The Waterbury Democrat., 1944-06-21

by political leaders In Washington
this situation could develop as fol-
lows:
Constitutionally, the President VI
the United States is elected not BY
popular vote Of the majority of the
people but by the electoral college
Thus Roosevelt was elected in 1910
by the votes Of 449 electors, against
80 for Willkie. What the voters
elected were the 531 electors.
But suppose that the anti-New
Deal state conventions were able t1
force nomination Of SUFFICIENT cleo
tors who would be pledged not to
vote FIR Franklin D. Roosevelt or
any other Democratic nominee not
to their liking, just as Texas has
done. That, under the Constitution,
would move the election into the
House Of Representatives and COLI
ceivabiy might lead to the election
Of president other than Roosevelt
no matter how large his popular
vote.
THERE WOULD BE
A LOUD HOWL
Such maneuver would be entire
ly constitutional, but what would be
Is consequences?
First and most likely would be a
great popular demand for the abo-
lition Of the electoral college, which
has long been dead duck, but Is
still kept hanging around as decor
alton because 1t Is q traditional
part Of the constitutional procedure
established by the all-knowing
founding fathers.
Putting the electoral college in the
ash can would have tremendous eff
fects on the south. for the reason
that the southern states have
greater strength IN the electoral col
lege than they would have II their
numbers Of votes cost were count
ed In direct election OF president.
III the electoral college, the -
southern states In 1910 cast 1875
electoral votes, or a little over rs
per cent Of the total Of 53l electoral
votes cast.
On a popular vote count basis,
however, these IL southern states
cast only 5,642,00 ballots in i94o, or
little over ~ per cent OF the total
popular vote Of 44,548.000,
Killing of the electoral college
would thus cut the power Of the IL
southern states almost exactly in
half-from rs to - per cent-in any
presidential election.
A TEXAS VOTE is TRIPLE
AN OHIO VOTE
The reason for this difference is
to be found In limitations which the
southern states put on suffrage,
through the poll tax. In apportion-
ing congressional representatives
and electors In the electoral college,
the southern states like all the
others get credit for their total
adult population, though only those
who can pay poll tax get to vote.
Texas, for instance, with a 1910
population OF 100000 had % votes
In the electoral college though It's
popular vote was 1,04l 900, or one
out OF every six inhabitants. BY
comparison, Ohio with a population
of 100000, had 26 votes in the
electoral college and popular vote
Of $4,000, or three out of every
six inhabitants. In effect, therefore,
one vote In Texas had three times
the power OF one vote in Ohio as far
as the electoral college was con-
cerned.
If the electoral college were aban-
doned, the only way the southern
states could regain their advantage
would be through enfranchising
more voters. In other words, by
abandoning the poll tax.
The Texas plot to throw the next
presidential election into tn House
may therefor be looked upon as be-
ing too smart. In the long run, it
might break the south's present po-
litical power.