The spirit of democracy. [volume] (Woodsfield, Ohio) 1844-1994, 1872-12-17
Presidential Elections land Theft
DANGERS.
From the Cincinnati Commercial.

cratic So far from expressing the di-
rect suffrage and will Of the reopc, it
is liahte at any moment to be perverted
into action directly opposite 10 the pop !
ular will. There is nothing, save their
personal honor, that binds or can bind !
the Electors of any State to cast the
vote of that State for the candidate who
received a majority Of its popular vote
In a Closely contested election where it
was known that the change of the elec-
toral vote of 4 single State, or of two
or three of the smaller States, would
change the result, who knows how so'h |
the tempter may be found, the teinpta-
ton applied, and the Presidency be put |
up at auction, as the Roman Empire
once was, and as seats IN the Senate of
the United States have already beenI
Courts and Legislatures have been !
bought; why not Electors of President 2
But this is not the only nor the gray ;
est danger, although it is enough to!
compel attention, and to move the peo
pie and their representatives to provide
against the possibility of so deep dis.
grace as the open barter and sale of the
Presidency. Corruption in politics was
never more rife than now, nor was the
baleful power of money ever so widely
exercised as an agency in human affairs
| If there is any way to shut the door
against the possible danger that the
Presidency will become the next prize
to be purchased by pecuniarv consider
ations, that safeguard should be at once
applied. Other dangers there are at
tached to the electoral system, some Of
which the country has already expe-
rienced. BY means of it, minority
candidate may be, and has been elect
ed President. In the election of 1924,
General Jackson received the largest
vote, yet John Quincy Adams was cho
sen President Here is the popular
vote cast for each candidate at that cleo
ton:
Andrew Jackson, l52 500
John Quincy Adams, lo5,32l
VIM Ii. Crawford a9,2e5
Henry Cay 47,os7
| The electioh-iio candidate having
majority of the electoral votes cast
(which were, for Jackson SO, for Adams
"a, for Crawford Al, and for Clay 81
was thrown into the House of Repre-
seutatives. Here Adams was elected
through receiving the vote of major
ity Of the States, although Jackson had
plurality over him of nearly fifty per
cent in the popular vote, and of nearly
twenty per cent. in the electoral vote
Thus the popular will was defeated, and
a minority candidate placed in power,
leading, of course, to much i'll feeling
and political acrimony The Govern
ment stood the strain, as it always has
done even in the hottest times Of diff
erence, but the time may come-may
not even be far distant-when the elec-
ton of minority candidate even by
strictly constitutional machinery, will
lead to conflict or to revolution. Let
us suppose that, in 1860, when there
were again four candidates, the choice
of President had been thrown into the
House of Representatives-and the
change of only few thousand popular
votes would have done it-what would
have been the resultp BY the electoral
system, as prescribed in the Constitu-
ton, only the three highest candidates
lin the electoral vote can be balotted for
by the House of Representatives. Now,
this would have resulted in throwing
out Douglas entirely from the canvass,
in spite of the fact that he received
more votes Of the people by half mill
ion than either of his competitors, ex-
cept Lincoln. The vote, popular and
electoral, was as follows in 1860:
Popular Electoral
| votes. votes.
Lincoln, 1,S66,452 $50
| Douglas, 1,315,057 II
Breckinridge, S47.953 u
Bell, 59O,63l 80
1t will be seen that only Breckinridge
and Bell could have gone into the House
of Representatives with Lincoln, while
Douglass, having only twelve electoral
votes to represent his one million three
hundred and serenity .fre thousand pop
ular votes would have been cheated out
of all chance by the electoral system,
; even of being balloted for by the Rep
resentatives of the people. Bell or
Breckinridge, 10th minority candidates,
and not only that. but the lowest minor
ity candidates, would probably have
been elected, as Lincoln. although car
rying plurality of the popular vote,
and majority Of the electoral vote, did
not carry majority of the States, nor
had the Republicans a majority of the
States in the House. The vote being
cast by States, each having one vote, a
protracted struggle, with minority
President, or else anarchy, would have
been the result.
: Look at some of the iniquities of the
| present electoral system of choosing
Presidents. 1t does not represent, new
er has represented, and never can rep
resent, the voice of the people, either
numerically in proportion to the votes
cast, or politically, in their just ratio
, of relation to each other as constitu-
ent members of unfon of States. In
1882, jackson received 6S7,5 ,502 popular
votes, and Clay 550,1S9. BY a just ra-
ito Jackson should have had l49 votes
{ of the Electors, and Clay ll9. Instead
. of this, Jackson received 2l9 and Clay
only 49 electoral votes. 1t took only
3,l39 votes to elect Jackson Elector,
> while it took ll,22S votes to choose a
Clay Elector. What monstrous ine-
quality this, in republican form OF
government. In 1852, when Pierce got
1885 ,545 popular votes, and Scott l.
1888, ,537, the former went into the ?resi-
dcncy with 254 electoral votes, while
Scott received only A. 1t took only
= ,242 votes to choose Pierce Eleotor,
while to elect a single Scott electcr re-
!. quired 80, S46 votes!
The same analysis. applied to each
! successive Presidential election, will
show that there is no analogy or just
: proportion between the vote as express
, ed by the Electoral College and the will
III