The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1876-04-12
The Democratic National Convention
The Two-Thirds Rule.


few things are SO bootless as the giving of
unasked advice. But this which we now
offer is supported by such weight of solid
reasons that it ought not to be rejected. The
absurd and mischievous two-thirds rule,
which has long been the common law OF
democratic national conventions, ought to be
rescinded and discarded, and the present is
as good time rs any for the party to eman-
cipate itself from the tyranny of which the
two-thirds rule is n convenient instrument
The two-thirds rule is repugnant to COM
mon sense and democratic principles as we'll
as to the great body of political usage in this
country. 1t has never been adopted in any
whg or any republican national conven-
ton, and the democratic party itself uni
formly repudiates it, except in the quadren-
NAL convention for nominating q Presiden-
tial ticket. Nearly two hundred democratic
State conventions Of one sort and another are
held in the course Of four years, and there is
no example Of any one Of them making the
success of nomination depend on the sup
port of two-thirds of the delegates. Demo-
cratic usage conforms in this respect to the
unvarying whig and republican usage, ex-
cept in the democratic national con-
ventions, and there is not a shadow
of argument in favor of this noted
exception which is not equally an argument
for the two-thirds rule in every State con-
vention of the party, in all Congressional
district conventions, judicial district con-
vcntions, county conventions, Senatorial
conventions, Assembly district conventions,
Congressional and Legislative caucuses and
primary meetings. In all it's numerous po-
litical assemblages for selecting delegates or
candidates, other than its national conven-
tons, the democratic party leaves the decid-
ing power in the hands of simple majority,
where it properly belongs on q rational
theory of democratic institutions. The only
plea for the two-thirds rule is established
usage, but there is an infinitely greater body
even Of democratic usage against this rule than
for it, since it has always been rejected in
every nominating ASSEMBLY, with the sole
exception of the national conventions. This
exceptional usage is alike contrary to gen.
cratic principles.
The decisive objection to the two-thirds
rule is that it enables the minority Of the
convention to defeat the will Of the majority
and thwart the wishes of the people. In an
assembly of men there is no way of col
Letting it's sense but by a vote, and if
majority vote one way and minority an
other either the will of the majority or the
will Of the minority must prevail. 1t is alb
surd to give the minority greater power than
the majority it is absurd to let the few
defeat the will Of the many. A principle SO
obviously correct, and of which all men are
equally good judges, does not need authority
to support it but as the defenders of the
two-thirds rule may quote authorities in
default of argument, we cite the high author
ity Of Jefferson on the other side. This chief
apostle of democracy expressed himself, in
very deliberate official opinion, as fol-
lows Every man, and every body of men
on earth, possesses the right Of self-govern-
ment. They receive it with their being from
the hand of nature. Individuals exercise it
by their single will; collections ofmen by
that Of their majority, for the law of the ma
jority is the natural law Of every society of
men, and of every collection of men who are
to transact together a particular business"
A rule which empowers the minority to
Illustrate the will of the majority is repug-
nant to reason and subversive of demo-
cratic principles. As Webster said in one of
the ablest of his speeches, "The first great
principle Of all republican liberty is that
the majority must govern. In matters
of common concern the judgment of
majority must stand as the judg-
ment of the whole This is a law
imposed on us by the absolute necessity
Of the case" So true is this that the
two-thirds rule is perpetuated only by the
vote of a majority in the opening proceed
ings of every successive democratic national
convention, pretence being made of saving
the majority principle by inducing the ma
jority to abdicate its rightful power before
candidates are voted on. The vote of a
mere majority will be sufficient to abrogate
the rule, and if the democratic party is wise
it will refuse to be any longer bound by SO
indefensible usage.
Nothing has SO strong tendency to put
imbecility in the front as the two-thirds rule.
1t is an Instrument for defeating the really
able men of the party and putting them out
of the field as a preparation for springing
some obscure or unexpected name on the
Convention and getting him accepted
through despair of uniting two-thirds of the
Convention on any of the recognized leaders.
The two-thirds rule thus led to the nominal
tion of Polk in 1874, of Pierce in 1852, and
other unfit nominations at other times. The
machine sometimes thrusts forward really
able man, but he is usually one who was
wholly unexpected. like the fatal nomination
of Governor Seymour in 1868. The opera
ton of the two-thirds rule in killing
off the strong candidates annuls the