Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1882-03-01

INC COL1l COQVenClO0 WOuiu CONSIST Oh
2G4 delegates, of whom 81 would be from
Lancaster and 13 from Columbia. The
city cast little less than Is per cent. OF the
total Republican vote of tho county in
1880 and would have little over IA per
cent. of tho representation in the cOnven-
tion--is a very fair ratio.
Of the 264 delegates 1876 would be ap-
portionetlsto the lower senatorial district
and 1873 to the upper-about fair division
according to their vote.
Had this system been in vogue at the
last primary and had tho vote been the
same as it was, High would have been
nominated for sheriff on first ballot :;
though from Lancaster city Kready would
have got 23 delegates to ii for High,
while there was only 1914 votes betw cen
them and out Of Columbia High would
havo had only delegates to for kready
though the vote stood 3O1 for High to 2s5
for kready:
For prothOnotary had the delegates fol-
lowed their instructions the vote on first
ballot would have been
FRIDAY ..............."."........ I'D
Sk1!eS... .l2S
Necessary to a choice. la3
Or the second ballot. in accordance with
the new rules, Fielis being dropped, the
vote of his township, Warwick, -yould
have gone to Skiles, the second hi. est
candidate, and Skiles would have been
nominated. thoug b on the popular vote
Fridy had majority over him.
hot,
three Loading candidates. one or tho other
ular vote of 1881 stood Grider, 3, 115 !;
Grissinger, 4, 1s1 Good, 1872. According
to their instructions tho vote of the dele
gates Oh first ballot would have been,
Grider... ......................... So
Good ........................ .....lO3
Little Britain being tic and not voting.
After the first ballot, in accordance with
Rule 8, Sec. IX., 'Grider would have been
dropped. An examination of the districts
he carried, and of tho persons for whom
their second highest vote of instructions
was cast, shows that his SO delegates
would then have been distributed as fol-
lows under rule 6, sec. IX. had they
strictly voted for the second choice of their
respective districts.
For Grissinger Elizabeth, Columbia
first ward, Petersburg, w. Earl, New
town, Mouatville and North Western
Total, 81.
For Good C,ernarvon, Leacock, Man
heim twp, Silver Spring, Lancaster twp,
E. Lampeter, Little Britain and Norwood
Total 81.
Tic and not voting Manor New, 3.
The result of such second ballot would
have been
This would, it is true, have elected
Good, but when the returns are examined
it will be found that 2 votes only in Silver
Spring out of it's JAG would have given
him the 3 delegates 6 votes in Lancaster
township out of 120 would have given
him delegates there and a majority of
only in Little Britain delegates-ttere-
fore, although he received from the poo
pie 631 more votes than Gvissinger,
change of 0 individual votes in these three
districts might have lost him their dele
gates and the nomination.
This latter calculation is, however, based
on the assumption that the delegates fol-
lowed strictly the second choice of their
district. Rule 6, Sec. IN, may DO SO con
strued as to allow delegates to use their
own discretion when no candidate remains
who received ten per cent. of tho votes in
their district, and as that would be tho
case in some of the above districts the del |
egates in tho exercise Of their yolition !
might have changed the result.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS.