Richmond daily Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1842-1861, 1859-09-10
"Shali the .Anti-Democ ratio state. Override
The Dcmocratic Stntcs Mt CharIs.to y,

such Is the momentous question propoundcd and dis
cuS-cd by the Enquirer of yesterday 1t considers the
rule, as inadequate to the protection of the
majority of the Democratic party against the dc,aon Of
the minority, and proposes to suggest hereafter some
remedies for this deficiency. We subon the article Oh
the subject, which appears in the last issue
very sisdt examination of the subject suiiices TO
demonstrate the insuthciency Of the twohirs rule
se TO protect the majority Of the Democratic party
from the dictation of minority and especially on
sectional issue, TO protect majority of Democrats at the
sor;h from being overTuled by minority the North
Take lev prominent examples 10 show how iuiuri-
ousy the present rule works. In the last Presidential
contest, Virginia gave Democratic majority amounting
to nearly thrcefhs of the of the Stateand in the
electoral college the unit vote of Virginia fot the
Democratic party.
New York gave opposition majority of more than
Wothirds and cast unit vote for the Black Republican
candidate
Virginia aided the Democratic cause with her whole
strength, of Is electoral votes and New York
the Democratic with her whole strength of rs eec
orn votes, Yet under the rule hitherto observed New
lork can cast in the Democratic Convention AZ Charles
ton - votes against the II of Virginia In other
words il the result depended these two States under
the two-thrds rule the State of New York could nomi
nate squatter sovereignty candidate over the conser
vatvo candidate of Nirgina's Observation-Disclosures
the fact that the Democratic of New York in The
electoral college counts 30 below 80 while in the
anne electoral college, Virginia Ii Democratic
votes.
Take another example In the last Presidential cleo
lion every individual poed in the State of south
carolina was cast for the Democratic candidate; and in
the electoral college the entire OF the State was
Democratic vote In every of the word the vote
Of South Carolina Democratic unit
The State of Florida also gave Democratic majority:
ana cast her unit vote in the electoral college for the
Democratic candidate
"On the other hand Ohio gave an Opposition majority
Of ihree-hths; and cast unit for the Black Repub-
lean candidate.
South Carolina and Florida aided the Democratic
whole rem Of vntas aud
damaged the Democratic with her whole strength
Of - votes
Yet under the two-thirds rule hitherto observed IL
NJ result depended these three States the State of
ohio could nominate sguatter sovereignty candidate
over the conservative candidate of South Carolina and
Florida, Notwithstanding the fact that the Democratic
vote OF Ohio in the electoral college % votes he
ow 90 while in the electoral college South Caro-.
lima and Florida east II Democratic votes
In the same manner, the States Of Maine and Mas
achuset;s could nominate candidate over the candi.
date Of Louisiana and Tcxas-Mane and Massachusett.
counting Democratic in the electoral college of IL
votes less than % while Louisiana and Texas cast
Democratic vote Of 10 in the electoral college
The same relation would exist between the Opposition
State of Maryland and the Democratic State of Arkansas
and between the two Opposition States of Michigan and
iowa, and the Democratic State OF California
or If the result depended IL States and if the eight
Democratic states, Virginia, South Carolina Florida
louisiana Texas, Arkansas, California and Delaware
should vote for the nomination of a conservative candi
late; and the six anDemocratC States New York Ohio
vote for the nomination Of suatter sovereignty cand
date the "o-thrds rule prevailing the squatter sover
eighty man would be nominated-simply because the
tnuDemocratc States q5 electoral votes 1gaiss
the Democratic party while the Democratic States cas-,
- votes tor the Democratic ticket.
Or take the msjorty rule which now applies in the
formation OF PLATFORM and suppose the result to de
pend on twenty states Suppose the thirteen Democrat
&c states, Virginia South Carolina. Florida Louisiana
Texas, Arkansas California Delaware North Carolina
Georgia Alabama, Mississippi aud Tennessee should
yo!e H9d'nSf the SqnaerSoveregnty Interpretation of
the platform; and that the seven anti Democratic States
New York, Ohio Maine, Massachusetts, MARYLAND Mich.
gan and Iowa, should vote far Squatter-Sovereirny
piaform-thc Squatter-Soyereignty platform would be
adopted simply because the sntiDemocratic States
cast O. votes in the electoral college agginsf the Demo
cratic party, while the thirteen Democratic States cast
20 votes far the Democratic ticket
we cannot now pursue this sutect We reserve for
another article further comment on the nsfciency and
injustice of the rule which has hitherto existed a. well
A. suggestions for it, remedy