Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1892-12-06
THE POPULAR PLURALITY.

! A GREAT many inquiries have reached The
DISPATCH as to the popular plurallty 1or
| President at the recent election. The official
returns in a dozen States have not yet been
/ received, and even If they were at hand the
figuring out of the plurality in the entire
country is difficult task for several rea-
sons For one thing, there is not and cannot
be an official plurality for Cleveland, harri-
| son or ANY other Presidential candidate, be-
cause they are not voted for directly. In a
State where dozen Republican or Demo
cratic electors are chosen there may be, and
usually is, a difference Of several hundred
or thousand votes between the highest and
lowest candidates on the respective tickets
On this point each calculator must be
law unto himself. Some authrities take the
heads of the tickets and reach the plurality
In that way. Others average the votes cast
Tor the candidates on each ticket, and still
! others take the electoral nominee of each
party receiving the highest vote and decide
that the difference between them is the
| plurality in the State. These variations OF
| opinion have existed at every Presidential
| contest, and it has been very rarely that
two estimates have exactly agreed. For in
stance the New York Tribune Almanac
places Cleveland's plurality in 1888 at 1884,
the Chicago Daily News Almanac at 96, 655
and the New York World Almanac at 9S,01I
THERE are a number of complications this
year. too, which did not exist in 1883. In the
| State of Kansas the Weaver electors re-
| cefved, in round numbers, 162, 900 votes. The
Harrison electors secured l57 900 votes. and,
as there was no Democratic ticket in the
| field, not one vote was cast for Cleveland
| electors. A large number of Democrats,
| probably 75 0G0, voted for the Peoples party
| ticket. If there had been a division OF the
electors as a result of the fusion a division
of the votes wonld have to be made in pro-
portion in estimating the popular plurality.
But there was no such arrangement and the
Democratic vote was cast solidly for the
Weaver ticket. As n result, willie Harrison
| lost the electoral vote of Kansas, he re-
ceived $4,000 more votes there than Cleve-
| land, and must be so credited in estimating
the popular plurality of the country.
Kansas is not alone in this respect, though
| it is the most conspicuous example. Deals
| OF similar nature were made by the Demo-
| Gratis in Colorado, North and South Dakota,
Wyoming and Idaho. In none of these States
were any votes cast for q straight Demo-
! cratic electoral ticket, and on q strict con-
struction Harrison's plurality over Cleve-
land in each and all of them is the exact
number of the ballots given to the Republl-
| can ec ors. From q strateLic standpoint
these combinations made by the Democratic
managers were good politics, and in a close
contest the electoral votes affected would
have thrown the Presidency into the Demo-
cratic House, but at the same time they have
reduced Cleveland's total plurality by per-
Laps $4,000
ALABAMA causes another complication
which is even more difficult to adjust. The
electoral ticket placed In the field by the
kolb convention was not formally pledged
to any Presidential candidate. 1t was in
dorsed by the Republican National Commit
tee, and if successful the vote of Alabama
would have been -unquestionably cast for
Harrison. In view of these facts it would
seem proper to place the popular vote Sc
cured by this unsuccessful electoral ticket
in the Harrison column. There was, how
ever, third so-called straight Republican
ticket placed in the field by a disgruntled
faction, composed almost entirely of colored
men.
A somewhat similar state of affairs pre-
vailed in Texas. There the organization
was in the hands of the colored contingent,
and theirs was the regular ticket, receiving
about a, 600 votes. Another set of electoral
candidates, tine nominees of the lily white
Republican party, had something over 5000
supporters. Both factions were for Presi-
dent Harrison. and there is a question
"hOtA1CL LAOiL NOICS SlsOulu uOb Dc dOuou bO-
gether in computing the Republican
strength in Texas, though they were thrown
for opposing electoral candidates.
Then there Is Ohio, where the electoral
vote Is divided and California, where the
final canvass of the official returns will
probably show q mixed result. But in these
States, while there is doubt as to the proper
method of calculation, the margin is so nar-
row that the popular plurality in the coun-
try will not be greatly affected.
On the basis outlined the official returns
received and estimates on the States which
have not yet reported indicate a plurality
of about go, 600 for President-eIect Cleveland
in the "A States. From several of the far
Western States, such as Nevada, North Da-
kota and Idaho, and some Southern States.
the figures SO far are incomplete, and the
final announcements may affect the plurality
given to the extent of possibly 10000 votes
either way. By other methods of computa-
tion which might be adopted the result
would vary to still greater extent.
A number of curious features are disclosed
by an examination of the returns in some
States. In Mississippi for instance, Harri-
son received over so Oo0 votes in 1883 and only
1,406 this year. Cleveland received IS coo
votes four years ago and but COO this time.
This decrease is the result of the adoption
of the new Constitution, making the ability
to read and write necessary qualification
for suffrage. In Massachusetts, Iowa and
Minnesota, where the Democrats expected
great gains, the Republicans secured their
usual large majorities. In Ohio, Illinois and
California, making but little noise in the
campaign, there was a surprising slump.
II there had been no combination with
Weaver Cieveland's popular plurality would
not have been far short OF half q million. As
it is the final figures will be found close to
100000. L D. B.