The Portland daily press., 1884-11-26
What the Figures Saw.


sented series of comparisons of the vote
10 different groups of States to show that in
certain States the voters who voted were
much smaller proportion of the population
OF the voting population than 10 certain 9th
er States, and that therefore, as the number
OF electors to be chosen by each State is
based upon the population, the ratio of the
number of voters ia the former States to the
number of Presidential electors chosen by
them is less than in the latter States. For
example, taking the extremes gwen, it is
shown that South Carolina chose electors,
By total vote of 91 ,623, or, as the Tribune
puts it, 10, $50 votes sufficed to choose an
elector, while in Ohio by the same method
of calculation it required "a, 122 votes to
choose an elector.
In ten selected Northern States polling the
largest vote in proportion to the population,
namely in New YORK, New Jersey, Pennsy-
Vania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan,
Iowa, Minnesota aud Kansas, 1904, 500 votes
toral college, an average of 81 ,099 votes for
each elector. In seven formerly slave
States, where the celored population is not
relatively large, namely in Missouri, North
Carolina, Maryland, Virginia, West vir-
ginia, Arkansas and Delaware, 1,457, ,551
votes were cast choosing 60 electors, an av-
erage of %, 1876 votes for each elector. In
five States where he colored population is
relatively large, Alabama, Louisiana, Missis-
sippi, Georgia and South Carolina, a total
vote OF 61S,Sl6 chose As electors, an average
of Il, 1872 votes to each elector.
The purpose of instituting this series of
comparisons is of course to demonstrate the
theory propounded in Mr.. Blaine's recent
speech at Augusta that the Southern Demo
Gratis, by the inclusion of the colored pepula-
tion in the basis of the .apportionment of
electors and Congressman and the means
adopted to secure to themselves a virtual
monopoly of the suffrage, have acquired an
unequal and unjust proportion of power in
the national government. This we believe
to be true. The Democratic party being in
minority on fair vote in four or five
Southern States has deffauded the majority
of their rights and usurped their power.
But it is an error in fact that this wrong in
certain States accounts for the Democratic
control of all Southern States, and it is an
error of reasoning to suppose that the figures
given above demonstrate any such degree of
injustice as they seem, taken BY them selves,
to do. They are to certain extent corro-
h0ratiua Of nfbar ouId &.
most that can be said for them.
Let us illustrate this by consideration of
the vote cast in certain other States not con-
sidered by the Tribune. Probably no one
will maintain that there was not perfectly
fair election in Maine. The total vote, as
last reported, (ten small towns and planta-
tions not included) was 129,5 500. By so many
votes six electors were chosen. Therefore,
according to the Tribune method of state
ment, q, ,5S4 voters in Maine can choose an
elector. In Indiana 1t requires 32,648, in
New York 80, APO, in New Jersey about 29,-
600, in Missouri q, ,483, in North Carolua
d, ,402, in Maryland and Virginia over q, 900
and in West Virginia, about $4,000. Take
Massachusetts for another example. There
were in 1880 over 500, 900 men of voting age
in Massachusetts. The whole number of
votes cast on the 4th of November last was
about 292, 900 by which number IA electors
were chosen, and, as the Tribune would say,
it required only 20,S57 votes to choose an
elector, that is, about two-thirds as many as
the average number in the ten Northern
States cited by the Tribune. Massachusetts,
has an educational qualification aud poll
tax qualification; but it is plain that these
do not account for the great failure to vote.
1t may be said, however, that if these quali-
fcations existed aud were enforced in the
Gulf States and South Carolina neither of
them coald have cast as large vote as it did
cast and the result would not have been diff
ferent
there has been no bulldoziDg and fraud at
the South; bbt they show that it is not safe
to put entire confidence in the apparent
teaching of election figures which are select
ed, arranged AID compared to support pre-
conceived or preestablished proposition in
politics. The fact that the difference in the
number of votes which suffice to elect a
member of the electoral college is greater be-
tween the States of Ohio and Maine than be-
tween Maine and South Carolina should
serve to put us on our guard against an in
ference that the small vote in the latter State
is of itself conclusive evidence of iutimida-
dation, fraud, or usurpation by the prevail
ing arty. 1t is not. In connection with
other known facts it is significant, and that
is all that can fairly be claimed
If we turn back to the election of 1880 we
shall discover according TO this method of
reasoning that the voter in Maine had more
power than than the voter in South Caro-
lima then already under absolute Democratic
control for four years. 20,530 Maine votes
could choose an elector while it took "a, ,421
in South Car, lima and about 81, 900 in Ohio.
In the election Of 1876 it required almost
$4,000 votes to choose an elector in Ohio,
and over 10000 in South Carolina, and over
26,000 in New York, and over 10000 in Mis-
sippi, but it required only 1881 in Maine.
In 1872 1929 voters could choose an elector
in this State, while 1t required 1850 in
South Carolina, Is, ,2S7 in Massachusetts and
24,065 in Ohio. But South Carolina then
chose Republican electors.
--=-==@----= ss.--.--.--.-.-----..--...=