The Columbia herald. [volume] (Columbia, Tenn.) 18??-1935, 1908-01-17


ing the power OF corruption than a
system which enables the corruption
ist by bribing a few voters In the
county to get the votes of all? Yet
this is precisely what is now offered
az a substitute for the direct primary
system. The administration plan is
one that is shrewdly devised to de-
feat popular majorities, and under it
man might be regularly nominated
in convention though defeated two or
three to one in the popular vote. 1t
enables the corrupt powers by CON
centrating upon a few larger coun-
ties and carrying them by narrow
maiorities to overcome the strength
Fof immense popular maiorities In all
the others.
Case in Point.
Let us suppose that the powers OF
corruption have set out to nominate
a candidate for Governor. They esti-
mate that they would have to over
come a majority of 10000 in popular
urinary. which would necessitate the
purchase Of over 20, 900 votes. They
therefore have recourse to the Ameri-
cans plan. under which they oni!
need to get bare majority in am
comfy 70 become masters of its entire
vote. Under this plan a majority OF
one counts Just as much as majority
Of 5000 while minorities are disfran-
chised altogether, or, rather, the pro-
norton OF Democratic strength rep
resented by them is counted for the
man they voted against. The corrup-
tionists now calculate that thy need
geo votes, or the representation OF
20 600 Democrats, in the convention,
and they center their forces on the
four large Counties of Shelby, David
son. Hamilton and Knox They estl'
mate that $50 votes in each OF THESE
counties. taken from one candidate
and given to another, would control,
and they arrange to buy 1000 votes
in these four counties. They carry
them by a popular majority OF one
vote in each. What is the result!
Their candidate gets 229 votes in the
state convention by an aggregate ma
iority Of four votes in four counties;
and this would overcome a popular
majority for his competitor of 10000
votes in ten counties like Sumner, or
the entire Democratic vote in forty
counties like Trousdaie.
have said that man might be de-
feated by, popular vote OF two or
three to one and yet win the nominal
dion in convention under system
which gives the entire delegation
from a county to the man who gets
bare majority. This is easy OF DEM
onstrahon. Let us assume that. In
such a contest each county would
east the same vote it did in the preS1'
rental election of 1904. There would
be total of 131 .653 votes cast IN
ninety-six counties, with a total OF
I 1928 votes in the state convention on
the basis of one delegate for every
100 votes and fraction over so. The
candidate who in convention received
662 votes would get the nomination.
Now let us suppose that candidate
A. for certain reasons, has strong
"pulr, in the cities and large counties,
or that the powers behind his can.
didacy concentrate all their fnhu-
ence and their money on such couI-
ties and succeed in carrying by one
vote each the following counties
Davidson. Shelby, Hamilton, Knox,
Bedford, Fayette, Franklin, Gibson.
Giles Greene, Henry, Lauderdale,
Madison, Marshall, Maury. Onion.
Rutherford, Weakley, Wilson, Robert
son. Sumner and Sullivan. In these
counties he would have received 49,
1871 votes, would get an aggregate pop
ular majority of % votes and would
have 663 votes, or a clear majority.
in convention. Candidate B might
get every vote of every Democrat In
every other of the seventy-four coun-
ties in the State, in addition to the
votes he received in the other twenty
two counties, and still would be de-
feated. Candidate A, with popular
vote of 31,191, would have 663 votes
in the convention; candidate B, with
popular vote of 9S,462 and popular
majority of $4,000, would have only
$50 votes In a convention. Or, to
state it another way, the % majority
which A received in the first-named
counties would overcome the $4,000
majority received by B in all the 9TH
ers. Gov. Patterson In his contest
! ...ltL No.y T,0w naoA en- dnalnifn thar