Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1915-01-01

the Debates of Maine Constitutional
Convention;
"Mr Baldwin moved to amend this Sec
ton by striking out the words which vest
the power of electing councillors in the
legislature, and inserting i provision 1or
their election by the qualified electors,
&C. He thought the Council ought to be
chosen by the people. If, said Mt. Bald
win, they are chosen by the legislature,
they will of course all be or the same
political complexion as the majority may
happen to be-"
While too much importance is not
to be attributed to Mr.. Baldwin's use
Of the word majority" in this Incl
dental way. it is some evidence, at
least, that he construed the provision
which was finally adopted as one call
ing for a majority vote.
THE RULE IN POPULAR ELEC-
TIONS.
The question of whether the major
| ity or the plurality principle should
control in popular elections is govern
ed by special considerations Of delay,
expense, difficulty Of popular choice in
case Of numerous candidates. etc. Such
cases afford no binding precedents as
| to what the rule is, or should be, in
! legislative elections. And yet, even in
| this class Of cases, we think 1t may
| be fairly asserted that by the
| weight of authority the majority rule
prevails, in the absence Of any consti-
! tutional Or statutory provision to the
contrary At first sight the following
passage in Judge Cooley's "Constitu-
tional Limitations" page 77O seems
| opposed to this view:
| UNLESS the law under which the cleo
| ton is held expressly. requires more,
| plurality of the votes cast Will be sum-
| Gent to elect. notwithstanding these may
constitute but small portion OF those
! who are entitled to vote.
| The following comment on the fore
going passage is made in VOL 10 En-
cyclopaedia of Law. ed ed, 1852:
| "Mr. Cooley, in his work on Constitu-
| tional Limitations 9th ed page l!9. says:
! Quoting above passage). And other text
| writer's have used similar language. See
| reading of this language. however. and
| an examination OF the cases cited by the
| various authors i'll support thereof. lead
! to the irresstihle conclusion that the
| point intended. to be brought forward
| was not that a. plurality as opposed to a
| majority is, in the absence of statutory
direction, necessary to constitute a
| by plurality of the voters actually TAX
| ing part in the election, without the ne
| cessity of taking into consideration the
| actual number of voters entitled to take
part, who may not have exercised their
| right The word plurality would seem
| to have been used in a loose sense as
| synonymous with majority (see Century
| Dictionary, and not in the restricted
sense in which it is properly USED IN REF
| erence 10 elections as meaning the nigh
! est number of votes cast for any one can
| didate."
An examination of the four cases
cited by Judge Cooley as authority for
his statement convinces us Of the JUS
tice of the foregoing comment. In each
| Of them the person or proposition I'M
der consideration had actually received
a majority of all the votes cast. and in
none Of them was the question of 'plu-
rality" in it's proper sense, either in
volved or argued. Three of them turn
ed upon the we'll settled proposition
that in the absence of fraud. violence
or illegally, majority Of those vot
! ing is sufficient to elect, even though
the number voting is but a small min
GRITTY of the total number entitled to
vote. In the remaining case, stat
ute expressly required "a majority Of
all the votes cast" before a certain
measure should become a law, and the
question decided was that this meant
a majority of all the votes cast on that
particular subject, and not majority
of all votes cast upon all subjects and
for all purposes.
In the light of these cases cited by
Judge Cooley in support Of the state
ment in his text, the meaning Of that
statement is clear, and is in no way
opposed to the majority" doctrine In
! case of popular elections. Yet text
writer's quite generally have adopted
| Judge Cooley's statement and tho
cases in support thereof, and work
ed them for more than they were
WORTH" and for more than the dis
| t;nguished jurist intended. See, for
example, McCrary on Elections, Sec
ton 206; IS Cyc. 1888; Paine on Elec-
tons, Section 571; Mechem ON Public
| OfficeA, Section 204. The case of
State VS. Anderson, 45 Ohio State 1856,
seems also to have been decided large
ly under the influence Of the same
statements.
| On the other hand, the case Of State
VS. Wilmington City Council, Harr.
(Md) 294, squarely decided that where
the principle of election was not spe-
cited in a city charter, it required q
majority Of those voting to elect. IN
the State of Maryland itself (appar-
emily by statute) the plurality princi-
pie prevailed. In the course Of the
opinion the court said:
I'm the absence Of any provision in the
| charter, and of any bylaw regulating
the election, the matter is subject to the
| rules OF the common law. The common
| law rule is perfectlv wall sett1ed that