The Waterbury Democrat., 1931-09-22

Washington.-It is about time 1 that someone wrote the first story
 of the season concerning the fa- nous democratic two-thirds rule.
 and probably this is it.
 The two-thirds rule is some
 thing the democrats discuss
 earnestly before every conven- l tion. First there is invariably
 much serious discussion about
 abolishing the rule. effective
 forthwith. That discussion re-
 solves itself into more or less ! general agreement that the thing 1 should be abolished at the end Of
 the convention rather than at the
 beginning, so that it's elimination
 will not appear to have been , brought about for the benefit of any particular candidate. But oy the time the platform is adopted and the nominees chosen, every
 one has forgotten all about 1t. Inquiry among democrats indi- cates that there has been abso- lutely no discussion of the two- thirds rule this year up to this
 moment. Democrats interviewed
 have been inclined to ask: wei. ! iiwhy bring that up?'
 | Nevertheless, next year will be ! the one-hundredth anniversary or the two-thirds rule, even II no one is erecting any monuments 10 it. The democrats held their first national convention in 1882 and 1t was then they adopted the rule. ! The republicans have always | been content to nominate their candidates by a vote of the ma
 jority.
 The prime reasons why the rule
 has been retained appear to nav.
 been the natural unwilllngness or the average candidate ana ms friends to have him become the
 first nominee in party history Wno | wasn't nominated by a two-tnlras vote and the fact that ordinarily any candidate who can obtain a
 majority has little trouble In land- ing another IT per cent Of the deie-
 gates. The chief general argumen' for the rule is that two-thirds
 vote nomination demonstrates SOL | idarity or concurrence Of opinion and the chief general arguments against 1t are that the majority 1 rule principle is good one wnicn
 should be followed and that the
 two thirds rule is likely to create unnecessary bitterness damaging 10
 the party.
 Before the terrible Madison
 Square Garden convention or
 1924 elements in both the Mc-
 Adoo and Smith factions favored
 permanent suspension of the rule
 in the belief that their favorite
 could obtain majority. Bu.
 apparently neither side was quite
 sure that the suspension wouldn't l nominate the other man instead
 of its own. After the ninety l ninth ballot it was proposed that the low man be dropped out a1ter
 each roll call and that if neither
 of the two top candidates had
 two-thirds after the 104th ballot the nomination be handed to who.
 ever could get a majority. That proposal was defeated by viva voce vote, as were Various othe'
 motions for abrogation.
 Four years ago this fall 1t be-
 gan to appear that Al Smith would
 have majority of delegates ana his friends began to promote an | abrogation. Then various soutnerh democrats also urged 1t on the tne- ory that if Smith were going 10 pc
 nominated it would be nice II
 southern delegates didn't nave to
 vote for him. Some of the most
 prominent democrats in the coun- I try demanded that the rule be ds-
 carded. But the Smith forces pe- | came more confident and the
 movement collapsed as they hneo