The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1908-07-21
MISUNDERSTANDING a MAJORITY,

It's a pleasure to argue with cor
respondent so easily pleased as. Mr..
Robert w. Withers. The citation"
with which his first letter engaged us
An discussion OF the always interest
4 ing primary question is re-echocd in
the extreme satisfaction OF his most
recent one. 1t is not agreeable to
e dampen such enthusiasm: but our sin-
scere desire to reach solid bottom in
Il this really veXing and complicated
Z problem impels us to insist on going
deeper than our correspondent seems
inclined to do.
Asking us to consider a case (which.
three closely matched candidates, A, B
and G. represent. respectively, the two
yslextremes and the neutral ground upon
some paramount Issue. he is delighted
4 in advance with our sure reply that
I the primary would compel the voters
here to nominate q man who Is opposed
Ifhy two-thirds of them. In his view.
such a statement effectualy disposes OF
the primary, because it mot only per-
Z 1nits, but frequently co1npels, the mi
L nority to rule" Therefore. when the
tirst-day primary has failed to pro-
s duce majority vote, he would take
1.-The nominating power from the people
4 altogether and hand it over to the con-
yention.
The misfortune which Mr.. withers
..sees Is genuine. but no less can be
said OF the fallacy Of his reasoning.
He puts the blame on the system; it
belongs wholly TO tho conditions of
thought and sentiment. II the voters
OF the State are equally divided among
three candidates, that is concrete and
immutable fact which no nominating
system is responsible for and none can
alter II the primary compels them to
Z choose between three such candidates.
what other system can do either more
Or less? What one can deliver real
majority where none. in fact. exists?
Take the case of a, b and c above,
5 where each candidate, advocating wide
" different views. secures approx
mately one-third Of the votes in the
primary. Under the plurality rule, one
nf these men is nominated. each being
opposed by two-thirds Of the voters.
Under the second-day primary plan, G.
i the lowest man, is dropped, and q or B,
each opposed by two-thirds OF the
y voters, is nominated by the people.
& Under Mr., Withers's supplementary
convention plan, C, the lowest man on
1.-The first ballot, is dropped, and A or B.
each opposed by two-thirds Of the yot-
ers. is nominated by the delegates. We
ask Mr.. Withers to tell us succnctly
why it is better to have delegates
choose between A and than to have
the people themselves choose between
them.
The primary vote records unmistalt-
ably the will OF the people. If that
vote is divided almost equally among
4 three candidates. it indicates decisively
that.any given csyndidate is opposed by
two-thirds Of the s,eople This lack of
agreement is unfortunate; but it is a
y plain fact, with which systems have
nothing to do. Mr.. Withers condemns
IL thelsecond- day primary because 1t COM
pels the voters to take man whom
the majority of them do not want,
Is Without discussing any other aspect OF
his letter. we invite him to point out
how the convention or any other plan
u can avoid this difficulty. Where every
1: candidate is, in fact. opposed by two
thirds. how can Mr.. Withers evolve q
4 candidate who is not opposed by two
ag thirds2 S5