The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-11-14
our ELECTORAL SYSTEM.

OUR ELECTORAL SYSTEM.
With that lucidity which character
| ICES everything that Mr.. Carlisle says,
| he discusses, in the current Forum,
1.-THE Dangerous Defects of Our Elec-
| toral system" He gives a historical
review of the earlier defect, shown in
| the Jefferson Burr contest for the pres
idency, which was subsequently RENE
died by the adoption of our present
| electoral method. That has not proved
entirely satisfactory, and is fraught
with possibilities of danger which
should be met and provided for be-
fore conditions arise to bring repeti-
ton Of the excitement that prevailed
following the election of 1876. After
pointing out some of the objections to
the existing method, which, he says, is
not only inconsistent with our theory
of government, but inconsistent with
itself-for "if the people were in fact
incapable of selecting president or
vice president by a direct vote, they
were equally incapable to select compe-
tent agents to perform that duty for
them'-he proceeds to an exposition or
the inequality among the states allow
able under the present method.
The manner of selecting presidential
electors is left without restriction to
the states. Under this latitude there
have been and can be three different
methods of choosing electors prevail
ing in different states at the same
time. In some the legislature has made
the selection; in others they are elect
ed on a general ballot; and again, in
others, they have been chosen by the
several representative districts. He Is
! of the opinion that, in matter of such
great concern as the election of chief
magistrate of the nation, there should
be entire uniformity among the states
in the method used, and the method
adopted should be one which would
bring the election as closely to the
great body of voters as possible.
With each recurring presidential
| election there follows a demand, ever
| increasing in volume, for the election
! of the president and vice president by
a direct vote of the people. In coun-
try where the fundamental principle is
the rule Of the majority, a minority
| president is an anomaly. The consis-
tent and ideal method would be a di-
| rect vote for these officers without the
| intervention of the electoral colleges
and the award of certificates for cleo
! ton to the candidates receiving either
a majority of all the votes, or, in case
there were several candidates, to those
receiving a plurality. This would in
/ volve surrender of a portion of the
much cherished sovereignty of the
| states, and require the creation of q
national returning board to receive and
| tabulate the vote and declare the re-
suit. 1t is hardly probable that, in the
face of the failure of the repeated eff
forts to secure a correction of the de-
| fects in our present method, such a
| system is attainable; but nearer ap-
! rroach to the ideal, a fairer expression
| of the wishes of the voters, could be
| had were an amendment adopted re-
curing electors to be chosen from the
congressional districts, excepting the
two chosen at large.
Prior to the election of 1892, the leg
! islature of Michigan provided for the
| election of one presidential elector in
| each congressional district in the state
| and two at large The motive of the
legislature was severely criticised by
! the Republican press as being a mere
| political trick designed to deprive their
| party of a number of electors in the
| following presidential election, but, mo-
tive aside, an inspection of the vote of
that state in 1892 shows how fair it
was between the parties, and how rep
resentative of their relative strength.
| Mr.. Cleveland received 202, 296 votes
and Mr.. Harrison 22270S, giving the
latter a plurality of 20,412. The con-
gressioral representation of Michigan
that year was II; the number of cleo
tors was IA. Two of these latter were
elected on general ballot, and, as Mr..
| Harrison had plurality in the state,
he was fairly entitled to these two In
the electoral college Mr.. Harrison was
given votes and Mr.. Cleveland ).
Deducting from Mr.. Harrison's the 2
at large to which he was entitled,
would leave him representing the con-
gressional districts The proportion of
presidential electors for each is very
nearly that of the ballots cast for each
at the polls. Harrison received 52.6 per
cent of the latter and 5S.3 of the cleo
toral vote. The result was that each
party was represented in the electoral
college in an approximately true pro-
portion to it's voting strength. In that
election Democratic representatives
were chosen from Districts One, Two,
Five, Seven and Ten, from which, also
were chosen the five Democratic presi-
Dental electors.
By way of contrast to this eminently
fair and equal result was the result in