New Britain herald. [microfilm reel] (New Britain, Conn.) 1890-1976, 1928-08-04
GAN RUN Behind
and STILL WIN
This Is Freak Of j. s.. Electoral
College

Washington, Aug. 4. Under
the electoral college system pres
idential candidate can run hundreds
Of thousands OF votes behind his op-
ponent and still win. Sometimes IT
has been done, though not in these
recent years of Republican land
slides
A number of our presidents IN
the last 50 or SO years have been
elected by less than majority 1f
tne total vote cast.
Wilson was minority presl-
dent both times. In 1912, when
Roosevelt and Taft split the Re
publican vote. he had about 40
per cent of the popular vote and
81 per cent of the electoral vote,
In 1916, his popular vote exceeded
that OF Hughes, but not that of
Hughes plus the Socialist and Pro-
hibition vote.
Instances of the proportional
variance between popular and
electoral votes are not confined 10
third party years. In the civil
War election, Abraham Lincoln
was reelected over Mcclellan by
only S. per cent of the popular
vote, but with 80 per cent of the
electoral vote. That is. Llncoln's
popular and electoral vote we're
100000 and PIP. while McClel-
lan's we're 100000 and p. Grant.
beat Seymour by but 100000 votes
out of 100000 cast. but he beat
him PA to so in the electoral
college.
Taft. Roosevelt and Mckinley
we're all majority presidents.
Cleveland never was. Although
he ran n early 10000 ahead OF
President Benjamin Harrison in
1892, James B. Weaver. the Pop
ulist, had a million votes.
In 1888 Cleveland had polled
100000 more votes than Harrison
and yet lost the presidency by 2Ss
electoral votes for Harrison and
1853 for himself The reason was
that he had large majorlties IN
southern states while running
Harrison 4 close but losing race
in most states of the north.
The Cleveland Blaine result Of
1894 gave Cleveland $4,000
plurality over Blaine, while his
electoral victory was 2ls to 1872.
He won New York by 100 votes
only. but that made the all
important difference OF IS votes
in the electoral college, where an
electing majority is only 266. Mi
norty parties prevented him from
obtaining q majority Of the total
vote.
THIS year. If one Of the candid
dates should carry New York by
1000. 900 plurality, the extra &c.,
sss would do him no good except
for the fact that it's pretty hard to
steal a plurality like that away
from anyone.
In 1880 Garfield beat Hancock
by 10000 ordinary votes and ~
electoral votes Owing to Weav
ers 100000 he was also minor
ity president. ...
Tilden had at least 25o.0oo
more popular votes than Hayes in
1916 even by the Republican
count He lost because what ap-
peared to be his electoral votes
we're stolen and the final electoral
vote majority as awarded to
Hayes was just one lone vote.
All Of which shows that the
choice Of 4 majority Of the people
doesn't necessarily win an cleo
ton.
IN case that's an objection to
the system, IT may be explained
that the Fathers had something
Of the sort in mind when they
drew up the constitution. One
group was dead set against allow
ing the larger states to dominate.
II 10 true that no candidate ever
won an election without the vote
or either New York or Pennsyl-
vania except Wilson in 1916 and
that victories without both states
have been rare.
Nevertheless, half doz.n
densely populated states cannot
dominate elections simply by re-
turning huge majorities for
given candidate. They can cast
their electoral votes and no more
On the other hand, the more
sparsely populated states are able
to cast an electoral vote far ont
Of proportion TO their voting
strength because they are allowed
an elector for each senator as we'll
s for each congressman. Whereas
Nevada has one electoral vote for
each $4,000 inhabitants, New
York has one for each 2oo. 600
inhabitants Furthermore, the
electoral college is not correctly
distributed.
II is conceivable that II the
electoral college were TO be allo-
Gated among the states today in
accordance with the constitution
il might make change in the
election result But not much
more than conceivable
Electors are appo-t,oned. man
Tor man. in accordance Hith
the congres sional representations
II is notorious that seats in the
House are not today apportloned
on the basis of the 1920 census
and that % states would lose or
gain one or more representatives.
II follows OF course. that they
would lose or gain electoral votes
~ the same proportion Alabama.
Kansas Louisiana Maine Massa-
chusetts Nebraska New YORK.
North Dakota, Pennsylvania Ten
n-ssea. Vermont and Virginia
would each lose one. Iowa In
diana. Kentucky and Mississippi
would lose two each Missouri