New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1858-11-23

4 OisCuSsiOD D iiI &c Htfdruic VI puDiiC 1ltrutiou
To render every voter his own National Con
! venton, and have an election Of PRECEDENT in
which every voter shall vote his spontaneous first
I choice, without being constrained TO support a
candidate he does not like in order TO defeat
another candidate Cor party who Cor which, is
| still more the object Of his aversion, is work OF
such large end obvious benefcence that we mean to
| give il considerable share of attention and invoke
| for it the attention Of others. Probably At no
election sinos Gen. jackson on the one SIDE Henry
! Clay On tho other ceased TO be candidates, have
One-guarter OF the American People voted for that
| statesman whom they would have preferred to all
others their President. The managing politicians
Of each party having held National Convention
and thereby presented such candidates from among
their fellow-citizens they judged most likely to
succeed the great mass Of the voters had no choice
but to support one of the two leading candidates
thus presented or throw their votes away, and thus
possibly contribute at least consent to the de-
feat snd prostrstion Of principles which they
deemed Just and beneficent. Under this system,
the People have little more voice in the selection
of their Presidents than the Romsu Catholic laity
have in the choice of their Popes.
We propose to reverse all this, by eschewing
National Conventions hcnceforth, with exclusive
party nominations or candidates for President and
President and let the People Of either or of
any party say directly their ballots for Electors
whom they will have TO Gil those exalted stations,
and let the largest number of vOtes of either party
decide for whom all the Electors chosen by that
party shall cast the vote of their respective States.
Thus each voter throughout the Union will vote
directly for that man whom he prefers to all others
for President likewise with respect to Vice-Pres-
dent, being assured that his preference will have
equal weight with that Of any other man in the
Unions that his party viii succeed if it prove to be
a majority; and that his favorite will be chosen
President if he be the Myorte also of larger num-
Der of the voters Of his party than any other mem
Der of that party. If this be not the best plan yet
devised for giving the choice Of President really to
the People, we should ike to see the better one.
The Boston Daily Adrertiser reviews and cour.
teously objects to this plan. We proceed to notice
its several objections:
l. AS to the feasibility Of counting and returning
the Inducements or Presidential headisgs Of the
Electoral Ballots. We respond TO this demurrer
that.it assumes that to be impraclcable which has
already been proved by experience to be practica.
bic. In lo2i, Electoral Tickets were run and
elected in several States pledged to vote for such
candidate for President other than w. H. Crawford,
the Caucus nominee, as majority Of those voting
said tickets should Indicate their choice by their
| ballots. Unless we are grieyously mistaken, New
jersey and North Carolina, if 10 other States, were
| thus carried against Crawford by the votes Of
! Adams ard jackson men combined. 1t was sscer-
tanned from their ballots that majority of the anti
! Caucus voters preferred Gen. Jackson; so the
Electoral votes were all thrown for him, though
some of the Electors preferred Mr.. Adams, whom
sbout one third Of the voters for the snti-Caucus
tickets had indicated as their choice.
Now We have two years to prepare for doing
efcctualy and certainly what was thus done salts.
kctorily on the spur Of the moment. Why, then,
need we pronounce it impracticable
| The Adre,tstr SAYS: 1--WE d. not understand
that The TRIBUNE expects the Democrats to
adopt this mode of proceeding On their side. I"
Most certainly we do; but perhaps not the first
time After the lrst trial, No party can stand out
SSalnst H. ne ConVtbtlOlsy stem VIII DC smashed
by il as efectusy rs the Congressional Caucus sys-
TEN was by the uprising of the People against it in
1874. The first essay will, Of course, be attended
10y some difficulty which will never be experienced
sfterward. But consider that
/. In every State where the friends OF this sys-
TEN are or shall be in the ascendant, prior to $780,
they may direct by law that each voter may indorse
his ballot as aforesaid, and tina, it shall be the duty
of the Inspectors to count and return the indorse
n,nts the sane as the votes. We believe the Re-
putEcsns alone could pass such act as this forth
with in every Free Stste but Illinois aud California
And We do no. think either the interest or the
principles of the sscendsat party in Illinois would
lead them 10 oppose it. They are for Popular
Sovereignty" Here is chance TO exemplify and
Give new development TO the doctrine. Aud their
leader VIII yet 6nd, ii he does not already believe
that BIS chance il great deal better with tie
Democratic voters at the polls than v It'll Any Dem
ocratic Natiousl Convention likely to Dc held these
dozen wears
,. But suppose no such act caa be passed or
that there are States III which it cannot De snd
that the Republican party alone make the first