Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1868-10-26

several States as such and not, there
fore. TO be the President of the people,
but the President of the States. This
doctrine is supported by political facts.
For the States may choose the Presiden-
tial electors they like, through their
Legislatures, as in South Carolina, or
with any sort of property or other quail
fication they may please to impose upon
the elective franchise; they may suffer
men only six feet tall to vote tor Presi-
dent.
But we may fairly suppose that it never
was the design of the founders of the
system to produce the sort Of results
which have just been set forth. Times
have changed, and laws may well change
with them. Domestic politics in America
have be:n metamorphosed since the in
fancy of the Republic. The nominating
convention now crystalizes party
around man-it provides single color
bearer for all who wear the same party
name, and ordinarily you accept him or
throw your vote away. The constl.
tutionai device of the electoral col
lege was invented for vastly
different system Of party organization.
The theory then was (as De Tocqueville
tersely puts it), that it rarely happens
that an individual can receive at the
first trial majority of the suffrages of a
great people, and this difficulty is en-
hanced in a republic Of confederate
States, where local influences are far
more developed and more powerful"
Hence it was proposed Ito delegate the
electoral powers of the nation to body
which should respect it," because "thls
mode of election rendered majority
more probable"
That was the theory of the electoral
college, and early practice sustained it..
since the first body of the kind, that OF
1888, found no less than eleven candi-
dates for Vice President before it (; the
one which elected John Adams had
twelve other candidates for President and
Vice President, and the next one could
not elect anybody at all lin spite OF DE
Tocqueville's dictum), but threw the elec-
ton over to third body-namely, Con.
gress.
On the other hand. for the last thirty
years, i. O., since 1910, there has never
been (save in the highly exceptional
election of 1860, when the Democratic
party was disrupted) more than three
candidates for President and three for
Vice President, in oil but one election
(thst of 1856, if Fillmore be indeed an
exception there were substantially but
two candidates, as the third pol.ed but
handful of votes, carrying not single
State; while the NEST recent cleo.
tions, those of 1864 aud 1868, show
but one candidate on each side, rallying
into two great parties every voter IN the
land. Clearly enough we can never
return to the state of politics under
which the Z ectoral College was framed,
because the tendency is the other way.
But, merely to abolish the electoral
eollege-the course which first suggests
itself-would not radically cure the er-
rors here pointed out The effect OF this
abolition would obviously be merely to
impose on State Governor or other Of
fcer the duty of casting the votes now
thrown by the electors of that State. Or,
should we resort to counting the popu-
lar vote that device would now be ut.
terIy unscienti6c and inexpedient, be-
cause of the differences in the elective
franchise in different States
Z What, then, is the true remedy 1t is
to abandon the idea of the President
being President of States, and make
him the President of the people; to
create an uniform qualification for
voters at the Presidential election,
throughout the land; and to incorporate
this provision for new national elective
franchise, with its qualifications there
defined, in the same constitutional
amendment which shall abolish the
Electoral College.