National Republican., 1883-01-15
The Nent National Convention.

order under which it Is held was made by tho
last national convention and directs not only
that tho method shall be prescribed but that
the said committee shall "announco tho same
TO the country and issue call for that con-
vcntion in conformity Herewith" The
method is to include and insure what Is
known as district ictrcprcscntation. (Scc pro-
occdings of national convention of 1ssO,
page 1907
The meeting promises to be an interesting
but harmonious one Tho question of APP
portionmcnt is to be considered, as also the
manner, of securing district representation.
Neither of these ought to give rise to any cX-
citcmCnt, for mother seems likely TO be dis
cusscd in any other spirit than that Of de-
sire to promote the best interests Of tho re-
publican party.
Upon the subject Of tho apportionmcnt there
arc several propositions. Hitherto each state
has been allowed number of delegates equal
to twice the number of its senators and repre-
scntativcs in congress. No political party in
the country has dcvatcd from this rule SINCE
the establishment of the convention system,
democratic convention the same proportion.
nto representation rs South Carolina and
in all whig and republican convon-
tions South Carolina has had the same
proportionatc representation us Vermont. II
is proposed by some to alter this basis, and TO
give, in addition to the representation hereto
fore provided for, anumbcrbascd cithcron the
number of republican senators and members
or the number of republican votes cast ut the
last presidential election.
IT presidential electors were chosen by
districts there would he an appearance of
fairness in giving an additional vote to such
diallict5 rs would be sure at the next election
to 90 republican, for it would then be giving
Il larger voice, in the selection of n candidate,
TO the districts which would contribute to
the election than to the others. But
even then it would often happen
that districts which had been relied on
would be disappointing, whilc others would
exceed expectations. Thus districts which
finally turn out democratic would sometimes
have twice the representation in convention
Of districts which give republican maioritcs.
But electors are nOt chosen by disiyicis They
arc chosen Jy adt6S If the republicans who
vote are majority of one in any state, all the
electors of that state are republican.
In making up that majority the rcpub-
licans in every democratic district are rs
indispensable and entitled 10 as much credit
as arc their brethren who enjoy political
honor and power in the nCighboring rcpubli-
can districts. Why should they have less in
flucncc in selecting candidate? If the OBJ
,icct is to give the probable republican states
more influence than the rest on the ground
that those which are TO furnish the electoral
votes uro best entitled to name the candidate,
what consistency is there in beltting demo-
cratic districts in states that are republican,
or in magniying republican districts in states
that arc democratic?
Then MS to the proposed additional delegates
corresponding to republican senators. Why
should Ohio be limited to three and New York
have six? Why should Pennsylvania, Mass
achusctts, Connecticut, Michigan, Colorado,
and Kansas, which have just elected demo
cratic governors, have six each, when Oregon
California, New Jersey Nevada, and Indiana
have each but four?
The alternative proposition for n change of
apportionment Is that to the representation
based on the whole number of senators and
members there shall be added q number
OF delegates proportioncd to the number
Of republican votes cast in the several
states ut tho preceding presidential election.
This would certainly make the convention
more II representative body than the other
plan. If the present system is to be departed
from at ALL it can only be for the purpose
either of reaching more nearly an expression
of the masses of the party, or Of increasing the
relative strength, in the convention, of those
constituencies which are to contribute the
electoral votes, If the former is the object,
then an apportionmcnt based in part on
the popular vote would alone reach it.
II the latter is sought for, then additions
should be made to the representations of
probable republican sidicS and not of republic
can districts. As before remarked, rcpubl-
can district in q democratic state does not
contribute single electoral vote, whilc in a
republican state the republicans OF every dis
trict, whether democratic or republican, con-
tribute toward the election of the whole elect
oral vote oi The state. There is reason in
the present system, for it treats the several
states or districts "a equal political units.
There would bo reason in Il change which
should insure in addition representation
based on numbers. But no argument has yet
been made to show why districts in hopclcssly
democratic states should be favored, or why
one district should be given moro delegates
than another in state made republican by
the votes of all.
1t is an unfortunate time to commence
separating the states into republican sheep
and democratic goats, Massachusetts, Con-
necticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Michigan,
Colorado, Kansas, California, and Nevada
have each just elected democratic gov.
crnor, Indeed, had the recent election been
for presidential electors, and been attended
with the same disasters to our party, We
should have chosen but seycnty-nnc of the
four hundred and one electoral votes of the
union. five add 10 these nine northern states
others wherein lesser officers were chosen,
such rs Ohio, Indiana and Wisconsin, we lind
that our party was temporarily submerged
in more than half the northern states and in
thrcc-lourths Of the states Of The union. The
lesson Of that election should be humility and
toloation, and should be taken to heart by
all who care for republican success in the fu.