The daily sentinel., 1913-05-01
HOW WAS TODD
ELECTED?'
AIR. Walter Walker.
Editor Daily Sentinel.


Editor Daily Sentinel.
Dear Sir-ln a photographic edito-
rial in your issue of the 29th instant
you ask and attempt to answer the
above question.
In that election 1,S47 voters par
ticipated. bare majority of which
was 1924 and yet Todd received ,05I
That is to say: .05l out of ,S47
voters expressed their preference for
Todd.
While 1t is true that each voter
had the privilege of voting for five
different candidates (six having rum
it is misleading 10 say that he had
five votes, since he could vote but
once for any one candidate; more
over. it is not to be supposed that any
voter voted for more than three, be-
cause no more than that number
stood for the principles which were
paramount in the voters mind, and
Todd was the only candidate who.
counting all the choices. received
majority of all of the ballots cast.
The preferential system, proper,
gives TO every voter the right to work
and vote for his first choice, and the
additional privilege of voting subse-
quent choices according to the num-
Der of candidates; and he knows
that the first choice votes are to be
taken account of before the others
are touched. He therefore has, in
the first choice votes, every opportu-
nifty of electing his candidates by a
majority vote, that the old system af-
I forded
1t is not fair to say that his lower
choice votes count against his first
choice. because they are not counted
lr.|, ts..,,. oil
that there is no election by first
choice votes.
1t is obvious that both yon and Mr..
Fry are arguing for return to the
old system, and. in the last analysis,
for an election by plurality (min-
ority) as distinguished from a ma
jority; since as shown above. in the
count of the first choice votes, the
preferential does not differ from the
old system.
But an indignant public will have
no more of your plurality or minor
ity elections; hence the preferential
which does not, in the slightest de-
gree. abridge the voters opportunity
to elect his first choice candidate,
provided he can do 1T by majority OF
the first choice votes, but because of
the uncertainty of doing il. he votes
MS SUBSEQUENT tnOlft5 III Ututl W re-
main in the election to the end. If
he cant get what he wants, he still
wants the next best thing; and he al
so knows that though his first choice
may not win by first choice votes, he
still remains in the running until
some one has won by clear major
ity
Now. while it is somewhat beside
the question. il may be worth while
to consider the relative value, to the
public of a voters first and second
choice. The first choice vote is apt
to be selfish---a ctuated by personal
desire, In which the public good, in
its larger sense. is not taken into ac-
count. The selection is apt to be
made without any scrutiny as to the
relative merits of the candidates;
but just here the voter reflects and
soliloquises: 'If | can't land A.,
whose obligations to me will insure
his assistance in putting through
that franchise or landing that job for
me, then | want b. because he stands
for the public good and tho other
fellow can't work him" IF you
won't help me, God, then | want you
to be on the square and not help the
bear"
While it may not be as important
to the individual voter, the second
choice vote is worth more to the peo-
ME A VOTER