Audubon Republican. [volume] (Audubon, Iowa) 1894-1925, 1920-11-18
THE GREAT REFERENDUM.
People OF the Nation Speak In I'm
mistken Terms on Present
Administration.

| The magnitude OF the nations
verdict against wisconsin is so tre-
mendous as to be almost beyond or
binary comprehension; like the sta
tistics of the great war, or the meas
urements of interstellar spaces. 1t
| will be an aid to appreciation Of 1t,
however, to compare or to contrast
Il with former electoral results,
some of which were regarded as ov-
erwhelming.
In the twenty-four presidential
elections preceding this one in
which the popular vote could be
! counted, twelve presidents were
chosen by minority of that vote. and
] twelve by majorities. Three Of the
| former did not even have pluralities
namely. John Quincy Adams, Ruth
erford B. Hayes, and Benjamin Har-
| rison. Jackson had majorities OF
1922 in 1928, and 1898 in
1892 Van Buren, had only 1907.
Harrison. in the famous Log Cabin
| and Hard Cider campaign. secured
| a majority of 1894 Polk, the
! first dark horse" won by plural
| ity OF 3S,181 but was in a decided
minority OF the whole vote. Taylor,
with a plurality of 1885, was also
| minority president. Pierce had a
plurality OF PA 694. by far the larg-
est thus far, and also clear major
| itv: due to the decadence OF the
Whig party. Buchanan had plur-
ality OF 496.905 over Fremont, but
was in decided minority OF the
whole.
The first republican president,
Lincoln. had a plurality OF 489, 495,
but was a minoriy president. In his
second election. however. he had a
ma iority OF 494,567; by far the
most overwhelming victory thus far
on record. Grant had only 305.456
plurality in 1858. but majority OF
all. and in 1872 his plurality over
Greelev was 762991. There follow
ed five minority presidents. HAYES
did not have even a plurality. falling
1F0.935 short OF II. Garfield's plur-
aIitv was only q,464: Cleveland's
23.0O5. Harrison fell 9s.713 short
of getting even a plurality Cleve-
land for his second term had $685.
612 nluralitv-a landslide II was
considered--but was still in the mi
nority. Mckinley in 1896 had $751;
692 plurality, and in 1900, 86O.78S;
and both times clear majorities.
Roosevelt in 1904 eclipsed all re-
cords with plurality OF 2,544343,
and Of course On immense majority;
and Taft in 1903 did nearly half as
well with plurality OF 1,269.8O6
Wilson was both times minority
president, In 1912 being in a small
minority. though he had Dlurality,
due tn the republican split. OF g.,
123.1SS. In 1915 his plurity was
581.941.
BY the side Of these Mr. Hard
ings plurality. which appears to APP
proximate 1000 900 stands in q
class of its own. Allowing for the
virtual doubling of the electorate
by the enfranchise of women. it still
far exceeds even Colonel Roosevelts
figures in 1904. 1t amounts to near
" seven per cent of the entire cleo
torate. In many important States
his plurality equals ten per cent OF
the entire population. Moreover, II
was won in a straight, incomplete
ed fight. There were no States out
of the Union or under military rule
as in 1864. 1858 and 1872. There
was no such abortion OF an outside
candidate as in 1872. There was nc
such excitement over a strenuous
personality as in 1904. There was
no schism of the opposing party as
in 1912; no such campaign OF cam
outage as in 1916. There was Just
the direct ISSUE For or against
wisconsin. On that the nation de-
livered the greatest referendum ever
known in the history of the world.
The electoral vote, while com
pletely overwhelming. is for obvious
reasons less impressive, and is nc
more decisive than on some other
occasions. Mr.. Wilson in 1912 had
435 votes to SO for the other two
candidates. Roosevelt in 1904 had
1876 10 40. Grant in 1872 he'd 206
against So, and in 1868 he had 214
against IL. Lincoln in 1864 had the
greatest preponderance on record,
212 to 81, or fully ten to one. Pierce
had 254 20 AZ. Harrison beat Van
Buren, by 2S4 to so. Jackson in 1892
had 219 to ST. Some of the earlier
divisions were even more striking,
but the method OF election was then
so different from the present that
comparison would be irrelevant. Aft
err all IT was a referendum, a plebi-
cite, popular vote, that the presi-
dent wanted, and it was that which
he had cast against him with a nu-
merical emphasis never before
known in American political history.