The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1870-12-22
Minority Representation.

A City contemporary, "uiSh hoS uoo oeoA
backward in exposing the imperfections OF
our trial justice system, thinks that the
people will be better satisfied, when any
change is made, if both the Radical and
Conservative parties have their representa-
tives among the peace officers in each county
of the State. It is evident that if the trial
justices are to be elected by a popular vote
and public sentiment sets steadily in that di-
rection-the Conservatives will elect their
candidates in at least third Of the State,
while the Radicals elect theirs in the remain
ne counties In order, then, that there
may be Radical trial justice in The white
counties, as well as q Conservative trial
Justice in the counties where the blacks have
voting majority, it is proposed to adopt,
in the election OF trial justices, the principle
of minority representation. Holding as we
do the decided opinion that the representa-
tion of minorities is essential to the stability
of any government founded on universal suf-
frage, we can give the proposition an un-
qualified support. 1t appears to us, how
ever, that the representation of minorities in
South Carolina, as in Illinois, in Pennsylya-
mia and in England, can be secured in
manner much more direct and simple than
that which our contemporary has put
forth. The proposed plan e as follows:
SIN the law providing for the election, let it
be enacted that no ballot shall contain a num-
ber Of names exceeding the first whole
number greater than one-half the number Of
justices to which the county is entitled. Then
each party will nominate that number. Each
would vote Its own ticket. That party which
polled the largest vote would elect the largest
number, and the other party would elect all
but one on their ticket. For instance: sup
pose that the people OF county, by law, are to
elect five justices. One-half of five is two and
ahalf; the next larger whole number is three.
No ballot, then, could contain more than three
Names Each party would nominate three
candidates. The party which polled the ma
iority would elect three justices, and the party
polling the minority would elect two-that
one OF their candidates who received the small
est number Of votes being defeated, and the
other two elected. In case of six justices, one
half Is three, the next larger number is four.
Each party would nominate four, and the party
polling the larger vote would elect four, and
the other party two. and so on to any
number"
One objection to this plan is evident
enough Assuming, for the sake OF argu-
ment, that there ars FIVE trial justices to be
elected in each county, the Radicals will
elect three in counties where they have the
majority, whether that majority be in the re-
lation of 5 to or to l. In other words,
the Radicals, in counties where they have
bare majority, elect as many representatives
of their party as in counties like George
town and Beaufort, where the Conservative
vote is insignificant. This, we take it,
would be q perversion of the principle for
which we contend, viz: that the people
should be represented in. proportion to the
popular vote. Under the majority rule,
SOC, ,oo1, in a vote of 100000 elect their
whole ticket while the minority of 4s9, 999
are altogether without representation. And
itwould be equally unjust to give 6ooo voters,
in vote of 10000, as many representatives
as would be given to 5000 or 5000. There
is, also, the technical objection. to be taken
for what it is worth, that the State Conslitu-
ton declares that every male citizen ''shall
tbe entitled to vote for all officers that are
t.now or hereafter may be elected by the
sspeople :" while, il the plan OF our contem-
porary were carried into effect, each male
citizen would only have the right to vote for
three out of five officers to be elected.
Without going further into this branch of
the subject, we desire to call attention to the
fact that in this country, and in Europe
system of minority representation, under the
name OF cumulative voting" has been prac-
tically tried with the happiest results. 1t
was first adopted, we believe, in Pennsyl-
vania, where Democratic majority desired
to give their just share of representation to
the Republican minority. The same system
obtains in Illinois, and, under it, commits
sioners of education have been chosen over
all England. Cumulative voting is merely
this: each voter has as many votes as there
are persons to be voted for, and is at liberty
to give all his votes to one person, or to
divide them among the candidates as he
NAV think best. In this way each party is
represented, as nearly as may be, in the
ratio of its numerical strength Take as an
example county in which there are five
trial justices to be elected by a voting popu-
lation, consisting OF 10000 Radicals and
5000 Conservatives. Each voter would have
five votes; and the Conservatives, by cast
ing their whole number Of 25.0O0 votes Tor
the same person, must elect one candidate.
The Radicals, with 100, 900 votes, could not
40 divide them out as to elect more than
forr candidates Of their party. There would
then be four Radical Trial Justices snd one
Conservative Trial Justice; the number OF
officers of each party would be in the exact
ratio of the party vote Under heplan pro-
posed by our contemporary the Radicals
would elect three trial justices aud the con-