Arizona silver belt., 1888-06-30
THE ELECTORAL SYSTEM.

ond term) is one of the most wise pre- visions of our Constitution, and one of the indirect beuits resulting is in the periodical agitation and discussion, through ths press and on the musings, of questions of vital import to the peo- pie. The records of parties, and the issues dividing them are thoroughly discussed, and the abuses and mistakes of our form of government, as well as the advantages arising from It, re- cei7e thoughtful attention, and expo sition by competent minds.
 The electoral system has its disad- vantages which have been recognized Tn the past by many of our leading statesmen, and that it has so long sur vived IS because it has the advantage of expedihously determining the re- suit of presidential election, which is highly important, and not offered by any other system that has yet been devised.
 But the defect-and 6 vital one-of the electoral system IS thatlt does not, as admitted 1t should, truthfully rep resent the choice of the people, mak- ing it pos4ble-and indeed spch an anamolous result has cccurred-for candidate to receive & maJority of the electoral votes when an opposing can didate has received larger popular vote than he. The case cited to illus trate thls incongruity IS the presiden- tial election of 1876, in which Hayes and Wheeler, the Republican candl- dates, received the requisite number of electoral votes, 1855, and were de- clared elected. The popular vote cast for them, however, was only 4,033, ,950, while tue popular vote for their Dem ocratic opponents, Tilden and Hen dricks, was 4,284,8S5, a majority for the latter of 25O, ,735!
 In several other instances the dis crepancy between the electoral vote and the popular vote is apparent, noticably in 1852, when Franklin Pierce, Democratic candidate, received the electoral votes of 27 States (254 votes) while Scott, the Whig candi- date, received the votes of but States (42 votes), yet tho popular vote for them respectively was 1.601 ,474 and 1 ,3S6,5 ,578, demonstrating the fact that the popular majority for Pierce was nothing like what his electoral vote indicated. In fact it was so mlslead- Ing that the Democrats were carried away by their supposed incontestible supremacy, and their over-confdence and aggressiveness made possible the formidable opposition winch took shape within a month after the lnaug- uration of President Pierce, and which within four years gained control of eleven free States, and was hotly con testing for supremacy in the others, Pierces popular majority, counting the 155,825 votes of Hale, the Free soil candidate, was only 56,896, and four years later, Buchanan, although elected, failed to receive majority of the votes cast by the people.
 The framers of the Constitution deemed it safer to leave the selection of President to a small body of emi- nent men, rather than to the direct and unhampered choIce of the people, and the electoral system was further designed to act as a check on party spirit, and was expected to serve a useful purpose. The choice was de- signed to be left to the electors who were to be free to cast their votes for whom they chose, but the people, who asserted their competence to choose for themselves, have imposed their will upon the electors. Their success in making their own choice authorita tive has caused them to overlook the incongruity of the system, and to tol- crate its continuance. However, it is not in harmony with ether parts of cur system of government, which aims at simplicity and practical use- fulness, and should be abolished.