New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-12-29
TIE MISSING VOTE.

The tabulation Of the popular vote Tor Fresl-
dent, which we published yesterday, shows thar
fewer ballots were cast for Presidential electors
in 1903 than were cast for Presidential electors
In 1906. For candidates on the six recognized
national tickets the total vote this year was 3D.
5o7 249. For candidates On the same tickets In
1900 the total vote was 1864 702-showing
deficit in the vote for 1904 Of 457,453. Various
explanations have been given Of this slump"
In some quarters it has been assumed that Pres
ident Roosevelrs extraordinary victory was
due simply 70 popular listlessness. We are told
that the Republican electoral ticket won by de-
fault-that it owed its success TO the break
down Of the Democratic canvass and 70 the
absenteeism from the polls Of hundreds Of
thousands Of Democratic voters. Such an
PLANTATION finds some support in the fact that
the vote cast for Parker and Davis fell 1,2S0,9I5
below the vote cast for Bryan and Stevenson.
This enormous detection. it is assumed, must
have been caused as much by popular indiffer-
ence 10 the questions at issue as by active dis
affection on the part Of Democrats.
Yet this explanation fails to take account OF
one OF the most striking facts disclosed by
study Of the election returns. That is the
shrinkage in the electorate which has been eff
feeted In the Southern. States. Assuming that
the popular vote should bear certain ratio 70
populat ion-1 TO 81 for instance-it Is easy
10 prove that the vote Of 1904 was a 'low-
water mark" one. But such an assumI ton
Is altogether fallacious in view Of the restric-
tons imposed suffrage within the last six
years in most Of the former slave States. The
Presidential vote in those States bears no nat
ural and normal ratio TO population. and each
year the ratiO-minute as it now is-seems to
undergo a shrinkage. In some of these States
Florida South Carolina, Georgia and Missis-
sippi-the limit Of suppression was reached by
1900. and in these four commonwealth the total
vote Of 1904 showed slight net increase. In
Georgia, where Thomas f. Watson made an
active canvass the total vote increased 7,152-
rising TO 29.Se7-a ratio TO population not Of
10 81, but Of 1 TO % In South Carolina there
was a gain Of 6.097 in the total vote; in Florida
q loss Of only l04, and in Mississippi a less OF
only 12G
IN nine ether Southern States there was. how
ever, marked decline IN the popular vote In
Louisiana the sLTiuEage was 1887: in Ar
kansas, HID; in kentucky. 31.7l5: in Ten
nessee, 1890; in Maryland, 40,367; in Alabama.
5o,I3s; in North Carolina 81 535: in VIRGINIA
1885,, and in Texas. 1S7 So. In these nina
States there is a loss due largely TO restrictions
on suffrage. Of J9024G votes Tie RepuhIican
vote sLrank propo1ionateIy more than the Dem
ocratlc; but the loss was general and will he
10 doubt. more or less permanent
Taking into account these artificial abrido
ments Of the Suffrage in the South. the total
vote Of 1904 is really greater than that Of 1900
Outside the South there was no extraordinary
indulgence in absenteeism. The Bryan column
O. 1900 melted away; but the vote Of the minor
parues-Soclalist. Prohibition. Socialist Labor
and Populist-sl0wed an increase Of 423 OCT
and the Republican vote was 100000 greater
Than in 1900. The sOuth's elimination of 800 DAG
votes more than balances the apparent deficit