Omaha daily bee., 1920-01-06
The TWo- Thirds Rule
From the New York Times.

An attempt, it is said, will be made at the
democratic national convention to do away
with the rule requiring a two-thirdS vote to
nominate the candidates for president and vice
president. In republican convention it takes
only majority to nominate. The argument for
the two-thirds rule is that it more surely ascer-
tains the real choice of the delegates than does
nomination by majority, but i'll practice one
rule works out much like the other in that re-
spect. Under either rule the man the delegates
want nearly always gets the nomination.
The chief objection to the two-thirds rule is
that it leads to deadlocks which result ins the
nomination OF some dark horse whom nobody
really wants. But here, again, the fact is that
dark horse nominations are pretty nearly as
common in republican conventions, under the
majority rule, as in democratic conventions un-
der the two-thirds rule. The same thing may
be said of the opportunity afforded under the
different rules for back-stairs combinations and
deals. This, at is reported, is one of the chief
arguments to be advanced by those democrats
who seek change. There was never a conven-
ton where there was more Of this log rolling
than that of the republicans in 1885, which was
governed by the majority rule. To find a real
parallel one would have to go back to the dem
ocratic convention of 1868.
In democratic conventions the unit rule, by
which each state delegation casts its votes in a
block, usually accompanies the two-thirds rule
For instance, in the convention of 1912, the
singular spectacle was presented of a part of
the New York delegation working tooth and
nail for Wilson and yet seeing their votes cast
for Clark, the majority of the delegation hav-
ing decided in the speakers favor. In the same
convention, however. Nebraska was not gov
erned by the unit rule and split her vote &C
cording to Mr.. Bryans wishes until he finally
decided to come out for Wilson, when she cast
her vote as unit That was case in which
Clark appeared to be the choice of ma ority
for many ballots, but it was only in appearance;
the unit rule made over to him many votes
which properly belonged to Mr.. Wilson. After
long deadlock, caused more by the unit rule
than by the two-thirds rule, Mr.. Wilson forged
ahead in spite of both, and the deadlock was
broken.
We read that some OF the democrats who
are advocating change are Apprehension that
the two-thirds rule will give Mr.. Bryan a chance
to stampede the convention for himself or
other. Mr.. Bryan has never been successful as
a wirepuller. His efforts in that line were most.
conspicuous at the convention of 1904, and the
combinations he then attempted to make we're
a favorite with the delegates, but although it
was his lastminute stand for Mr. Wilson that
brought about the nomination, it was not done
by any special skill he showed in making dick
ers. A good deal more ability in back-stairs
work has been shown by republicans in conven-
tons where only a majority was required to
nominate.
The true argument against the wo-thirds
rule is that it does not III truth accomplish the
purpose which it pretends to attain. 1t does
not ascertain the will and intention of the dele
gates any more surely than the majority rule
does. 1t sometimes leads to prolonged ballot
ing to reach result that could be attained much
more simply by the majority rule. The repub
lican conventions work mucll-1nore sqloothly, as
a general thing than the democratic. As for
machine influence, it has as much or as little
power IN one convention as IN the other