Lincoln County leader. [volume] (Toledo, Lincoln County, Or.) 1893-1987, 1896-11-05
Voting Through the Electoral
College.

EPioOOPol NHulSu SOIlllDuleS ~ the
North American Review for o.
tober a thoughtful paper on "Our
Electoral System" in which he
shows that rnder the constitutional
plan of choosing presidential cleo
tors provision is made for the
equality of states, but not for the
equality of individual voters, the
advantage OF the individual voter
for electors being with the voters
in the larger states.
The inequality of which Bishop
Merrill complains and which, as he
says, is a subtle one, lies in the
relatively greater power possessed
by a vote cast i a large state. The
question is, "Does,ope vote cast for
each of thirty-electors have a greater
effect in the final count than does
one vote cast for each of three
electors?
I'm the state of New York the
voter casts a ballot for each of
thirty-six electors. His vote is
counted for each, and each e~lector
chosen by that ballot votes for
president; so that the vote of one
man bears directly on thirty-six
votes Ill the electoral college. In
one respect the man mas but II
voice, but that one voice is poten-
tial IN filling many seats in the
body which decides the election.
In another state each voter has a
voice in selecting twelve electors,
or one third the number chosen in
New York. - cunts IL
determining twelve votes in the
electoral college. His influence in
the whole body is one-third as
great as it would be ifhe could vote
Tor thee times as many electors,
as does the vote i'll New York. In
another state OF still less population.
the voter has a voice in the election
OF three electors, or one-twelfth as
many as the voter in New York
Influences. In this condition of
things it is pretty evident that the
voter III New York has twelve
times the power in the choice Of
president that he possesses who
must exercise the right of suffrage
in the smallest state. There is no
untairness in the fact that the
larger state should have this pre-
p~onderance of power, as a state, for
the larger voting population justi-
hes this; but that each voter should
WELD such an excess of power is
scarcely compatible with equity
and justice. The equality of the
power of single votes is destroyed.
1T will be alleged in reply to
this that the inequality disappears
when ii is remembered that in the
larger state more votes are required
to make the majority which elects;
but the reply is fallacious, for the
uoubIe Is not in the greater or less
number OF votes requisite to the
majority in the large or small state,
but 1t has reference to the power of
the single vote. Is not that vote
multiplied, or its power increased,
i'll proportion to the number of.
electors it helps to elect? If so, the
lack OF equality in the power of the
single voter III the different states
is demonstrated. This question of
majorities will illustrate the point.
a single vote is an influential in
Ill determining majorities in a large
state as i'll a small state. Suppose
that in the great state of New York
the electors are all chosen bv a
majority of eleven hundreds not
that a supposable case? a change
OF six hundred votes would put the
majority on the other side. That