The Democratic banner. (Mt. Vernon, Ohio) 1898-192?, 1916-12-19
COX WOULD BE
FAVORED BY A
VOTE RECOUNT
Drift In State At Election
Was Distinctly Away
From Willis
cox GAINED IN 67
COUNTIES; WILLIS 81
Four Fifths Of Willis Gain
Was In Wet Counties;
An Analysis

| Columbus, Dec. l8-"Disappointed
Republican candidates are likely to
meet with rude shock il they per.
stst in their plan of putting the state
to the expense of a recount of the bal
lots cast at the recent election" com
ments a careful student of political
phenomena, who has been watching
the Republican agitation for pro.
longed preservation of the ballots of
the recent election and the talk of q
| possible recount.
Instead of changing the result In
favor of Governor Willis, a careful
study of the returns by counties indi-
Gates that If errors were made, Gov
ernor-elect Cox, and not Governor
! Willis, was the probable sufferer
| thereby"
The person quoted points out that
an analysis OF the returns and a
comparison with the vote cast for
! governor two years ago shows net
gains for Cox In 81 counties. Willis
made gains in only 81 counties, the
Cox total net gain being 51,750. The
drift toward Cox and away from VIII
lis was general throughout the state
and not merely in isolated counties.
Furthermore, the counties which are
most suspected by the Republicans of
election Irregularities and possible
fraud are those which gave Governor
Willis his largest gains.
GAINS IN CUYAHOGA
Although Willis lost Cuyahoga
county by about $4,000 votes, he made
a net gain there of nearly 5000 over
his 1914 vote, when Cox's plurality
was about 10000. The Willis gain,
likewise, in Lucas county was 75G,
and In Hamilton county 5,987. With
virtually all the remainder of the
state showing consistent gains for
Cox, the Republicans are now secur.
ing aflidavits charging irreguIarity In
tho count in the counties which gave
Willis net gain of 11,743, more than
70 per cent of his gains in the whole
state.
If there was any miscounting, Il
must have been in beneficial way TO
Governor Willis; not to Cox That Is
the single inference that can be
drawn from the figures quoted 9th.
er interesting facts may be deduced
by careful analysis. The fact that
the big wet counties gave Willis
four-fifths of his net gain, while more
than four-fifths of Cox's gain occurred
in dry counties effeotually refutes the
claim of the Republicans that Cover.
nor Willis was defeated by the wet
vote in the big cities. Insofar as the
temperance question figured In the
VOTE Governor Willis bid for the wet
vote and alleged activities of his Ii
cense commissioners proved partial
ly effective, particularly In Cincinnati
and Cleveland. while Cox's stand for
rigid enforcement of the license
laws Ia shown to have won him many
votes in dry territory.
NO MORE "TRUE GLUE"
One of the most important indica-
tions OF the election returns IL that
the detection of Democrats In normal
ly Democratic counties, which caused
the defeat of Cox and elected Willis
two years ago, was virtually oblit-
Grated this year. 1t also effectually
proves the knockout of the "True
Democracy" and Mr.. Garber's little
red book" as factors In Ohio politics.
Normally Democratic counties lined
up for Cox with only one or two eX.
Ceptions. The Cox gain in some couu-
ties was equal to fully 25 per cent of
tho total vote Six typical counties
Coshocton, Darle, Fairfield, Licking,
Shelby and Tuscarawas gave Cox a
net gain of 10000 votes while proper
tionate gains occurred In smaller
counties like Auglaize, Monroe and
Wayne.
The logical deduction OF the analy-
sis Ia that Governor Cox's reelection
IL due to entirely normal causes, OF
which the return to party allegiance
Of disaffected Democrats is one, and
loss of confidence in Governor Willis
by farmers. business men and work
ingmen another.