The progressive farmer. [volume] (Winston, N.C.) 1886-1904, 1896-10-27

Judge CLARK suggests Ghag Lne COun
try be divided into districts OF ap
proximately equal populations, and
the people of each district be entitled
to elect one judge. For example, the
States of Virginia and West Virginia,
North and South Carolina, Georgia
and Florida might constitute n Fed
eral Supreme Judicial district and
elect one of the Justices of the Supreme
court. New York and New Jersey
might constitute another district and
elect one judge, etc.
Bat by the district method OF elect
ing the ldges the country would stlll
be exposed to a danger which the OPP
ponents OF Capitalization of power 8Gd
wealth into a few hands have always
| sought to avoid: viz. the liability Of the
court falling into the control OF one
party.
By the plan of electiDg the judges by
districts it would be possible for a pc
iitical party having 60 per cent. of the
voters of the United States to elect
every men b1r of the Supreme court,
and the other party or parties having
40 per cant of the voters of the country
would fail to elect a single judge. Then
we would not have a nonpartisan
Judiciary, the very thing which is
most strongly to be desired by the
friends of liberty.
would suggest that instead of the
judges being elected by districts, that
they De elected according to the prin
ciple Of proportional representation,
which would guarantee to every pO-
litical party a number Of judges n
proportion TO les number of voters.
For example, if in a certain election,
two thirds OF the voters of the aitod
States should vote the Republican tick
ct and one-thIrd should vote the Demo
cratic ticket, then the Republicans
/ would be entitled to two thirds of the
judges and the Democrats to OEe-third
Of them Or if a party was 30 small
that it had only one-eighCh of the
voters of the United States it would be
entitled to one judge.
In order to apply the principle of
proportional representation to the cleo
ton OF United States Supreme Court
judges it would simply be necessary TO
let each political party nominate eight
candidates for the Supreme court.
Then, if the Republican ticket received
five eighths of the votes cast, the first
five names On their judicial ticket
would be declared elected, the oppOs
ing parry receiving three Fights of the
votes would elect the three men whose
name stood at the head OF their ticket.
This would simply be ~electing the
Supreme court judges III the same way
that Judge Clark would have the
Presidential electors Of each State
elected. And Senator Butter wanted
the last Legislature e pass a law pro
vIdiDg for toe election o. county com
missionors by the cumulative vote,
which Is 4 way Of securing minority
representation.
The possibility % the district method
OF elecJIng legislatures, courts or
boards, 80 completely extiDguish tie
voice OF the minority au0 give all the
power to the majority, has been *
planned ny me IN former commuprIca
lions to The PROGRESSIVE FARMER
To make 1t plain, l Will ado: TIE
electoral college which Is composed Of
c;.otOr0 f~oDo * TtF.raDt 1vcrr,o-o or
States, may be enyrely composed of
membo-s IF one party to the complete
exclusion Of CDe oJher party or parties,
even when the minority party or
parties have 40 or As per cent OF all the
voters. II IN the coming election Nc
Klnley should receive IS per cent. Of
the votes to De cast 10 Ohio, and Bryan
only As per cent. Mckinley would re
ceive the entire electoral vote in Ohio,
while not a single Bryan eiecUor would
be elected in OHIO. If Mckinley should
receive a like 10 per cent majority IN
every other State In the Union, then,
it IS plain that Mckinley would receive
every electoral vote in the United
Sta es, and Bryan not a single one,
though As per cent. Of all the voters OF
the United States vote for Bryan. Is
it fair that one political party by
reason Of an a~dvantageO Of geographical !
situation Of Its voters should, with a
small ma Ority, elect all the President
ial electors, and a large minority parry
2 - Il