The daily sentinel., 1909-11-29

the main question is whether or not
voter prefers the election of a can
dldate voted for on some choice as
against the candidate voted against
by being left off the ballot" The
concluding ten words of Mr.. Buck
ms statement and question are rath-
er ambiguous. We think he meant
to say, without intent to place lang
uage in Mr.. Bucklin's mouth, that
as against the candidates who seem
ed to be the favorites of the larger
proportion of the voters on account
of the large first choice votes they
received"
No favorite candidate of the people
may ever be elected through this sys-
TEN, when there are three or more
candidates for any position, which
there are sure to be, under the pref
| erential system of voting.
Our contention is that the people
did not elect their choice of the men
to fill the first position in the gov
ernment of the city of Grand juno
tion, when they through the silly
operations of this preferential sys-
TEN of voting, elected Thomas M.
Todd for mayor.
man doesn't secure his first
shCt,S IL hC IOT a
first grade box of Jonathan apples
and receives three pias.' tme i4rter
being the commercial name for the
lowest grade Of apples. A man,
when he selects n first choice of men
to govern in municipality, will
never be satisfied with someone who
may be his third or fourth choice.
The preferential system of voting,
we have no hesitancy in stating. has
no more to recommend it than the
Bucklin amendment, which was de-
| feated in this state by an avalanche
of votes, amounting approximately
to $4,000. In the present instance
| Mr.. Bucklin started lower down to
work out his freak scheme of voting
| and tried 1t out on city which in
the wave of prohibition carried it to
| realization. through the creating of
charter form of government. That
| it could not be worked out success
fully in state election should be
sufficient condemnation of its use in
municipal government. If it is con-
sidered an effective method to reg
lister the will of the people in small
city, 1t should operate as well in a
statewide election or even in ma
/ tional election. But a short study
of the results in Grand Junction,
where 1t has been first tried out with
such opposite results in the selection
of first-choice candidate, should
everlastingly condemn it as a system
which commends itself to the high
common sense of the average voter
Mr.. Bucklin has seen fit to enter
into an extended defense of the char
ter system of government. AS we
do not regard a discussion of that
system In any way affecting the
question of the general adoption of
this freak method of voting, we shall
not enter into discussion of the char
ter plan. We have it here in Grand
junction and we shall hope, with our
hopes and desires ever centered in
the upbuilding of this city and great
western slope territory, to live under
it and assist in making this a we'll
governed municipality.
Our only purpose in answering Mr.
Bucklin's argument and secondarily
to answer the query of The News edi-
tor is that the people of the state at
large may not be deceived into be-
lieving that the preferential system
of voting has merit, which Mr.. Buck
Inns well-worded argument might
lead them to believe 1t has. and lead
them into the adoption of that meth
cd of selection as against the old
constitutional method of plurality.
|. N. BUNTING.