The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1905-01-10
Should Our Method OF Choosing the
President BE Glanced?

1t is well known hat although many
persons supposed themselves to be voting
for Pres ident on. Nov. S, the choice of
q Chief Magistrate for the four year-
beginning March a. 1906, did not really
take place until Jan o, when the Pres!-
dental electors met in their respect ye
States and recorded their choice which
in due time and form. will be submitted
10 Congress. That this Is a cumbr0us
and Anticipated method Of eleoting the
Executive Is obvious enough, but Some
very grave objections 10 il are often
overlooked They are pointed out with
clearness and energy by the eminent
astronomer. Prof SIMON NEwCoMB. in
the current number Of the North American
ReuoU.
It is true that but little weight attaches
practically 10 the criticism most com
monty made by foreigners on our mode
Of choosing the President. the criticism.
namely, that Presidential elector may
defeat the will Of the people who elected
him by refusing 10 vote for the man
whom they intended him to support.
About the legal right OF a Presidential
elector 10 vote for ANYBODY there is of
course, no doubt. provided Of course. his
vote was not influenced by bribery or
corruption. The Constitution makes him
a free agent, privileged to exercise his
own discretion as to the selection of a
Chief Magistrate As Prof NEwCOMR
puts it, "a complete answer 10 any COM
plant that the Presidential clector cid
not cast his vote for the candidate who
had been nominated by his party would
he that under our Federal organic law
the election of a President is expressly
delegated to his judgment, and he was
bound 70 exercise that judgment accord
ing to his own conscience He could
plead in addition that. he vote being by
ballot, there was no knowledge on The
part of any one but himself as 10 how he
had voted
Since nominations for the Presidency.
however, have been made at national
conventions, this theoretical right has
never been exercised. A strenuous at
tempt WAS made during the Tilien-
Hayes controversy to persuade a Repub-
nominee, on the ground that the latter
was really the choice Of a majority of the
people and that in this way contest
which might shake our political institu-
tions could be avcrted. The attempt
failed. The elector who had been APP
preached held that the responsibility
for the outcome of the election rested
M With hft,, bat - 10
had been chosen 10 vote for certain
man, he said, and was bound in honor
10 do il, no matter how large a majority
of the popular vote might have been
thrown for another nominee and no
matter how grave might be the possible
dangers of a contest. 1t had been the
business Of the people-it was not his
to guard against such dangers.
Yet while experience has shown that
Presidential electors can be trusted to
vote for the nominee Of their party, the
very fact demonstrates the uselessness
Of their Intervention. There are, more
over, constitutional provisions and limi-
tations to which the electors are subject
that might cause and have caused slips
in the proceedings. For example, Presi-
dental electors must hold no Office of
profit or trust under the United States.
II follows that the vote of any elector
when it comes before Congress in Joint
session. may be challenged on the ground
that the elector held some Federal Office
Of profit or trust. OF course great care
s taken that there shall be no room for
such a challenge, but it is impossible to
eliminate all chance OF ineligibility.
There, too, 10 the constitutional proyi-