Palestine daily herald. [volume] (Palestine, Tex.) 1902-1949, 1904-12-21
ANALYSIS OF THE VOTE
What a Close Study of the
National Election Reveals.
SMALLER VOTE, LARGER MAJORITY

SMALLER VUTb, LARGER MATURITY
Figures Now In Make II Almost Ger
tain That the Popular Vote Is Over
100000 Less Than In 19O0-Number
of Persons Voting Actually Less
Than 1t Was Eight Years Ago.
AS the official returns come in from
one state after another, says the New
York Post, certain facts about the
election scarcely indicated in the first
announcement of results begin to
stand out strikingly. 1t was the cur
rent impression on the day after cleo
ton, for instance, that record breaking
majorities must be the accompaniment
of record breaking vote. On the con-
trary, the figures now in have made it
almost certain that the popular vote is
more than 100000 smaller than it was
in 1900, which was itself about the
same as in 1896 1t has also been as
sumed that the election went over
whelmingly one way because of the
great multitude of Democrats and first
voters who by reason of personal ad-
miration for Mr.. Roosevelt came over
and voted the Republican ticket. This
view, too, is put in new light by the
later returns which show that Roose-
velt's lead over Parker was composed
of approximately three parts Demo
cratic losses TO one part Republican
gains.
The latest figures now obtainable,
partly unofficial and in few cases es-
timated, show that Roosevelt received
1902. $50 votes and Parker 5.119,T04.
In 1900 Mckinley. had 7,217,Slo and
Bryan 6,35T.S26 Thus Roosevelt's gain
over McIlinley's vote was only 4S4,-
$40, while Parker's loss from the Bry-
an vote was approximately three times
that figure, or 1,23S, 10.
Now as to the total vote. The COM
bined vote for Roosevelt and Parker
was 1881 ,SS4, which was 1913, 152 less
than the combined vote of Mckinley
and Bryan. Add 100000 for the So
cialist vote, and the total is still about
$4,000 short of the total vote of all
parties in 1900. which was 13.96l,5 66.
There is no reason for believing that
the Populist, Prohibitionist and Social
Labor candidates had SO many as $780,
600 Thus unless some of the state
votes yet to be canvassed have been
preposterously under or over estimated
IL is hard to escape the surprising con-
clusion that in the year Of this uneX-
ampled party triumph the number of
persons voting was actually less than
it was eight years ago.
Looking only at the change of votes
since 1900. the states may be divided
into four -graupS.-1n only three states
Georgia, Mississippi and South Caro-
lina--was Parker's vote larger than
Bryan's and Roosevelt's smaller than
McKinley's. In eight others-Alabama. |
Kentucky. Maine, Maryland, North |
Carolina, Tennessee. Texas and Vir- |
ginia-both Parker and Roosevelt re
ceived fewer votes than Bryan and Me |
Kinley respectively. In four = Della |
ware. Massachusetts. Rhode Island and /
West virginia-Parker's vote was lar
ger than Bryans and Roosevelts lar
ger than McKinley's. In the other
thirty Roosevelt had more votes than
Mckinley and Parker less votes than
Bryan. But we find, further. that In
only ten of these did Roosevelt's gain
over the Mckinley vote exceed Par
ker's loss from the Bryan vote.
The following table. In which the ma
iority of the items are still subject to
correction. shows how the party votes
fuctuated in these groups: