The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1870-08-30
A Representative Reform Con-
ycntion to be held at Reading
= to Discuss the Question.
The Schemes for Ensuriug Min orities
their Big ghts--The I" Minority
1d Clause System aud the
"oumulative Vote ~,
$50 pania Their Practical
az saN % Operation.


in this city, which did not fail to attract the at
tention of the more thoughtful classes. The
object of the assemblage was to discuss the
necessity for such q reform in our political sys-
tenn as would concede to the voters belonging to
the minority party in any given district, Con-
gressional legislative or municipal, some Of the
rights which are denied them by the mere cir
cumstance of being in the minority.
The Rule of the Majority
is the fundamental principle underlying our
governmental polity. Where the people them
selves are the fountain of power and disagree
ments as to the merit and capacity of men, and
the Justice and expediency Of measures, are not
only natural but inevitable the majority. must
rule. When il comes down to the simple ques-
tion as to whether Jones or Brown shall be Gov
ernor of State, there is no conceivable method
of settling the dispute between the friends of
Jones and Brown save the simple one of num-
bers, and if Jones can command a bare majority
of one vote in fair and honest poll of half
million, the only security in the enjoyment of
their political rights that the entire half million
voters can expect must spring from the peaceful
and graceful acquiescence of the minority in
the result.
But when the issue is shifted from the flling
of an Office the functions of which are to be ex-
ercised and can be exercised by one person
alone of time, to the selection of the members
of deliberative body composed of two persons
or more, il assumes different aspect. The fun
damental underlying principle is still the same
the majority must rule. But the question
arises as to whether or not the minority are to
be permitted the enjoyment of q voice in its de-
liberations which is proportionate to their nu-
merical weight Suppose, for example, that a
.newly-hedged city out on the plains starts out
in its career with voting population of 500
OF these 300 hundred are good, sound Republi-
cans, and the remaining 200 equally good and
sound in their Democracy. The city council is
to be made up of ten members. If each of the
500 voters proceeds to the polls and votes for
the ten men of his choice, it is manifest that the
city council will stand 10 Republicans to o
Democrats, and, as far as matters Of taxation
public improvements, police regulation, ETC.,
are concerned, the 200 Democrats might as well
be 60 many fence-posts. If the city council is
made up according to the manifest equity of
the case, it will consist of Republicans to 4
Democrats-the Republicans still maintaining
the ascendancy, but being unable to exercise
their power in an arbitrary way and without the
voice of the minority heardlin friendly counsel
or earnest expostuation.
The universal custom of the country is to
avoid such show of gross injustice as we have
promised, by dividing the territory subject to
the jurisdiction of the deliberatiye assemblage
into two or more districts, each of which elects
one or more members. By this means, as is
familiar to every one. absolute unaninlity in the
assemblage is generally, although not invariably,
avoided, as it rarely happens that the relative
strength of partisan organizations exhibits n
uniformity throughout city, county, or State
One of the districts may stand to Republi-
can. while in the adjoining district the proper
tions will be reversed; and, taken altogether
the districts are usually not so outrageously
gerrymandered as to give the actual minority
in the city, county, or State round maj ority of
members in the deliberative assemblage which
is entrusted with Its legislation. But, while
this is usually the case 1t sometimes
happens that the actual minority on
the popular vote secures majority in
the delberatiye' assemblage, and it is frequently
the case that a mere working majority on the
aggregate vote contriges to secure an over
whelming najority in the assemblage. In the
State of Pennsylvania, for example, it is gene
rally understood by those who have looked into
the matter that the Democrats must carry the
State by majority of at least 10000 on the
aggregate vote, to give them bare majority In
both branches of the State Legislature. Just at
present, il happens that this state of affairs s q
good thing-so considered, at least-for the
Republicans; but the time has been, and the
time may come again, Wnen bne Denocracy VIII
have equal cause for rejoicing at the unfair DIS
tribution of the Legislative districts.
The Wrongs of minorities
To show the actual workings of the system in
vogue on large scale, we will take the returns
ofthe last Congressional election in our own
State. The action of the House of Representa-
tiyes in oustng two Democrats to make way for
their Republican opponents disturbs the figures
somewhat, but we have made the proper allow
ances for the illegal votes proved, and practi-
cally the result is unimpaired. Pennsylvania
is entitled to "a Representatives, and the pre-
sent delegation stands Is Republicans to De-
mocrats. An analysis of the vote at the election
of 1868 shows the following
Republican vote in the Is Republican dis
Democratic vote in do. do. 49,. S2T,2sS
Republican maj. in the Is Repub. districts .s6,sis
Republican vote in the Democratic districts &C. 1ss
Democratic vote In do. do -. 81, 1853
Democratic mai. in the DEM districts. 2l,97t
Total Republican vote. ............ .329 4Os
Total Democratic s2l, ,4os
Republican majority in the entire State. 7,s4i
The average vote OF the districts was there
fore 81, 100 each, the largest vote polled being
in the Twentieth district (Republican), and
reaching S4,346; and the smallest in the Eighth
district (Democratic), which was but 2l,2l0
The absolute majority of the Republican candi
dates in the State at large being but 7944, or 2!