The Columbian. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1910, 1892-08-12
DEMOCRATIC RULES.

democratic convention Tuesday
proved conclusively the necessity of a
complete revision of the rules govern
the democratic nomination. The
republican press has frequently stated
that there was but one person in the
democratic party who thoroughly un-
derstood the rules, but Tuesday, was
the first that we have witnessed that a
majority Of the delegates were willing
to admit that they could not compute
the vote. The rules of the party
were first put In operation at the
primary election uf 1876, and that
year as well as 81 s and 1880 the authors
o: the rules was the presiding officer
OF the convention, in each Of the three
years mentioned when there were two
candidates to be named for the same
office and one candidate nominated
on tie first ballot. re-cast was made
for the second ballot, and the delegats
of the candidate nominated were
free votes TO be cas-: for the
candidates yet remaining.
In 1882 there were six candidates
for the Legislature, and on the first
ballot the result was as follows;
Vanderslice, 4ot: Bryson ssh; Dewitt,
IS; Hamin, IS; Fox, IL; Gibbins, S,
A second ballot gave Vanderslice
forty six and one.six, Bryson, All
Dewitt 26s; Hamlin, 20. Vanderslice
being nominated, his delgates were
free votes and a re-cast made for
the remaining candidates, the third
ballot resulting Bryson ash; Dewitt
I2S; Hamlin ten and fve-sixth.
Again we find in 1884 that on the
first ballot a candidate received the
instructed vote Of "a, another II and
another 6t, while on the second ballot
when re-cast was made they received
ten and one-sixth, 8 and respectively.
In proceedings Of 1886 we find
the following: The instructions for
Representatives. were then read with
the following result.
Fritz, II, Fox forty one and five
sixth, Shuman s45, Tewksbury twelv.
and fve-sixth. Mr.. Fritz was de.
clared duly nominated. On the in.
structed vote where one man is to be
nominated the vote was as follows;
Fritz 43, Fox 10, Shuman ST, Tewks-
bury 44. Mr. Fritz being nominated
his vote were free and were cast by
the delegation with the following re-
suit Fox forty-six and fve-sixth
Shuman aSi Tewksbury four and FIVE
sixth.
We find similar instances in 1883
and 1890. We do not doubt but
that the clerks Of the respective con-
ventions have made true calculations,
but the voters do not understand why
the candidate having the largest
number Of delegates should suffer the
least. We will take for example in
1886 Mr.. Fritz delegation is reduced
] M, Fox !, Mr.. Shuman and Mr..
Iewksbury over l.
There is class who are advocating
to-day that each township should have
but two delegates and majority vote
take all ; but We can see the error OF
this when We look at the recent elect
ions and find one township polling "a
votes and another 1856. In one ms,
tance IS votes would give two dele.
gates, and in the other it would re-
quire 60 or more than five times as
many. Another plan is suggested
which would seem great improve,
ment over the present, and that is to
have every township represented by
one delegate, and that delegate to ac,
as return judge, who shall bring the
sealed return of the vote to the con
ventions, and the vote to be opened
and counted in open convention, anc
the candidate renewing the highes
vote to be declared the nominee. Ir