Evening star., 1944-12-01
Returns Show Election
Closer Than Indicated
64, ,5N-Vote Shift Would Have
Given COP Victory, Writer Says
By David Laurence

Given COP Victory, Writer Says
By David Laurence
The latest available tabulation of the
vote in the last presidential election
shows that outside of the solid South
President Roosevelt polled 21,427,000
votes and Gov. Dewey 20218,00O.
The majority in the Northern States
was about 1,209, 900, so that change OF
only about 604 500 votes would have
completely reversed the electoral vote
and given the Republicans the victory.
This was unquestionably close cleo
ton SO far as the popular vote is con-
cerned and the electoral majority of
432 for Roosevelt against 80 for Dewey
does not reflect the manner in which
the people divided
To call attention to this discrepancy
is not necessarily to offer criticism of
the electoral method but to emphasize
how party that wins the election can
construe the result as an overwhelming
victory when in truth the people were
closely divided.
Minority Viewpoint.
Thus 1t is, of course, vital to the sue
cess of democracy that the minority
viewpoint should not be arbitrarily
brushed aside but given due weight in
the shaping of public policy. Under our
system of government, however, no
representation whatsoever is given in
the executive branch of the Govern
ment to the minority of 20,218,0 900 votes
cast outside the South. The election
of members of the minority party to
Congress does not accomplish the pur-
pose because the legislative body has
already delegated vast powers to the
executive agencies and cannot control
appointees once they are confirmed by
the Senate.
When a dispute arises, as it has this
and Assistant Attorney General Iittell,
the Senate is helpless to decide the
issue. The power of removal of ap-
pointeeS by the President Is absolute
now, having been confirmed by decisions
OF the Supreme Court. There may be
some touch of public scandal in the
way the Littell-Biddle dispute has de-
read that an executive appointee was
disciplined for daring to testify before
committee of Congress
Yet under the separation of powers
between the executive and legislative
branches of the Government, the execu-
tive can retain in Office wholly irrespon-
sible persons or remove competent ones
who venture to do their duty. This
could not happen under parliamentary
system without precipitating a cabinet
crisis If fundamental questions are
really involved Indeed, the public has
a chance to remove overnight cabinet
or premier who countenances intimida
ton of officials venturing to do their
duty
In Canada and Australia and New
Zealand and the Union of South Africa,
as well as in Britain, a close election
such as divided the American people on
November would have surely resulted
of the war. Likewise If prime minister
is retained in Office during war because
he Is good commander In chief
there is no need of an election on a
specific date, but the moment the
war is over the date for an election
can be fixed This fexibility enables
the people of our sister democracies to
hold their elections when the time is
opportune and to single out specific
issues.
Mandate Is Claimed.
Since our election last month, there
is no way of knowing what issue really
Influenced the result Judging by what
one is beginning to hear in Washington
already, the verdict was a mandate to
carry forward New Dealism to larger
and larger areas of radicalism and pub
lie ownership projects. Such a claim
can certainly not be refuted with any
evidence. 1t can be argued that though
the President was elected by close
margin, the minority expression or pro-
test can be entirely ignored by the party
in power.
The responsibility which the voters
took in accepting the Commander In
Chief argument as paramount was
undertaken with belief that the ad-
ministration would surely heed protests
on domestic issues. Under q parlia-
mentary system. an administration can
be removed overnight If 1t doesn't con-
form to public opinion.
Under our rigid system, however, the
present administration now has been
given four years of blanket authority
to do virtually what it pleases in the
field of domestic and foreign policy sub
ject only to possible check by Con-
gress, which can repeal or modify any
executive powers. But it takes two
thirds vote to override a presidential
veto of repeal bill, and the opposition
party can rarely muster a majority of
that size.
Parliamentary governments can check
their executives with a majority vote
any time and that is why they have
much more effective check on arbitrary
acts of bureau chiefs or subordinate
officers including members of the
cabinet than is possible in this country.
The mere threat of removal Is usually
sufficient to secure obedience to the
popular will.
Reproduction Rights Reseryed)