The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1877-02-02
How Hany Votes Does 1T Take 10 Eject
enc President?

enc Presidenrs
Ran. Tucker answers that question as fol.
lows lii bis able speechst
What is the meaning Of the words Il
such number be majority OF the whole
number OF electors appointed?" We have
snoken OF throwing ont votes for iilegality,
fraud. or inability to decide who is really
appointed. Must these be counted as among
that whole number OF electors appointed
| OF which the successful candidate must
secure q majority? ,.e
The word "appointed indicates an
affirmative answer to this question. and
the history Of the clause as well as the con-
text, confirms it. II it had intended to
make majority OF the less number the
word "appointed" would not have been
added. and the word "voting" or some
such word would have been used.
But the history is conclusive on this qrles-
ton. AT first the clause read elf such
number be majority OF that OF the cleo
tors" This was at best equivocal.
1t was thought, that as then the Senate
was to. elect, il no such majority was OBJ
tanned, the election would most usually be
thrown into the Senate. Many were very
aversc to this.
To prevent the eventual election by the
Senate az far Us possible, Mr.. Madison pro-
posed to insert "one-third" in place Of
"maiority" in the clause. II was lost
e Mad. Pap, 1901. He then moved to in
sert after electors, "aeho shall have 6dtoted,"
saying, $50 that the non-yoting electors,
not being counted, might not increase the
number necessary as majority OF the
whole to decide the choice without the
agency OF the Senate" 1t was lost 3D.,
4 IN,
order to remove ambiguity from the inten-
to add after the words If such number be
majority OF the electors the word zap
pointed" 1t was adopted, nine States to
two (Id., 1929. A change was proposed
by adding, "and who shall have given their
votes u after the word appointed. 1t was
lost 3D., 1909.
This meaning derived from the debates
! seems to leave Ao doubt OF the intention.
But the context is equally conducive to the
same conclusion.
The power to reject votes, OF which we
have spoken, would have enabled the houses
| to reduce the number necessary to elect to
small minority. Ii State attempts to
elect and certify. and does elect some one,
but owing to defective returns it cannot be
decided whom, it would be unfair to count
her out from all influence in az election from
which her vote may be properly excluded.
She would therefore be counted as OF the
electoral body, though her voice be not
| heard.
Again, when the election Is thrown into
| the House, the person elected must have a
majority OF all the States, whether there or
not, and majority Of the holenumber OF the
Senate is needed to the election OF Vice
President. And by article /, section 3, a
majority OF each House constitutes quo
rum, but "one-ffth OF those present. may
demand the yeas and nays.
The distinction between a majority OF
the whole and OF those present and acting
is thus clearly manifest, and the words and
context show that in this case the Presi-
dent-elect must have q clear majority OF
the electors whom the States have ap-
pointed.
But suppose an ineligible person be voted
for. Is lie appointed? Clearly not. Tie
therefore cannot be counted among the
electors appointed. The State has not APP
pointed. Her act was null.
So, during the civil strife, the Confederate
States appointed no electors. The majority
required was of the electors appointed by
| the Federal States. .
But suppose, in such cases as Louisiana
and Florida, both parties claim to be elected
and no one can decide which claim is valid;
has there been an appointment Doubtless
there has been. Our inability to decide
does not negative the fact OF an election OF
some one. And hence, where legal cleo
| ton has been held, and electors have been
voted for, though the result may remain
undecided and in dubio, the legal cOnclu-
sion is that electors were appointed, though
we permit none to vote and reject all.