Perth Amboy evening news., 1923-12-31
HASKIN,S
LETTER
DMOCRACY'S TWO-THRDS RULE
By FREDERICK j. HASKIN

In Republican conVen-
tions a bare majority suflices to
nominate.
There has always been some oppo-
sition to Democracy's two-thirds
rule, which was established at the
mandate of Andrew Jackson, but
this opposition has never attained
formidable proportions. On the w
OF the 1924 party conclave, however,
there is more talk of an attempt to
do away with the rule than has been
heard for many years. and it is quite
I possible that 1t will develop the first
| sharp contest in the convention, the
date and place of which are to be
determined when the Democratic
National Committee meets in Wash
ington on January Is.
Back of this opposition is the fear
in the minds of some of the party
leaders that a determined, cohesive
and well-managed minority may be
able to thwart the will of a substan-
tta1 majority of the convention and
eventually force the majority to ac-
cept its candidate. This has hap
pcned, and only so long ago as 1912
when Woodrow Wilson achieved his
first nomination to the Presidency.
In the Baltimore convention of
that year, Champ Clark, of Missouri,
polled a majority of the delegate vote
OH a number of ballots, but he could
not muster the required two-thirds.
The minority, ably generated by Will
liam Jennings Bryan, made it clear
that Clark would never be acceptable
to 1t, and in the face of the threat
or a party schism, the majority
weakened and the nomination went
to Wilson.
Practical politicians among the
Democrats who had to do with the
1917 campaign for the election re-
member that Wilson was neither a
strong nor a popular candidate. They
said so when they were not talking
Tor publication and they say so now
When they are discussing what may
happen to their party in 1924. Will
son dld not arouse any appreciable
amount of enthusiasm among the
rank and file, and he did not poll the
normal democratic vote. He was
elected simply because the Republic
cans were hopelessly divided as a
result of the Roosevelt-Taft con-
troversy and there was a third marty
in the field. Wilson did moi have
q real, popular Following of national
proportions until the 1916 campaign.
when there was a genuine response
to the appeal in his behalf that he
had kept this country out of the
European war.
W~iIsoDitcs May Disagree
Devoted adherents of Woodrow
Wilson may disagree with this, cit
ing the fact thai In 1912 he received
the electoral votes of 40 of the As
states. However, the fact remains
that in the matter 6f the popular
vote he was a minority candidate
by some $500, 600, the aggregate of
the votes received by Taft and
that much in excess Of the total cast
for him.
Now, the Democratic leaders who
are of a practical" turn of mind
that is, who are more concerned
about carrying the election next
year than about anything else-are
considering 1924 prospects in the
light of what happened in 1912.
Hence their agitation over the two
thirds rule.
They believe that their party has
an excellent chance of winning next
year, but they want to see the best
possible vote-getter as their candi-
date, They are not counting on a
f%actional split among the Republic
cans at this time. They are hopeful,
of course, that there will be some
dissatisfaction and dissenion among
their opponents, but they do not
want to have to depend upon that
for their assurance of victory at the
polls. And recalling the events of
1912 they a that the twos,sIrds
rule, II adhered to might bring about
| tha nomination nf n I1nnannpuf nFhn
would be comparatively as weak a
vete-getter as Woodrow Wilson
proved to be in his first race.
1t Is argued that the candidate for
the Democratic nomination who
makes such a showing in the Presi-
dental primaries and in the other
contests for delegates that he is
able to command IA majority of the
votes in the n1tional convention is
logically the man to head the ticket.
This does not mean hat the man
who receives the most votes on the
first ballot should be nominated, but
1t is %contended that when a candi-
date receives a majority vote he
has dem onstrated u party strength
that should not be denied.
There is the further consideration
that in event a minority should de-
feat a majority candidate in next
years convention a serious and dis
astrous split in the Democratic ranks
might result. Followers of the ma
Ijority candidate might refuse to ac-
cept the leadership of the nominee
forced on the party by the minority.
This did not happen in 1912. Champ
Clark and his friends gave Woodrow
Wilson their loyal support. However,
that might not be the aftermath OF
1924. A heated contest for the Prest-
dental nomination is In prospect,
and it is recognized that in such
struggles disastrous b~itternesses are
more easily engendered than avoided.
How the Rule Originated
1t has been said that the two
thirds rule was adopted in the first
Democratic national convention as a
measure to prevent the domination
of John G.. Calhoun for vice presi-
dent. but this is denied. 1t is pointed
out that the 1882 convention was
completely dominated by Andrew
Jackson and that there was no doubt
that it would be because the call
specifcally limited representation to
those friendly to the election OF
General Jackson" and stated the OBJ
iect to be 'to nominate a candidate
for vice president, and take such
other measures in support of the re-
election of Andrew jackson as may
be deemed expedient." h two
thirds rule was adopted without con-
troversy. Calhoun was not a can
didate before the convention. Jack
son was named for the Presidency
without the Formally of a ballot
and Van Buren, was nominated for
r.aopd oIace nm the tick eft by n vote