Omaha daily bee., 1908-12-20

Completed compilation of the popu-
lar vote cast for president at the re-
cent election shows that Taft polled
the record-breaking vote OF 7,637,6T6,
with a plurality over Mr.. Bryan as
his chief competitor Of nearly 1885,
600. MIR. Tsft's popular vote was, in
round numbers, 500, eco greater than
was McKinley's in 1896 and 400, 600
greater than McKinley's in 1900. 1t
is only about 10000 greater than
Roosevelt's in 1900 and, excluding the
vote in Oklahoma, which was hen a
territory, it falls below that cast for
Roosevelt.
On the other side, the popular vote
recorded for Mr.. Bryan at the last
election is 6,S93.1S2. which is more
than 1000 less than he polled in
1896 and, again excluding Oklahoma,
nearly 100. 900 less than he polled In
1900, when he was 10000 short of
his vote of 1895. Parker in 1904, as
the democratic nominee, fell far be-
hind in the race. The only compari-
son in which Bryan's vote shows up
creditably is with this tumbledown
vote of Parker, which is by no means
normal.
Putting the figures Of the popular
vote for the last four presidential cleo
lions side by side, We have the follow
ing very interesting table. the statis-
tics for the last three columns being
taken from the World Almanac, which
may possibly vary slightly from other
compilations:
1908. 1904. 1900. 1896.
Republican .,.7.6SL676 7,62a.4S 7,2O7,s2S 7,1O4,77s
Democrat ....6, 1913, 1872 SOY, 971 6,35S. 1873 6,5O2,925
Socialist ...... 44s,45S 4O2,2SS S7,S14 .........
Independence. S3,1S6 ........ ......... ".......
Prohibition =. 241, $50 25s,Ss6 20s,9 l4 1S2,OO7
Populist ...... s3,s71 117,1S3 s50,37S ........
Social labor. 15,421 1929 1878 1924
Nat. DEM. ....... "..,... ......... 1873, 14S
sMid-road.
The study of these statistics does
not disclose the lesser parties to be
any great factors in the results. In
1896 and again in 1900 Bryan had
both the democratic and the populist
nominations, and his vote represents
the combined vote of the two parties.
In 1904 when the populists had their
own candidate they polied 117,1S3
votes for Tom Watson, whereas this
year Watson received only 1851
votes, being less even thar was polled
by the mid-road populist candidate
eight years before when Wharton
Barker got 50,373. The fact is that
Bryan in 1908 again received the bulk
Of the old populist vote the same as in
his two previous campaign and in Ne
braska went to the extreme of putting
his democratic electors on the ticket
labelled as populists. This populist
element in the Bryan column should
be taken into account in connection
with his total vote this year and de-
Quoted in any computation designed to
arrive at the real democratic strength.
OF the other minor parties the social
lists alone have shown any growth and
they, too, have dropped short of ex-
pectations.
The popular vote figures furnish
food also for thought along other
lines, particularly as to the unfair APP
portionment of representation in the
electoral college between the states
north and south, where the franchise
has been arbitrarily restricted. 1t
happens that all u recent presidents
have had a majority of the popular
vote as we'll as of the electoral vote.
but with the over-weighted represent
alton of the southern states in the
electoral college there is no assurance
that this will continue to be the case.