Waterbury evening Democrat., 1904-12-09
ANAL YSlS OF THE VOTE
What Close Study of the
 National Election Reveals.
SMALLER VOTE, LARGER MAJORITY

Figures Now I'm Make 1t Almost Cer-
 tain That the Popular Vote Is Over
 100000 Less Than I'm 10OO-Number
 of Persons Voting Actually Less
 Thaa It Was Flight 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. It was the cur rent impression on the day after cleo tion, for instance, that record breaking majorit1es4 must be the accompaniment of q record breaking vote. On the con trary, the figures now in have made it almost certain that the popular vote is more than 100, LOGO smaller than it was in 1900, which was itself about the same as in 1896 It 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 Mir. 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 7,7O2, 180 votes and Parker 6,110, ,7O4. In 1900 Mckinley had 7,217,810 and Bryan 6,357, 1926. Thus Roosevelt's gain over McKinley's vote was only 4S4,- 3TO, while Parker's loss from the Bry- an vote was approximately three times that figure, or 1,23S,122.
 Now as to the total vote. The com bined vote for Roosevelt and Parker was 12,s21 ,ss4, which was 753,752 less than the combined vote of Mckinley and Bryan. Add 100000 for the So- cialist vote, and the total is still about 55O,OOO short of the total vote of all parties in 1900, which was 13,961 ,566. There is no reason for believing that the Populist, Prohibitionist and Social Labor candidates had so many as 550,- GOO. Thus unless some of the state votes yet to be capvassed have been preposterously under or over estimated it 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 groups. In 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 TeF; ceived fewer votes than Bryan and Nc Kinley respectively. In four - Della ware, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and West Virginia-Parker's vote was lar ger than Bryan's and Roosevelt's lar ger than McKtnley's. Tn the other thirty Roosevelt had more votes than Mckinley and Parker less votes than Bryan. But we ind, further, that in only ten of these did RooseveIt's gain over the Mckinley vote exceed Par ker's loss from the Bryan vote s'
 The following table, in which the ma jority of the items are still subject to correction, shows how the party votes hlIcfuated in these groYps.