Evening star., 1952-11-09
Electoral Reform
It Would Have Been Ike 2oO, Adoi 241
If Voting Shokeup Had Been Approved
By WiIIiom Hines

Regardless Of what else may de-
velop in the legislative mills as a re-.
suit Of last weeks election, a move
for reform Of the electoral college is
practically certainty. That the re-
form will actually be put into effect
is far less certain, however. There
are too many vested political in
terestS in the present unwieldy way
OF electing President.
For more than 100 years this
electoral college has been as useless
as water wings on a duck. Except for
very few exceptions it has been
the rubber-Stamp assembly par ex-
cellence. And instead of merely doing
the voters bidding in a Slavish way.
1t has, as result of the rules set up
for its operation. actually thwarted
the popular will on few occasions.
Clomor for Reform
After every election comes q hub
bub of sorts for reform of the elec-
toral system. Some extremists want
the electoral count done away with.
allowing the outcome to be decided
on the basis of popular votes only.
Others want to retain features of
the electoral system but water it
down to greater or less degree. All
these reformers have one basic idea
in mind-to bring the results on
election day into closer accord with
what the voters said.
It would not be an easy matter to
reform the electoral system. It would
take constitutional amendment.
and to get this on the books would
take two-thirds (not simple ma
jority) votes in the House and Sem
ate. and approval by three-fourths
Of the States.
Inequities Are Numerous
Nevertheless, the clamor continues.
And there is good reason why. In
every election there is some great in
equity to great number Of voters.
Here are few cases in point.
In 1860, Stephen Douglas ran Sec
ond to Lincoln in field of four, and
polled about 80 per cent of the popu-
lar vote. Yet Douglas ran fourth in
electoral votes, getting only IL of 3O3.
He actually polled 1,375,157 popular
votes to Jorn Bells 587,830, but got
only II electoral votes to Bells SO.
Worse yet, in 1876. Samuel j. TIL
den polled more votes than all his
opposition put together, but lost the
race to Rutherford Hayes.
Thurmond vs.. WoIIoce
In the four-sided 1948 election
contest. States Fighter Strom Thur
lnond polled 2.41 per cent Of the
popular vote and got 7.35 per cent
of the electoral vote. Yet Henry Wal
lace, who polled almost exactly the
same proportion of the popular vote
(2.37 per cent? got no electoral votes
at all.
Thurmond. in 1948, got SO of his
80 electoral votes from 645,878 votes
cast in four Southern States. This
popular vote was a little smaller
than the 655.039 cast for the Repub-
lican Tom Dewey in Missouri, State
he lost. Not one Of these COP. votes
was worth anything to Dewey in the
big payoff.
Which brings up another point.
Truman carried Wisconsin with 647,-
$40 votes In 1948. He got IL elec-
toral votes. Compare this with
Thurmond's 80 votes In exchange for
645.878 popular ballots. Trumanites
in Wisconsin. in other words, had
slightly less than one-third as much
say about the presidency as did Dix
iecrats in the deep South.
The Arkansas Case
In last weeks election, Arkansas
went to Stevenson and gave him eight
votes; Connecticut went to Eisenhow-
er and gave the general the same
number. But it took five times as
many voters In Connecticut to de-
liver those eight as It did TO give
Stevenson the eight In Arkansas.