Republican news item. [volume] (Laport, Pa.) 1896-19??, 1905-01-19
THE POPULAR VOTE
VOICE or THE NATION NEVER MORE
CLEARLY EXPRESSED.


Its Decisive Character Cannot BE He
littIed by Suggestions of Apathy
and IndifTerence--The shrinkage In
the south.
The tabulation of the popular vote
for president shows that fewer ballots
were cast for presidential electors in
1904 than We're cast for presidential
electors in 1900. For candidates on
the six recognized national tickets the
@otal vote this year was 13,501, ,249
For candidates on the same tickets in
1850 the total vote was 1864, 702,
showing q 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
President Roosevelt's extraordinary
victory was due simply to popular list
lessncss. We are told that the Repub-
lic2n electoral ticket won by default
that it owed its success to the break
down of the Democratic canvass and
to the absenteeism from the polls of
hundreds of thousands of Democratic
voters. Such an explanation finds
some support in the fact that the vote
cast for Parker and Davis fell 1885,
9T5 below the vote cast for Bryan and
Stevenson. This enormous detection, it
is assumed, must have been caused as
much by popular Indifference to the
questions at issue as by active disaffec-
ton ON the part of Democrats.
Yet this explanation fails to take ac-
count of one of the most striking facts
disclosed by a study Of the election re-
turns-that is, the shrinkage in the
electorate which has been effected in
he southern states Assuming that the
popular vote should bear a certain ra-
ito to population to 512. for instance
it is easy to prove that the vote of
1904 was Il Glow water mark" one. But
such an assumption is altogether falla-
cious in view of the restrictions i'm
posed on suffrage within the last six
years in most of the former slave
states. The presidential vote in those
states bears no natural and normal ra-
ito to population, and each year the
ratio, minute as it now is, seems to un-
uCISu Il sutlHhdSt. III SOllc VI lHtSc
states-Florida, South Carolina, Geor-
ga ana Mississippi-the limit of sup
preston was reached by 1900, and in
these four commonwealths the total
vote of 1904 showed a slight net in
crease. Ia Georgia, where Thomas e.
Watson made an active canvass, the
total vote increased 1852, rising to
129,SGf, ratio to population not Of 1
to 81, but of / to 20. In South Caro-
lima there was a gain of 6.091 IN the
fetal vote, in Florida Il loss of only 10i
and in Mississippi loss of only 100.
In nine other southern states there
was. however, a marked decline In the
popular vote. In Louisiana the shrink
age was 1897, in Arkansas 11,445, in
Kentucky 31,715, in Tennessee 31,-
030, in Maryland 40,367 in Alabama
50,T3S. in North Carolina 97,535, in
Virginia 135,367 and in Texas 1877, ,S52.
In these nine states there is loss, due
largely to restrictions on suffrage, of
590.24G votes. The Republican vote
shranE proportionately more than the
Democratic, but the loss was general
and will be no doubt more or less per-
manent.
Taking into account these artificial
abridgments of the suffrage in the
south, the total vote of 1904 rs really
greater than that of 1900. Outside the
south there was no extraordinary in
diligence in absenteeism. The Bryan
column of 1900 melted away, but the
vote of the minor parties Socialist,
Prohibition, Socialist Labor and Popu-
list-showed an increase of 1873 267.
and the Republican vote was 100000
greater than in 1900. The south's elm
ination of 590,246 votes more than bal
ances the apparent deficit for 1904 and |
proves that last years contest was not |
Won through absenteeism. The voice |
of the nation was never more clearly |
expressed. Looking beneath the sur
face, the vote of 1904 is seen to be a |
thoroughly representative one, and its |
decisive character cannot be beittled |
or explained away by any suggestion |
OF popular apathy or Indifference
New York Tribune