The Plymouth weekly Democrat. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1860-1869, 1868-11-12
THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE.
Its Qualities and Inequalities

administer the affairs of the American re-
public, only two are voted upon by the
whole electoral people This fact, none
the less extraordinary for being familiar,
presents itself. thiak, as blemish in our
republican system. The popular vote "
for president has, in the gross, no legal
existence; aGd no Official count makes it
known ard preserves its record. \ high
er authority is interposed above the people
which revises its action this intervening
body, whose vote alone has value, is the
Electoral College. Were the ballot of the
Electoral College equivalent to that al
ready cast by the people, it would require
no criticism. since, very obviously, the
presidential election would still be demo-
cratic in spirit though not IN form. But
such is not the historic fact. On the con-
trary, the vote now thrown by the elec-
tors in thei. respective states, sent under
seal to Washington, and there opened and
counted IN presence of congress, never is,
and Dever can be true reflex Of the So
called popular vote" cast the November
previous at the polls.
To establish this assertion, it is only
necessary to contrast the popular vote with
the electoral vote at many successive
presidential elections. Thirty years re-
view will suffice for that purpose. Now.
in 1885, the popular democratic majority
was but 2 600 in total vote Of ever half
a million, while the electoral democratic
majority 43 ia a total Of 29l; that is to
ssy the ratio Of the majority to the total
vote before tie people was but | TO 800,
while the saae ratio before the electors
was no less than | to Ca ratio one hun
drei times as great. Ia 1910, Harrison 5
majority over Van Buren, was less than
l59, 900 in poll OF , 400 coo, or a ra:o
ee to l6 /; but his electoral majority was
ia out OF 29t, or nearly ten times the
popular ratio. In 1871, Polk received a
majority Of 80, 900 majority in a poll Of
$500, ,000-say i in go but his electo-
raj majority was 65 cut Of 275, or nearly
in Say, two hundred times the popu-
lar ratio. In 1852, picrce's popular vote
200 900 greater than Scots, while 10th
reached nearly 5000. .G00-a ratio Of / to
IS; bet bis electoral vote was l92 great
cr in u total of 29j, or a ratio nearly ten
simes ms great. In 1913, 1856, aud 1860,
the popular mai1riies W re against the
candidates who received major;tics in the
college. Lincoln, in 1859, received L.
s66,452 popular ballots to Douglas l :
375,l57 and yet $50 electoral votes to
Douglass r. Finally. in 1861, Lincoln
received 2,223, 035 popular vote, to Nc
Cisl!an's l ,3il.75i. and yet PIG electoral
votes to the others 2l--22 to l8 IN the
one case. but 10 10 ! in the other. 1t is,
therefore, indisputabc that the electoral
vote invariably and inevitably differs, and
not only differs, bat differs enormously in
Its ratio Of maiorities from the vote Of the
reoplc. In other words, it totally misrep-
resen;s the popular vote.
We must bear in mind, however, not
enly that these gross results called . pop
ular votes hare no legal existence, but
tha, even they are not perfectly just expo
nents of the will OF tie nation. For the
elective franchise varies IN the different
states and hence u man debaired from
voting for president in one state, might
linve voted in another. This fundamental
fact we shall presently have occasion ii
consider, bat even this does not vary ht
historic exhibit just made, though til.
elective franchise differs in the variou
states, yet it may fairly be supposed t.
vary as much to the detriment Of one par
~ as the other, and hence TIE ratio o
their superiorities Will not be altered
That is to say, though it is utterly unset
entiic to add together all the votes actu
ally thrown for the same candidate in th,
various states, because the qualification
for voters are different, yet if the same b,
done for oil candidates the inaccuracie
pearly enough cancel each other. 1t i
an obvious fact that the so-called pcpu
lar vote" with substantial accuracy. req
rcsents the will Of the electoral people
and, hence, the electoral vote does not.
But graver defect in the Electors
College remains to lie considered, namely
that it may conceivably be compelled
eject the candidate rejected by the people
so far as the popular vote indicates re
lection, and reject the candidate aocepte
by the people. To illustrate most palpa
bly this defect, let ue examine the elec