The progressive farmer. [volume] (Winston, N.C.) 1886-1904, 1894-09-18

sometimes raised for the election of
President by direct vote of the people. :"
The President is, in fact, elected by the
people. He would not be if the original
design of electors who should select for
themselves had been carried out. But
in practice the electoral college is a
mere plan for casting the popular vote
of each State so that in addition to the
pro rata its population would entitle it
to. each State, irrespective of it's size,
has two votes added to represent it's
Statehood. This is some protection to
the smaller States against being en-
tirely overwhelmed by the larger ones
This, too, is part of that plan for the
partial equality at least of the smaller
States with the greater, the acceptance
of which alone renders the Union pos
sible. It is good faith to retain it en-
tire.
Besides there is this unanswerable
reason against this proposed change.
Now the effect of fraud or intimidation
is limited to State lines. Such fraud or
intimidation is most likely to occur in
States which give large majority for
one party or the other. Take Penusyl
vania with it's 80, 900 Republican ma
jority. Should there be charges of
fraud or intimidation affecting a few
hundred or few thousand votes, the
rest of the Union will feel slight con
Germ, for if the charge is true the elec
toral vote of Pennsy lvania would still
be given fairly for the Republican can
| didate. And in a similar way as to
Georgia with her $4,000 Democratic
majority. In the States where the
vote is nearly balanced each party is
usually able to secure fair election ;
but let this be once changed so that
the President shall be elected by g.
direct vote of the people, then the peO
pie of the whole Union become inter
ested in every charge of fraud or un
fairness at every ballot box in Pennsyl
vania or Georgia or elsewhere, through
OUT the whole country. A permanent
force bill, with federal supervision at
every poll, would be necessity. Every
Presidential election would revive the
scenes of 1875 in an aggravated form
ard civil war would become inevitable.
The present system is consonant to our
theory of State sovereignty, recogniz
ing that States, as well as the people
of the States, are factors in the choice
of President. 1t is also the wisest plan
which can be devised to minimize the
chances of a contest and of civil war
over the result. In effect it has all the
advantages of an election of President
by the Senate and House in joint ses
sion without the intrigue and corrup-
ton which might become incident to
that mode of election.
The fairest and most equitable plan
would be, while retaining the electoral
college, as now, to divide the electoral
vote of each State in proportion to the
popular vote for each candidate, divid-
ing no one electoral vote, but so divid-
ing that the largest fraction over shall
receive the whole of that one vote.
This is better than voting by districts,
which would cause gerrymanders and
FAR more just than giving, the whole
electoral vote of State to one party,
suppressing entirely the minority. This
would remove the just objection enter
tained against the present mode o1
election, without carrying us into the
frightful evils of an election by the
people of the whole Union, per capita
without regard to State lines, those
buffers which alone render prossible
the continued existence of so large G
population in one Union without tht
use of force.
The veto power of the President il
an anomalous and dangerous surviva
from the traditions of the long past
The House represents the people, the
Senate the States. The legislative
judicial and executive Department.
should be kept separate and distinct
It is dangerous in practice and inde
fensible on principle that the executive
should be vested with legislative power
sufficient to nullify the action of ma
iorIties in both the House and the
Senate. Il cannot be contended thai
the wisdom of the President surpasseE
theirs, nor that he more truly repre-
sents the people than they do. II
truth, the veso is a survival from mon
archical tim s, when the representa-
tives of ths people could not legislate
except by the consent of the monarch
This was recognized in England at the
great Revolution of 1888. Hence, foI