The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1896-11-16
srrLL nARPIxG on TT.

,rx srosrad and trying TO explain Ao~ X
hzpp<n~a. There are number OF them
trying 70 exfrarf . grain Of comfort from
sass1inx with the Asares OF thu election
returns. and th.s attempting TO show how
..ir' Z certain percenszxe OF votes had
been cast <fe other way the result mssat
have been dsnsreas- For example. one set
Of these post election isxarsss 10 calculating
the result have made the remarkable dis
coyery that Uyme votes has been
changed in the states OF California Ken
sseky. Indiana. North Dakota, Oregon
end West Virginia % that tha ~ votes OF
assesc states had been cast for Bryan. hs
would have been elected. In he first
Place. these votes were not cast for
Bryan. and In the second place, II Bryan
received sh<m ne woaif att. have lacked
considerably % majority In Tho electoral
rollexe. Mr. Bryan's electoral vote. count
snx the one from Kentucky. which I, APP
p<Arx he Wiz receive. LIS iss- Fifty add
sionsi votes would give Rim but Us. or six
less chan required TO elect.
Bat this ss not ali. Taking the states
which gave tho highest popular plurality
for Mckinley. and II appears that they
collectively cast 81 electoral votes. or four
more than necessary TO eject In this en-
tire group OF states. rns smallest plurality
given was in Indiana. trsf'e IN excess OF
= ooA The collective plaraiIties Of these
states was nearly f.5ao5 COO Five Of this
group. wiseonsln. Illinois. Massachusetts.
New York ard Pennsylvania. with i1s cleo
sorai votes. or more than half the number
required 10 eject. gave piuraltles far in
excess u tA1.u0 each. Only six Of the
number gave plurasisiss less than so.oeo
and OF these six. three, Maine. New
Haaspsairs and Vermont. were never. By
the Popusist themselves. claimed for "a In
slant ~ being even doubtful.
We fail to understand what possible
comfort any Bryaniis can ind from an
examination Of the election tables -Four
years ago. the Democratic ana P,pullssic
combined popular vote was 1905 90 In ex-
cess Of the Republican popular vote. In
che last election the combined vote was
faliy i.oo.ao. ana possibly more. behind
shs Republican vote
The twenty-five states which east these
heavy nss5ofities for Mckinley had. ir,
sssa . population Of s6.sss.sss. The twenty
states which gave Bryan their electoral
vote had population OF .s.asa7ss. Tho
wealth Of "a. former group OF states was
eAs-n<. al. sx: az the latter, slssso. SsIsel
On ire question OF illiteracy the saox ing
D. stin worse. The popasisss have attempt
81 to meet this question hy singing out a
little groap Of the Western silver states.
snf contrasting their standing with GER
tsia Of the Mckinley states. This is A
disinswnaosss attempt 30 make q showing
~ emitting the states which furnished
Frysn fhree-qusrters OF his electoral vote.
The average OF iliitsrates In the states
whose electoral votes are TO ~ cast for
Mr.. Bryan Is = per eeas. OF the entire
ss'ai, population. TIE average Of Aat-
crates 81 the states which voted for No
kinlsy - IS per cent. Ttas states which
voted for Bryan have ha; Hstle over
ons+Asif as large a population az those
~h'Sh voted for Mckinley. Yet there are
stS.yIs siAteTstoS tn the Bryan states 10
ss&s7s IN the Mckinley states
rnss Il arrears that the states having
swe-thiFsss ~ the population. nearly two
thirds Of the wealth ana by far the higher
number ef educated people voted To-
sesnd sscney. and by the heaviest m2tor.-
ties. on the average. ever recorded in those
s'a'es IN a presidential year
We are aealing hare With questions %
averages. Washington. II Is true. stand
u ne front rank as regards n.eraey. hu,
u happened 20 &c; into particularly bad
er'nnsas On thls particular electien.