New-York tribune., 1920-06-16
Popular Will at Conventions

Popular Will at Conventions
We have received from readers of
The Tribune many letters Of the
tenor of this one:
"In view of the action of our dele
Gates to Chicago, will you please in
form US of the advantages Of = pri-
mary? The delegates from New
York knew we'll enough who was the
most popular candidate in this state,
and i-stend Of trying to nominate
him they did their utmost to defeat
him, and succeeded.
"Why shouldn't tho conventions
choice be confined to the three high
est in instructed delegates? Non
instruction is a political trick. The
present Presidential primary doesn't
seem to be Of any use except to put
an acceptable candidate In = very
undignifed position"
The Tribune is just as strongly
convinced as the writer Of the above
letter is of the inefficacy Of the ex-
listing Presidential primary system
and of the largely non-representa-
tive character Of Republican national
conventions. 1t worked for many
years to eliminate Southern over
representation and misrepresenta-
ton. 1t rejoiced when the national
committee cut down the South's rep
resentation after the Presidential
election Of 1912. 1t has expressed
it's satisfaction at the authorization
just given to the committee to base
Congress district representation here
after entirely on party strength.
If the committee does its duty the
rotten boroughs" in South Carolina,
Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Missis-
sippi, Louisiana and Texas will cease
to grind out delegates with no cleo
torates behind them. In most Of
these states Republican primaries
are out of the question. So, there
fore, is responsible party representa-
ton.
Even the Republican, politicians
are willing to clean up the South, be-
cause Southern delegations are un-
stable and troublesome. But having
purged the convention of Southern
Misrepresentation, it will be neces-
sary to go further and purge it Of
Northern Misrepresentation. Some
Northern states provide means for a
registration Of Presidential pref
erence. In many states, including
New York, state and district dele
gates are elected in primaries. But
the popular choice in the preference
states is only morally binding on the
delegates. And in the non-preference
states the expense Of running candi-
dates in opposition to those named
and controlled by the state organiza-
ton is so heavy that fair appeal
70 to the public is practically denied to
a candidate without big campaign
fund.
Take this state, Tor instance. The
primary at which delegates to the
1920 convention were elected was
almost as much Of farce az that al
which delegates to the convention OF
1912 were chosen. There was nc
Presidential preference vote. Had
there been the anti-Wood conspiracy
could not have been successful. The
leaders pleaded for no instructions
which meant for them freedom Il
do as they pleased. A majority o,
the New York delegates voted /,
succession for Butler, L.owden ane
Harding. But no one prstAnds tina,
these candidates would not hav,
trailed at thu end Of the procession
If popular preference vote bad bee,
taken. Wood and johnson woult
have been far In tho lead. Will
Hoover probably third and Coolidr,
fourth.
The New York delegation ut Chi
cago misrepresented the Republica,
voters here. And what In true o
New York Is also true Of pennsyl
vania and North Carolina, among tn
preference primary states. and Iowa
Missouri, Kansas and other non
preference primary states.
What In needed here Is a true ap
plication of the theory Of popula
choice, state and district primarte
open without cost TO Presidentia
nominees, and rule that tho dc
cizion of the state or any distric
shall be binding to a REASONABLE,
extent on it's delegates. Then tn,
candidate whom a majority or g
plurality or g. large minority wan,
couldn't be shuffied aside for tail
erldcr favorite son or the favorit
son Of sonle other state. It would b.
> Eood idea 10 limit the choice Of thu
convention IN candidate. ,vh~ L.