Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1868-11-05
POPULAR ELECTIONS.
The Electoral COIlege-Its QuRIItie
and Inequalities.

The Electoral COIIege-Its Qualities
and inequalities.
A writer in the GALAXY for November
discusses the Electoral College question in
the following article:
OF The many officers and rulers who adj
minister the affairs of the American Re-
public, only two are voted upon by the
whole electoral people, and even thess two
are not chosen by the people. This fact,
none the less extraordinary for being ia
milis-, presents itself, think, as q blemish
in our Republican system. The popular
vote" for President has, in the gross, no
legal existence; and no official count
makes il known or preserves its record. A
higher authority is interposed above the
people, which reyises it's action this inter-
vening body, whose vote alone has valne,
is the Electoral College. Were the ballot
of the Electoral College equivalent to that
already cast by the people, it would require
no criticism, since, verys obviously, the
Presidential election would still be
Democratic in spirit though not in form.
But such is not the historic fact. Ga the
contrary, the vote now thrown by the
electors in their respective States, sent IN
der seal 10 Washington, and there opened
and counted in presence of Congress, never
Is, and never can be a true. reflex of
the so-called popular vote" cast the No
yember previous at the polls.
To establish this assertion, it is only
necessary to contrast the popular vote with
the electoral vote at many successive Presi-
Dental elections. Thirty years review
will suffice for that purpose. Now, in
1886, the popular Democratic majority was
2600 in a total vote of over half a million,
while the electoral Democratic majority
was As in total of 294; that is to say, the
ratio of the majority to the total vote be.
fore the people was but to 900, while the
same ratio before the electors way no less
than l to Ga ratio one hundred times as
great. In 1910, Harrison's majority over
Van Buren, was less Than $50 900 in a poll
of 2 400 900, or ratio Of to 16; but
his electoral majority was ia out of 294,
or nearly ten times the popular ratio. In
1874 Polk received bu! 10000 majority in
a poll of 10000 OO-say, to 900; but his
electoral majority was 65 out of total Of
275, or nearly to 4-say, two hundred
times the popular ratio. In 1852, Pierce's
popular vote was 100000 greater than
SCOTS while both reached nearly 100000
"a ratio of to Is; but his electoral vote
was 1872 greater in a total of 296, or a ra-
ito nearly ten times as great. In 1848,
1856 and 1860, the popular msjorities we're
against the candidates who received ma
jorities in the College. Lincoln, in 1860,
received 1,866,452 popular ballots to
Douglass ], 375, 157, and yet $50 electoral
votes to Douglass u. Finally, in 1864,
Lincoln received 2,223,035 popular votes
to MGClellan's 1871 ,744, and yet 2l6 cleo
toral votes to the others 21-22 to Is, in
the one case, but 10 to in the other. 1t
IL, therefore, indisputable, that the electoral
vote Invariably and ineritably differs, and
not only differs, but differs enormously in
its ratio of msjorities from the vote of the
people. In other words, it totally misrep-
resents the popular vote
We must bear in mind, however, not
only that these gross results called popular
votes" have no legal existence, but that
ey,n they are not perfectly just expo
nents of the will of the nation. For the
elective franchise varies in the different
States; and hence a man debsrred from
voting for the President in one State, might
have voted in another. This fundamental
fact we shall presently have occasion TO
consider; but even this makes no substan-
tial difference in the historic exhibits just
made, because though the elective fran
chise differs in the various States, yet If
may fairly be supposed TO vary as much to
the detriment of one party as the other,
and hence the ratio Of their superiorities
will not be altered. That is TO say, though
it is utterly unscientiic 10 add together all
the votes actually thrown for the same can
didate in the various States, because the
qualifications for voters are different, vet
If the same be done for all candidates, the
inaccuracies nearly enough cancel each
other. 1t is an obvious fact that the So
called popular vote" with substantial &C.
curacy represents the will Of the electoral
people-and, hence, the electoral vote does
not.
Bot a grave defect in the Electoral Col
lege remains to be considered, namely, that
it may conceivably be compelled to elect
the candidate rejected by the people, so
far as the popular vote indicates rejection;
and reject the candidate accepted by the
people. To illustrate most palplbly this
defect, let Us examine the election of 1864.
As this was an overwhelming defeat for
Mcclellan, who carried but three States,
and but twenty-one electoral votes out of the
237, it will furnish good example for ex
perimeat. The Electoral College cast 237
votes, Of which majority, /. e., ll9, were
necessary to a choice. Now, had McClel-
Ian received an accession OF about 10000
votes, Cor a change of about $1,000 from
Lincoln distributed according to the fol-
lowing table, he would have carried every
one of the States here enumerated; and
after their electoral votes, added to those
of the three States he did carry, would have
given him the election.
Peoples Electors