Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1928-09-21
Reappcrtionment and Election.

From time to time since the compile
ton of the census Of 1920. while Con-
gress has failed to comply with the con-
stitutional requirement of reapportion-
ment based upon the new decenniaI
enumeration, question has been raised
as to the validity of acts of the National
LEGISLATURE on the score that it has not
been properly readjusted in numbers 70
represent the distribution of population
among the States On the eve Of the
election of 1924 this question was raised
pointedly. inaSmuch as the electoral
college then was precisely the same as
in 1920. in 1916 and 1912. with 531
votes. This current election in Novem-
Der will be on the same basis, thus max
ing five successive presidential selec-
ticns With the same number OF electors.
despite large increase in the country S
population and a considerable change in
the distribution.
William Starr Myers, professor of
politics at Princeton University, in an
article in the current North American
Review, brings up this question anew,
and asks whether the election of one of
the two candidates by very small mar
gin might not evoke 1.-The possibilities If
court, congressional. political or even
revolutionary action" on the score of
the unconsitutionality of the choice.
He gives an illustration. It is generally
agreed, he says. that in order to win
Gov. Smith must carry the following
Southern and border States: Alabama.
IL votes; Arkansas, 9; Florida, g.:
Georgia, ID; Kentucky. 10; Louisiana.
TO- Missouri. Is; Mississippi, 10; North
Carolina, ID: South Carolina, Q; Okla
honla, 10; Tennessee, II; Texas, 20; Vir-
GINA, Il. a total of 1877 electoral votes.
If the new apportionment had been
passed by Congress, he proceeds, Of
these States Kentucky, Louisiana and
Mississippi would each have lost one
electoral vote and Missouri two. while
North Carolina and Texas would each
have gained one, making a net loss o.
three electoral votes for Smith. The
Democratic candidate, he goes on, 10
win the election must, for an example.
gain the following: New York. As;
Massachusetts,, 10; New Hampshire, 4;
Rhode Island, s.; Conr- cticut. Z; New
Jersey IA: Nebraska. 6, total of l0l,
according to the present electoral table,
This would give Smith 263. or two more
than the necessary number for election.
OF these States named Connecticut and
New jersey have each gained one under
the new apportionment, and Rhode Is
land and Nebraska would each have
lost one. still leaving the total 101. But
subtracting the three votes lost by the
Southern and border States the Smith
total would be 265 instead of 2sS, or
one Jess than the necessary number.
Other combinations than those given
by Prof. Myers are conceivable to eff
feet a Smith majority. All of them
however, ere subject to the possibility
Of shortage on the basis Of new APP
po4 IAOlAIIlCIlt do COtIIpoLcu Will tItS LlOl0-
over apportionment that prevails.
This question did not arise in 1924,
when Mr. Coolidge received 1872 votes
against 1856 for Davis and Is for La Pol
lette. It may not arise in this present
contest. which may be decided by a
similarly overwhelming preponderanoe
one way or the other But it is. never
less, conceivable that the election may
be close. that the vote of single Stale
may decide it, and that that vote may
be in excess, under the standing ratio, Of
that to which it is entitled under a de-
cennial enumeration and constitutions
ally required reapporticnment. There Is
unquestionably risk in continuing an
electoral system based upon outdatcd
figures.