Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1912-10-19
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS.
PROBLEMS YET UNSOLVED.
By Frederic Haskin.
By Frederic J. Haskin.

The present squabble between the
republicans and the progressives over
electors emphasizes the fact that there
are many conditions which may arise
that the fathers never foresaw when
they made the Constitution, conditions
which carry with them no light to
guide in their solution. When we read
that the North Dakota electors chosen
at a republican primary declare that
If they are elected they will vote for
the progressive candidate. and when We
consider that this will force the cleo
tors supporting the regular republican
ticket to secure their nominations by
petitions and run as independents, 1T
will appear how badly things may be
mixed up.
The progressive electors justify their
position by saying that they were chosen
by the progressive republicans of North
Dakota, and with the intention that they
should vote for Theodore Roosevelt for
President on the republican ticket. They
assert that they feel that he was de-
frauded Of the nomination, and that his
candidacy on another ticket therefore
does not wipe out their obligation to
vote for him. They admit that if they
failed to give the voters of the state
bill of particulars beforehand of their
intentions if elected they would then be
bound to vote for Taft, but declare that
having stated their position they are per-
fectly justified in continuing on the ticket
of the party that nominated them, and
will be justified in voting for Roosevelt
If they are elected.
The republicans answer that this is not
at all fair, that 1t is stealing the livery
of heaven to serve the devil" They as
sert that If the North Dakota electors
are progressive they have no more right
to go before the voters on a republican
ticket than the republicans would have
of running on a progressive ticket. They
contend that it is the very height of
querade as republicans and force the re-
publicans to run as independents.
* x
The situation in Missouri is a little
different, the electors nominated by the
republicans pledg-
Situation Differs ing themselves to
in Other States. their uusn iO votes SAT will II
EJECT him, but not otherwise. The Kan
sas situation is like the one in North
Dakota But what is to be done about
it all? The Constitution leaves the mat
ter to the state legislatures. and as long
as they are satisfied, where does any
other remedy lie? Furthermore, there is
not word in the Constitution about
party Affiliations or party pledges, SO
what can be done about it? The only
time it becomes any business of the fed
era government is when a state fails to
settle by legislative enactment the means
of adjusting any disputes by election
day, or when such disputes are not set
ted within six days of the meeting of
the electoral colleges. And even this is
legislative enactment rather than a
constitutional provision.
The present campaign has demonstrated
the need of a change either abolishing
electors entirely or definitely fixing their
duties and responsibilities under our
present system of presidential choice Yet
the experience of the past holds out no
hope that either result can be brought
about through the amendment of the
Constitution.
A problem that has arisen on at least
two occasions, and which may arise in
moro serious form than heretofore. 10
that Of determining when the House gets