Evening star., 1932-05-02
The TWn-Thirds Rule

Just one hundred years ago the Dem
ocrats, in their first national political
convention, saddled themselves with the
"two-thirds rule" the rule which has
made necessary two-thirds vote of q
national convention to nominate candi-
dates for President and Vice President.
Supporters Of Gov. Franklin D. Roose-
welt of New York for the Democratic
presidential nomination this year are
urging the abrogation of the rule. They
hold that their candidate viii have no
trouble in obtaining a majority vote in
the national convention and that he
should not be compelled to have more.
Further, they insist that Roosevelt sup
porters will be in the majority among
the delegates to the convention and in
a position to change the rule for nomi-
nations.
The suggestion that the two-thirds
rule be abandoned is not new. 1t has
cropped up frequently in the course of
the century since its adoption. At the
convention held in Baltimore in 1882
the rule was adopted in the interest
Of the candidacy of Martin Van Buren,
of New York for the vice presidential
nomination on the ticket with Andrew
Jackson. The opponents of the rule
insist that it Is not only un-Democratic,
but that it results in giving a minority
of the convention a veto power to which
it is not entitled. and that it some
times leads to prolonged and bitter con-
tests, jeopardizing the success Of the
party in the general election.
The friends of the two-thirds rule
insist, on the other hand, that the
Democratic party should not nominate
candidate to whom two-thirds of the
convention is not willing to pledge IT.
self. They hold that in the end the
rule should make for harmonious ac-
ton In the presidential election cam
paign. Democrats from the South have
in the past been particularly solicitous
on behalf Of the two-thirds rule. The
rule has practically placed in the hands
OF the solid South" q veto power
which it may exercise If q majority of
the convention undertakes to force on
the Southern democracy q presidential
candidate to whom it is opposed.
AS a general thing, the candidate
who obtains a majority Of the delegates
in a Democratic National Convention is
nominated by a two-thirds vote His
toric exceptions to this rule, however,
are found in the cases Of Van Buren
and Champ Clark. The first was de-
feated for the presidential nomination
by Polk in 1914 and the second by
Woodrow Wilson in 1912 after each had
received a majority vote in the con-
vention. The most protracted conven-
tion ever held by the Democrats was in
1924, when william Gibbs McAdoo was
a majority vote, but never quite reached
1t. One Of the reasons advanced now
for revoking the two-thirds rule and
setting up majority rule Is desire to
avoid a convention in Chicago next
June comparable to the Madison Square
Garden affair in 1924, when the Demo-
Gratis literally tore themselves to pieces
! in the long -drawn-ou struggle.
| Before the convention Of 1924 friends
Of McAdoo talked of forcing abandon
ment Of the two-thirds rule, believing
that their candidate could obtain a
majority Of the delegates. But the
movement came TO naught and was
never launched in the convention It
/ self Friends Of Alfred E. Smith In
/ 1928 suggested the advisability OF
voting out the two-thirds rule. But
when the time for the convention
arrived it was clear that Smith would
easily be nominated under the old rule
and there was no need Of going ahead
with the proposal for majority rule.
Probably nothing will come Of the
present demand for abrogation of the
/ two-thirds rule, largely because the
South has been q supporter Of the old
rule, and because 1t is to the South
that Roosevelt looks for many Of
his votes in the convention. If the
proposal should be advanced In the
| convention itself 1t would be inter-
preted as an acknowledgement by the
Roosevelt sdherents Of the fact that
he could not secure a two-thirds vote,
| In a crisis n becomes necessary tc