Catoctin clarion. [volume] (Mechanicstown, Md.) 1871-1940, 1916-11-16
The Popular Vote And The
Electoral College.

A close popular vote in Presidential
election is by no means unusual and il
not inconsistent with decided majority
in the Electoral College. Thus, going
back as far as 1928, we find the popular
vote for Jackson was 647,23l and for
Adams was 5O9,O97. And yet jackson
had 178 electoral votes and Adams only
SO. In 1882 Jackson had popular vote
of 6S7, 5O2 and Clay a vote of $50, 1879,
while in the Electoral College 2l9 votes
were cast for Jackson and only 40 flor
Clay. 1t is true eleven electoral votes
went to Floyd and seven to Writ, but the
entire opposition totaled only 81 votes.
The same comparative closeness in the
popular vote and the same discrepancy
in the electoral vote characterized the
Presidential elections of 1885. 1910, 1874,
1848 and 1852. The results in those cases
were influenced to some extent by the
fact that there were more than two Pres
idential candidates in the field. In 1855
Buchanan received a popular vote of
1888, 1863; Fremont, 1,341, 1854, and Fill
more, S74,53S. The vote of Fremont ard
Fillmore was 2, 2l5, 1902, or S77, 633 greater
than that af the Democratic candidate.
yet Buchanan received l74 electoral votes
while Fremont and Fillmore together got
only l22. Lincoln was also a minority
President in 1860, receiving 1855, 1852
popular votes to l,375.l5 for Douglas,
s45. 769 for Breckenridge and $685. for
Bell. Lincoln received 100 electoral
votes, Douglas only IL, Breckenridge u
and Bell 80, the total of the last three
reaching only 1913.
Omit ing 1876, which everybody recalls,
we find that in 1880 while Garfield had
popular plurality over Hancock of only
7,Ol8, he had an electoral vote of PA to
Hancock's l55. Cleveland, IN 1884, had
a popular plurality of but 62,6S3 over
Blaine, yet he got 2l9 electoral votes to
1872 for Blaine. In 1883 Cleveland had
49, popular plurality, but Harrison re-
,:eived 233 electoral votes to his 1853. In
1892 his plurality over Harrison was $780,
$40, and his electoral vote was 277 to las
for his opponent. In 1896, 1900, 1904 and
1908 the popular pluralities of the win
ners were far larger, and in 1912, owing
to the split in the Republican party, the
candidate receiving the minority of the
popular vote secured 435 of the electoral
votes, MIR. Taft getting and Mr.. Roose-
welt 8S. Yet the vote of 3,4s, 956 for
Taft and of 4,1l9,5O7 for Roosevelt
total of 1904, 463-eXceeded the Wilson
vote by 1,3ll, 444.
1t appears, on general review of our
political history, that a close popular
vote in Presidential elections may almost
be called the rule rather than the excep-
ton. 1t is clear, too, that the electoral
vote does not always express popular
sympathy and popular sentiment. Wheth-
er for this reason we should abolish the
Electoral College and decide Presidential
elections by direct popular vote is too i'm
portant a question to be determined
without very careful consideration. 1t is,
however, one of the questions which will
undoubtedly occupy public thought be-
fore long, and in view of the possible
complications and uncertainties of the
present system the suggested change
will not be lightly dismissed. Sun.