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

composed Of 81 Democrats, 81 Re-
publicans and Progressives. If the
Progressives refuse to play into the
hands Of the Democrats, and stand
solidly with the Republicans. the
question Of whether a majority. or
plurality, vote is required for the cleo
| ton Of the officials in question. Is
practically immaterial, for the result
| would be the same under either rule.
But should one or more Progressives
vote for a candidate Of their own. it
| would throw the election to the Demo-
! Gratis under the plurality" rule, while
| under the "majority'' rule it would re-
| suit in no election" and further ball
loting would be in order. The plural
| ity rule is that Of the highest num-
| Der Of votes" The majority rule calls
! for "a majority Of all the votes cast"
Is a majority vote required in the
joint convention? The Journal thinks
| 1t IL.
Much confusion will be avoided In
the discussion Of this question by
| bearing constantly in mind the fact
that it has to do with the action Of
a small and representative body Of
| men, and not, as in the case of popu-
| lar elections, with the action of the
| voters of the State at large.
THE EXACT QUESTION.
The constitutional offices to be filed
| are those Of Secretary Of State. State
Treasurer. Attorney General. and seven
Executive Councillors. The Office Of
Commissioner Of Agriculture is sta
tutory. and will be discussed in another
connection. The first question to be
considered is this:
Under the Maine Constitution, which
provides that the constitutional Of.
fieers named shall be chosen "by joint
ballot Of the senators and representa-
tives in convention," there being no
provision as to the number Of votes
necessary for choice, is tho result to
be determined by the majority" or
by the "pluraIity' rule?
| There mas been neither legislative nor
judicial ruling in the State Of Maine
upon this question. But distinguished
precedents from other sources are no.:
lacking. First and foremost is the
decision Of the United States Senate in
1865, in the contested election case Of
John P. Stockton, (Senate Election
Cases, page 264). There was no law in
New Jersey prescribing the manner Of
electing Senators, other than that they
shall be appointed by the senate AMI
general assembly in joint meeting as
sembIed" The joint meeting electing
Mr.. Stockton passed a resolution that
the candidate receiving a plurality Of
votes Of the members present should
be declared duly elected. The joint
assembly consisted Of 81 members. All
We're present when the vote for Sena-
tor took place. Mr.. Stockton re-
ceived 40 votes and Mr. Ten Eyck and
other persons Al. On these facts the
United States Senate resolved by a
vote Of % to 20 (N1r. Stockton not be-
ing permitted to vote) that Mr.. Stock
ton was not entitled to his seat The
case was vigorously and thoroughly
debated, the report Of the discussion
pages of the Congressional Globe.
Congressional Globe, first session 39th
Congress, Part 2. pages 1564-157s.
15s9-16O2, 1886 -164s, 16s6-1679) che
overwhelming weight Of Senatorial
opinion in this discussion was that 10
the absence Of any law majority was
by both the common law and the par
| liamentary law Of the land necessary
to constitute a valid election, and this
vote of the Senate was a direct de-
cision to that effect.
The United States Senators from
! maine at tnaL time were WullAm xlLt
Fessenden. and Lot NJ. Morrill,. Both
voted against the seating Of Mr..
Stockton, and Mr.. Fessenden took a
prominent part in the discussion,
iterating and reiterating the principle
that
"UnIess otherwise provided by the
constitution Of the body itself or by
the power that constituted It, elections
must be by majority-a majority Of
a quorum, If quorum 10 fixed by law.
That is the universally received, ae-
knowIsdsed, admitted rule Of the com.
mon law and parliamentary law, that
the election must be by a majority
unless otherwise determined by COM
potent authority"
The declarations and votes Of these
two distinguished Maine statesmen in
the Stockton case clearly show that
they would have interpreted their own
Maine constitutional requirement u q
"ioint ballot" "a demanding a Ynatorftv