular convention
BUTT It's inconvenient for the whole people
party of State to meet in convention at the sal
time, and for this reason they choose a few to re
resent the whole. And as every freeman Wor
in general council be entitled to vote were
present; so is he equally entitled to give his W
by or through another.
tits clear then that the only just way Of orga
izing aparty convention, so that the opinions a
feelings of the majority represented, may prev
is, to base the representation on the numerical p
ty vote of the counties Every county however
which the party vote falls short of the establish
ratio, might be allowed single representation.