Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1868-10-26
The Electoral College.
From the Galaxy.]


OF the many officers and rulers who
administer the affairs of the American
Republic, only two are voted upon by the
whole electoral people. This fact, none
the less extraordinary for being familiar,
presents itself, / think, as blemish in
our Republican system. The popular
nvote for President, has, in the gross, no
legal existence; and no off icial count
makes it known or preserves its record.
A higher authority is interp osed above
the people, which revises its action this
Intervening body, whose vote alone has
value, is the e Eectoral College. We're
the ballot of the Electoral College equiv
alent to that already cast by the people,
it would require no criticism, since, very
obviously, the Presidential election
would still be democratic in spirit,
though not in form. But such is not the
historic fact. On the contrary, the vote
now thrown by the electors in their re-
spective States, sent under seal to Wash
ingtou, and there opened and counted in
presence of Congress, never is, and
never 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 success
sive Presidential elections. Thirty years
review will suffice for that purpose. Now,
in 1886, the popular Democratic majority
was but 2600 in total vote of over half
a million, while the electoral Demo cratic
majority was As in a total Of 294 that is
to say, the ratio of the majority to the
total vote before the people was but to
600, while the same ratio before the cleo
tors was no less than to Ga ratio one
hundred times as great. 10 1910, Har-
rison's majority over Van Buren wes less
than $50 900 in poll of 400, 600, or a
ratio of to l6; but his electoral major
ity was l64 out of 294, or nearly ten times
the popular ratio. In 1874, Polk received
but 10000 majority in poll of $500, 600
Say in 900; but his electoral majority
was 65 out of total of 275, or nearly l
in 4-say, two hundred times the popular
ratio. 10 1852, Pierce's popular vote
was 100000 greater than Scotts, while
both reached nearly 5000, 000-a ratio of
| to Is; but bis electoral vote was l92
greater in total of 296, or ratio nearly
ten times as great. In ls4S, 1856, and
1860, the popular msjoritiss were against
the candidates who received msJorities IN
the college. Lincoln, in 1860, received
| 1866 ,452 popular ballots to Douglas
1875, 1871, and yet $50 electoral votes to
Douglas IL. Finally, in 1864, Lincoln
received 2,223,035 popular votes to
McClellsn's ], l,Sll .854, and yet ZIG cleo
toral votes to the others 2l-22 to Is iu
the one case, but 10 TO in the other. 1t
is, therefore, indispuiable that the cleo
torsl vote invariably and inevitably
differs, and not only differs, but
differs enormously in its ratio of
msjorities from the vote of the people.
10 other words, it totally misrepresents
the popular vote.
We must bear in mind, however, not
only that these gross results called "popu-
lar votes" have no legal existence, but
that even they are not perfectly just ex-
ponents Of the will Of the nation. For the
elective franchise varies IN the different
States; and hence q man debarred from
voting for Persistent in one State, might
have voted 10 another. This fnndAmen-
tai fact we shall presently have occasion
10 consider; bat even this makes no sub
stantial difference in the historic exhibit
just made because though the elective
franchise differs in the various States,
yet il may fairly be supposed TO vary
ss much TO the detriment Of one party
as the other, and hence the ratio Of their
superiorities will net be altered. That is
TO say, though il is utterly unscieniihe
10 add together all the votes actually
thrown for the same candidate in the va
rious States, bssanse the qualitoatious
for voters are different, Jet II tire rame Be
done FOR sll caudidsiss, the inacourscies
nearly enough cancel each other. Il is