Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1880-06-23
Aanraster f,teIlige1lcer.
WEDNESDAY EvEN'a, JUNE az. 1890
Shall we Change the Method 2

Shall We Change the Method!
Some of these days we will have to
change our method of electing presi-
dents. There are great many of our
election methods that will need to be
changed to give us better officers than
we have now, if we are going to exist
much longer as a republic. Why must
we have such incompetent men in office,
from the presidency down ? We have
been particularly unfortunate in our
presidents in these latter days. Compare
the lot we have had since Jackson with
those who went before and then COM
pare the latest specimens, Grant and
Hayes, and a possible Garfield, with Lin
coin and his immediate predecessors.
They are getting steadily worse. Con-
ventions do not discriminate wisely in
their nominations and the people incline
to swallow almost any stick their party
puts up. 1t would be better if the cleo
tors should be allowed to elect in fact in
stead of nominally, but it can never be
SO when they are chosen in the interest
of a particular candidate, as they always
will lie. The electoral body is very
useless piece of our political machinery,
as we all know, and it ought to be abol-
ished in compliment to our good sense.
There is no reason why presidential can
didates should not be directly voted for,
as other officers are, if they are to con-
tinue to be elected by the popular vote.
But why should not the House of rep
resentatives elect the president when it
assemblies every two years ? There would
he much greater probability of the
election of a creditable chief magistrate
by cOnfiding the choice in the first place
to the body to whom it is entrusted in
case of the failure of popular election.
If the House is competent to decide in
this event, it is just as able to decide in
every event. 1t is representative body
and would represent the popular judg-
ment. The English administration gets
along very well under the written law
which requires it to be in harmony with
the House of Commons, and it should
work equally as well here to have the
president and the representatives in SYM
pathy.
We need to get rid of some of our
elections. We have too many. The
presidential election, because of its inn
portance, especially excites the people
and interferes with their business occu-
pations. If there was any good in it this
should not be reason to abolish it but
the doubt is whether there is any good in
it. Certainly a convention which works
a week and produces Garfield, and a
people that is upset for months to elect a
Hayes, afford ample reason for an anX-
ious inquiry as to whether we are not
paying too dear for such a quality of
whistle. If we abolish our popular pres
idential elections we are certainly doing
the country great benefit in one regard :;
we get rid of one most exciting and cost
ly contest. 1t may be that we do our
selves greater injury 10y the abolition of
a direct popular choice; and that is what
needs to he considered.
The addition of this responsibility to
those of the members of the House would
make such membership still more impor-
tant than it is now. 1t might have a
good effect in sending still better class
of me mbers into Congress and it might
not. 1t certainly would give us able
presidents; whether it would make them
too subservient to the House that elects
them is to he considered. We do not see
why it should subserviency to the
peoples direct representatives would
hardly be injurious and when it would
be the superior class of men occupying
the presidential office would recognize it
and resist it. They would if occasion
demanded throw themselves upon the
side of the people against their faithless
representatives. The people being the
ultimate source of power, wise and pa
triotic president would always consult
the popular judgment and yield to it
when calmly delivered. Being in Office
UuC GNo yCttlo tllC udllSCIo VI ILupCA IebiAoA
would he lessened. There seems to he
no necessity for appealing to the whole
people to express their choice Of presi-
dent. The appeal would be made to
them to decide on a policy, as is now
done in the election of representatives.
The people are not the best judges of the
best instrument to carry out that policy.
A smaller body, whose members know
the candidates, would do this better.
And we confess that we do not see why,
when the people trust to their represen-
tatives to shape the country's policy and
make its laws, they may not also safely
and wisely confide to them the choice of
the president.
THE delightful uncertainty of the out
come of the Cincinnati convention which
prevails at this distance from the scene
of action is only enhanced by the peru
sal of the columns on columns of con-
A;ot;nr yiavs that burden tho news