New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-07-03

n TIE UNIT AND TWOTHIRDS RULES.
The difficulties In the way of a Democratic
nomination at St Louis under the time honored
procedure Of that party have again revived IN
Democratic circles suggestions Of abrogating
The two-thirds rule. There is nothing sacred in
the rule. 1t is subject 20 review by any con-
vention, for each gathering makes its own laws
OF procedure. Indeed, the two-thirds rule is in
essence undemocratic, and true representative
party government is obstructed rather than
promoted by It. Nevertheless unless the De-
moeracy is prepared for other reforms for the
characterization of its organization anterior TO
the abrogation of the two-thirds rule, the at
tempt to nominate by bare majority would be
revolutionary and despotic
II the two-thirds rule is to be justly abolished,
the initial steps must be taken before the cleo
ton OF delegates Back OF the two-thirds rule,
and 3ustifying its existence are the unit rule
and the custom Of selecting State delegations in
State instead OF district conventions. Under
the system by which the great majority OF the
st. Louis delegates were chosen, q nomination
by a mere majority of the national convention
might easily represent the will of a decided
minority Of the party. That system results in
ignoring minorities, first, in the States and then
in the minute subdivisions, ana appropriating
10 the maJorities the minority vote in the sew
eral constituencies.
may by narrow margin win country districts
where there IS a small Democratic vote. The
other faction may be practically unopposed IN
New-York City, where the party vote is heavf-
est IT Is possible. II the voters happen 10 be
,nassed Just right, for a trife over onefourth
of the voters, by winning a trihe more than one
half of the delegates 20 the State convention, TO
choose the full national delegation OF the State
end bind them all TO dc the minority's viii. So
long as that IS possible the two-thirds rule is
obviously necessary 10 anything like a repre-
sentative nomination. When bare ma jority
of State deiega don, which does not necessarily
voice the wishes of majority OF the party
voters IN the State, can dragon TO its support
TIE rest Of the delegation, # IS absolutely neces-
sary TO apply safeguard against nisappropria-
ton Of the party machinery; fog this practice
being followed In State after State may enable
an actual minority Of a national convention TO
cast even a two-tEirds vote In II. BY compel
ling & candidate 10 pile UP e two-thirds vote the
rules roughly and partially Offset the unfair
advantage he may secure through the unit
rule. II at the coming convention q majority
vote was made sufficient TO nominate, e1-Sen-
rtor Hill might force the nomination OF Judge
Parker by casting for him against their will
tthe votes Of nearly half the New-York dele
lgates. Such a result would IN no sense con-
form TO party sentiment
The Republicans found long ago a method Of
representation which avoided the Democratic
Embarrassment Nominations are made by ma
+ sorify vote, but each delegate is really free
Moreover, eacn delegate represents directly a
constituency OF Republican voters, and responds
TO their wants instead Of being put up by per-