The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1891-04-10


testify dangerous defects in our system of
elccting the President and Vice President
Of the United States, in the requirement of
a clear majority in the electoral college, or
in default OF that the reference of a choice
to House of Representatives chosen two
years previously. perhaps discredited by
subsequent events and welded to ideas or
policies clearly antagonistic to public
sentiment at the time for choosing Presi-
dent.
But the subject is far from having been
exhausted. Some of its most glaring de-
fects and unrepublican features have not
been touched upon. For instance, if by
any chance there should be failure of
any one candidate to secure 223 of the IA
electoral votes, and the election should be
in consequence thrown into the House
chosen two years before on the impulse of
wild popular delusion, it is beyond per-
adventure that many of the votes cast
would be monstrously misrepresentation
of the wishes of the constituencies of those
casting them.
This will be apparent on moments
consideration. For it must be remem-
bered that in such event each state casts
bat one vote, to be decided by majority
Of the delegation, and limited to choice
between the three candidates receiving the
highest number of votes in the electoral
college. Delaware would have an equal
voice with New York. Nevada with Penn
sylvania, Wyoming with Illinois, Idaho
with Ohio, and so on. Population counts
for nothing. The vote of the state IN the
presidential election, no matterwhich way
or how heavy may have been the majority,
counts for nothing.
Thus it would happen, were the next
presidential election thrown into the
House. that even though the Democratic
candidate should be third in the electoral
colIege-which in view of growing ALI
nnce strength in the South seems quite
Observation-Disclosures he would receive 30
votes in the House to II for the Repub-
. lican and 2 for the Alliance candidates.
Massachusetts,. though she will doubtless
right herself and give an old-time Repub-
lican majority, would have her vote in the
House cast on the other side. And so of
Connecticut, New Hampshire, Rhode ISL
and, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois,
Iowa. Minnesota and Montana, and even
Nebraska would be counted in opposition.
Though the Republicans should carry
an even half of the electoral votes. and no
more in the popular election, their candi-
date would receive but the IL votes of CAL
ifornia, Colorado, Idaho, Maine, Nevada,
North Dakota. Oregon. Pennsylvania,
South Dakota, Vermont, Washington and
Wyoming, and this although they might
score clear majority of the popular vote
of the whole country. Even though New
York, Illinois, Ohio, Massachusetts,, Iowa,
Minnesota and Michigan were added to
these by Overwhelming majorities in the
popular vote, it would be of no avail One
way. 1t goes without saying that the time
may come when such conditions may put
our institutions to q strain that will prove
irresistible.
1t is not necessary TO go into calcula-
ton of some other possibilities. such as a
iarities of an election two years previous
to the presidential campaign, by the %
states of smallest population, electing q
president who might be opposed by the 81
states of largest population, two of which,
perhaps. might be more populous than the
entire twenty-three. 1t may be that no
such extreme cases will ever arise, but they
are liable TO, and the system provides for
them. And contingencies far less extreme
would be liable to create serious convul-
sions. All of which could be avoided by
adopting the system which prevails in
most Of the states as to the choice of their
governors, the seating of the candidate
who shall have received larger popular
support than any other. The dangers are
| great, the remedy simple and in line with
the prinples of popular government. which
| the present system is not, in any respect.