Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1870-01-20
MINORITY PRESENT.TEa1

This subject is exciting very great at
tention in all of the Northern States. The
distinguished English statesman and phi
losOpher, John Stuart Mil, is perhaps the
ablest advocate of this new theory of re-
publican government. N Senator Buckalew,
of Pennsylvania, warmly advocated the
proposition in the United States Senate.
1t has been partially adopted in the recent
Constitution Of New York. In the Hi
nois Constitutional Convention it is being
pressed with very great ability and with
great probability of its SUCCESS. We con
fess ourselves not sufficiently familiar with
this subject to give an opinion of its merits.
The Chicago Times thus explains the prop
osition: The free vOteisnOta proposition to
give the elcctor any greater number of
votes than he has already. 1t is simply
and only proposition that he shall not
be restricted in the use of his votes bv
any rule but that of his own free choice.
A representative district, for example.
chooses three persons to the General As
sembly; in making the choice, every
electOr in that district has three votes
or voices, all of which he puts into one
ballot, and which ballot the election Off
Ger puts into one ballot-box. But the
voter is restricted in the use of his votes
by fixed and arbitrary limitation uDon
his electoral choice. He has the electoral
power of three votes; but he is not per-
mitted to exercise his full electoral power
unless he choose to do it in particular
way. He can give one vote to Brown.
one vote to Jones, and one vote to Rob
inson, and his three votes will be counted
in the return as one vote for each of
these persons. Or, if he happen to dis
like Brown and Robinson, he can give one
vote to Jones, and two other votes to any
two other persons that he likes; and still
his three votes will be counted in the re-
turn. He may use his three votes in anv
way he chooses, so that he give no more
than one of them to any one person. But
if he give two of them to Jones and one
to Robinson, the canvassers will refuse to
count one of the votes given to Jones,
thus arbitrarily divesting the voter of one
third Of his electoral power And if he
give all three of his votes to Jones, the
canvassers will refuse to count two of
hem, thus divesting him of two-thirds of
his rightful power as an elector.
The free vote is simply the emancipa-
ton of the elector from this arbitrary
limitation upon his electoral freedom. The
proposition is that all the votes which the
elector has the right to give shall be
counted Off he gives them), no matter to
whom he gives them. He has precisely
the same right, in justice and in common
sense, to give three votes to one person
that he has to give three votes to three
persons.
1t IS impossible to Imagine any other !
reason for the existing limitation upon the |
freedom of the elector than that it is a
device intended to make him contribute
to his own Acknowledgement. That is
its effect, and its only effect.
For, by this arbitrary and unjust limita-
ton, any minority of the electoral body
though it be but one person less than the
majority, is prevented from gaining, not
The majority of the delegation (Which it
could not gain), but from gaining any re-
preventative whatever. The minority is
hus compelled to assist the majority, not
% elect the majority of representatives, but
o elect all of them. And this compellingof
my fraction less than one-half of the
electoral body to contribute to their own
Acknowledgement seems to be the main
object of this continuance to limit the
reedom of the elective franchise.
The free vote proposes to abolish this
Unjust limitation upon the rights of cleo
ors. To this extent it may be called an