How to Elect a President

—A very simple remedy for a President, present election evils is to be found in proportional representation,— a plan closely analogous to that of choosing by popular vote, except that it is free from the latter’s faults. The method proposed by Thomas Hare, of London, and Mr. Andrae, of Denmark, for the selection of delegates or representatives by quotas of voters is equally applicable to the selection of presidential electors. Proportional representation means simply representation in proportion to the number of votes cast as distinguished from the present majority rule, where it is all or nothing. It is secured in this way: divide the whole number of votes cast in any political unit, whether it be a State, county, city, or town, by the number of representatives to be chosen, and the quotient will be the quota or number of votes necessary to elect one representative. This system allows just representation to all parties, regardless of whether they are in the majority or minority. Whenever any political body casts enough votes to secure one representative, he is chosen, no matter what may become of all the rest. Take the State of New York as an example. In 1884 there were 1,171,312 votes cast for presidential electors. There being thirty-six electors to be chosen, by dividing the whole number of votes cast by thirty-six we have a quotient of 32.536, the quota or number of votes necessary to secure one elector in that State. The Republicans, having cast 562,001 votes, were entitled to seventeen electors, with an unfilled quota or remainder of 8889 votes. The Democrats cast 563,048 votes, which entitled them to seventeen electors, and left an unfilled quota of 9936. The Greenbackers cast 17,002 votes, and the Prohibitionists 25,001. As there are still two electors to choose, and as the votes cast by the two parties last named come nearer to filling the quotas than the Republican and Democratic remainders, they would each be entitled to one elector. Thus the presidential electors of New York would stand, seventeen each for the Republican and Democratic parties, and one each for the Greenback and Prohibition parties. This plan would not be as exact as an honest popular vote, as there would be a loss or gain of an elector depending on the number of votes in the unfilled quotas ; but it would be infinitely better than the system now in use, or than such a popular vote as we are likely to have for a long time to come. The gain or loss from the unfilled quotas would be so small, however, when taken the whole country through, that it would not be worth considering. If the number of electors in each State were to be doubled, the quotas would be halved, which would greatly lessen their influence.

Under this system, each party or political body may nominate and vote for its electors as at present. When the votes shall have been counted, the electors will be apportioned among the several political bodies as their voting strength shall warrant, as in the example given of New York. If any State persisted in clinging to the old method, a constitutional amendment would be necessary, prescribing the manner of choosing presidential electors. It would also be desirable to change the law governing the action of the electors themselves by making a plurality elect instead of a majority, as this system would give electoral votes to the minority or new parties, thus making it more difficult for any party to secure a majority in the electoral college.

This simple plan would as effectually do away with the “colonizing ” schemes as would an election by popular vote, since a vote would count just as much in one State as in another ; and at the same time it would confine the influence of corrupt voting within the state lines, as it should be. At present there is a great temptation for the Republicans of Ohio and Illinois and the Democrats of Kentucky to send their surplus voters into Indiana, where they may be of use to their respective parties. The fact that it can be done, and that politicians will stop at nothing to gain their ends, is enough to warrant belief in the current stories of political corruption, even if they were not already so well authenticated. By throwing all their strength into New York State, one party or the other may gain thirty-six electoral votes. In 1884 those thirty-six votes went to the Democrats; this year they went to the Republicans; and yet the whole number of popular votes changed in the State was not enough to effect more than one elector, if it did that. The utmost which either party could hope for under the proportional system would be the gain of one or two electors, three at the outside, in any one State. No party would squander the time and money for one or two electors which was done this year for the thirty-six of New York or the fifteen of Indiana. A large State would have no more influence in the election than a small one, since, when all parties were justly represented, it would be as easy to gain votes in one State as in another.

It is manifest that this plan would be a great gain over our present system. It would correct most, if not all, of the evils of the present method. Every voter in every State would feel that he was voting directly for the President. The result would depend as much upon his ballot as though the decision were by popular vote. There would not be a State in which an elector could not be won or lost according as the parties put forth their best men and best efforts. The famous “ close ” States, the only ones in which the voters are really allowed at present to exercise the privileges of citizenship, would lose their distinction, and sink to the common level of all the States, since all would be equally " close " and equally uncertain. The stay-at-homes, those first, evidences of political dry rot. would come out and vote. The Republicans of Kentucky and Texas and the Democrats of Pennsylvania and Kansas would alike share the responsibility of the whole country in choosing a President. The solid South, that bugbear of our politics, under this system of choosing electors. would immediately disappear, together with many of the attending evils of sectional hatred and race prejudice engendered thereby. Every part of the country and every class of people would have representation in the electoral college according to their voting strength. And above all this plan would make real what the Constitution of the United States guarantees,—the right of every voter to participate in the election of a President.