Clearfield Republican. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1851-1937, 1881-03-02


dent directly; third, the State has en-
tire control Of the elections and thC
certificate thereof to Congress fourth
the two Houses, acting together, arr
given sole power to count the votes
fifth, the necessity for a majority Of
the electoral college and for action il
any event by the House of Representa-
tiyes voting by States is dispensed with
and the plurality rule by districts
adopted.
The district system is no new thought
in thepoliticsofthis iscountry. lttoundits
origin in the constitutional convention
of 1887, on the motion of Judge vii
son, OF Pennsylvania, and it was mi
tiated in Congress in the very early
days Of our history. 1t has been elab.
GRATED and enforced from time to time
by leading Senators and members OF
the House, as an abstract of our history,
which | give herewith, will prove
This ia not process of entire and
absolute consolidation by direct vote
Of the whole people OF all the States,
but it is vote by the people in the
districts made by the State, directly
for the candidates, which votes are to
be returned 10 State authority and
conclusively certified thereby as the
result OF State action. In this respect
il Is as different from an universal vote
throughout the whole country ascer.
tanning results by its aggregate as is
the present system from a direct vote
by the people.
One OF the leading purposes to be
attained by this amendment is repre-.
sentation of the minority in each State,
and as consequence the destruction
and absolute eradication orsectiOnalsm
Under this system in the last election
Pennsylvania would have probably
chosen nineteen electors for Garfield
and ten for Hancock, while Virginia
would have gwen eight for Hancock
and three for Garfield. 1t is simple
and direct, but it processes to contain
no new thought, lis the mere appli.
cation OF what we have come to recog.
nize as the American system of elec.
tlons TO the practical working OF the
Federal Constitution in the election of
President and Vice President
In the elections OF our county and
State officials as well as in the election
OF members Of Congress, the person
having the highest number OF votes,
whether he have majority or mi.
nOrity, is the chosen candidate, but at
present under the Federal system a
majority of the whole electoral vete,
or of the States in the House Of Rep.
resentatives, is required. can see no
sufficient reason now for this differ
ence, if the just voice of each State
can be preserved. Our experience
teaches us that there is no longer any
necessity for the continuance of the
rigid majority rule. State equality in
the Senate and State independence in
its vote are, by the district system as
herein embodied, fully preserved.
l can see no practical reason for
compelling a majority Of all the States,
as such, TO be obtained either by the
useless processes of the electoral col
lcges Or failing that, OF the vote by
the House OF Representatives by States,
with all its dangers of civil war, cor
ruption, and anarchy. The preserva.
tion and recognition Of the equal and
independent voice of each State and OF
the minority as well as of the majority
Of its people is to my mind the vital
thought, and although a plurality
elects, my judgment is that we will as
frequently elect a majority President
under the district system as under the
system now in operation.
There can be no good reason, as |
see it, why plurality OF the American
people should not control when they
have fair opportunities and free sui.
frage in the selection OF their rulers
nor can | conceive any reason why il
is essential now to preserve the old
thought that majority of the States
should cast their electoral votes for any
candidate before there is an election,
in face OF the fact that he is often in
minority of the whole people. Under
the present system there are many
instances in which while the candidate
elected has majority of the electoral
colleges he has minority of the peo.
pie. This was notably the case in
1876, as it was in 1860 and is in the
recent election to smaller extent. 1t
seems to me better to err in the other
direction II we must err at all. For all
purposes needed to effect Federal re-
suits, the thought that is embodied in
our every day practice in electing
township city, county, and State
officials and Congressman can now well
and proftably be embodied in the Fed
eral Constitution.
The lesson of the election Just com.
pleted in the count by tho House this
week is full OF instruction. There are
369 electoral votes. Garfield received
PA, Hancock, without Georgia, IA. !
II New York had cast her 3j votes Tor
Hancock, the vote OF Georgia would |
have been required to decide the con.
tost, or the House would have been
compelled to elect for with New York |
voting for Hancock there would have
been Il tie at l70 votes, and tie in the |
House voting by States would proba. |
bly, have resulted and thus the peace
OF the country might have been broken |
by the tremendous commissions conse.
quent on such n condition of affairs.
The plurality rule would obviate all
this.
BY this amendment the States are
not divided into districts upon the ratio |
on which their representation in the |
lower House OF Congress would bo
fixed, but there is given to each State
as such,ln addition to its representation
in the Lower House, hcrequal represen.
tation in tho Senate. SO that while New |
York has thirty.three members of the
lower House, she has 30 votes for
President and while Rhode Island has
but two members of the lower House,
she has 4 votes for President. BY this
Is preserved State individuality and
State control, and to my mind sufficient
Of the Federal system, II we stand by
the plain reading Of the Constitution
in other respects
The correction Of thevicious system
"a rnarLod hoIlota Ia nrovidod lor olsn