Eureka daily sentinel. [volume] (Eureka, Nev.) 1871-1887, 1881-03-18
ruE POPULAR VOTE FOR PRES
IDENT.

IL il not as anomalous as at first sight
IL NAV appear, that though General Gar
field was elected President by a hand
some majority in the Electoral College,
and has within a few days been inaugu
rated, there should still be a question as
to the popular vote. But when the
various methods under which the voting
is done in such contests are taken into
consideration, the singularity will disap-
near. The statistics which are at first
made up are gathered before the official
count is made, which is sure to detect
more or less errors. In addition, in some
States the voting for Electors is by gem
eral ticket. To get at results in such
cases averages have to be struck. There
has rarely been an election in which
errors have not occurred, but no n goes
to the trouble of unearthing them, be-
cause the majorities have usually been
large. They are of no value except in
the mathematical sense. In close con-
tests, however, every figure is overhauled.
The following calculation Of the returns
Of the late election is by Edward Nc
Pherson, for a long time Clerk of the
House under the Republics regime, and
generally regarded as one OF the closest
and most accurate of our political calcu-
lators. 1t appeared originally in the
form Of a letter to the Baltimore Amer
lean
In your paper Of this date you follow
the Cincinnati Enquirer in giving to Gen..
Hancock a popular majority Of S,l06.
These figures give the totals
General Garfield ........,... .4,4l6,5S4
General Hancock. .4,424,69O
Mr.. Weaver. 5i3.o9
Neal DOW ..... io'I91
Scattering $3.50
Total. g, 169, 213
These are said to be the g latest" in
Guiding "cooked-up returns" from South
Carolina and Louisiana. / do not concur
in this statement or the result. | took
unusual pains to get the correct result for
the New York Tribune Almanac for 1881,
M L ODtoihoa q Ia 6oi POPoi"A wv
the above table shows, and with a different
distribution of the items composing it.
Since that publication Nevada has come to
hand officially, and Texas. The changes
in these, with a revision of figures in
Louisiana, give net gain to Gen. Garfield
OF $500 votes, and a net loss to General
Hancock of 1.702. Making these correc-
tons, the totals stand, as between Generals
Garfield and Hancock, as follows
General Garfield ........ ..4,454, 421
General Hancock. 4,446 1873
Garield's plurality .......... {, 1885
The total vote previously quoted is in
creased, by the latter returns, by LOO
votes, and it reaches an aggregate of $780,
348. In making up these tables, General
Garfield is credited with all the votes cast
for the two Garfield Electoral tickets in
Louisiana, as General Hancock is credited
with all those cast for the two Hancock
Electoral tickets in Virginia, and with all
those cast for the ''Fusion" Electoral ticket
in Maine. Conceding everything to Gen.
Hancock which can be claimed for him,
he is in a minority of over 5000 votes.
Many Of the errors Of current tables
have arisen from a failure to correct by
the official returns from the more distant
States (conspicuously Nevada, Tennessee
and Texas), and by failing to construct
the tables upon the manifestly fair princi-
pie of awarding to each candidate the ac-
tual vote east by his party in the re-
spective States. Very respectfully,
EDWARD MCPHERSON.
GETTYSBURG, Penn, Feb. %, 1881.