ARGUMENT ON PROPOSED CHANGE OF REPRESENTATION IN CONVENTION
In addition to the reasons already given there are many others that
might be urged against the proposed change of representation.
In the first place, the present plan is based upon the sound and stable
principle upon which the Government was organized. Representation in
Congress is not based upon votes or voters, but upon population. The
same is true of the different State Legislatures. All political
parties,--or, at any rate, the principal ones,--have adopted the same
system in the make-up of their State and National Conventions. The
membership of the National Convention being based upon each State's
representation in Congress, the State Conventions, with perhaps a few
exceptions, are based upon the representation in the State Legislatures
from each county, parish, or other civil division. It is the fairest,
safest, best, and most equitable plan that can be devised or adopted.
Under this plan or system, no State, section or locality can gain or
lose representation in any party convention through the application of
extraneous or questionable methods, either by the action of the
government or of a political party. The representation in Congress and
in the different State Legislatures, which is based upon population,
fixes the representation from each State in the different National
Conventions and in many of the State Conventions. Any other plan or
system,--especially that which is based upon the number of votes cast
for the candidates of the party as officially ascertained and
declared,--would have a tendency to work serious injustice to certain
States and sections. In fact, it would have a tendency to sectionalize
the party by which the change is made.
Under the present system, for instance, Pennsylvania and Texas have the
same representation in a National Democratic Convention that they have
in a National Republican Convention, although one is usually Republican
in National elections and the other Democratic. And why should not the
representation from those States be the same in both conventions? Why
should Texas, because it is believed to be safely Democratic, have more
power and influence in a Democratic Convention on that account than the
Republican State of Pennsylvania? The answer may be because one is a
Democratic and the other a Republican State--because one can be relied
upon to give its electoral votes to the candidates of the Democratic
party while the other cannot. But this is not in harmony with our
governmental system. Representation in Congress being based upon
population, every State, section and locality has its relative weight
and influence in the government in accordance with the number of its
inhabitants.
That this is the correct principle will not be seriously questioned when
it is carefully considered. What is true of Pennsylvania and Texas in a
National Democratic Convention is equally true of the same States in a
National Republican Convention, and for the same reasons. The argument
that Pennsylvania should have relatively a larger representation in a
National Republican Convention than Texas, because the former is
reliably Republican while the latter is hopelessly Democratic, is just
as fallacious in this case as in the other. But it is said that
delegates from States that cannot contribute to the success of the
ticket should not have a potential voice in nominating a ticket that
other States must be depended upon to elect. Then why not exclude them
altogether, and also those from the territories and the District of
Columbia?
The argument is unsound, and unreasonable; a State may be reliably
Republican at one election and yet go Democratic at the next. In 1872
General Grant, the Republican candidate for President, carried nearly
every State in the Union, in the South as well as in the North. Four
years later Governor Hayes, the Republican candidate for President,
came within one vote of being defeated in the electoral college; and
even then his election was made possible only through the decision of
the Electoral Commission. In 1880 General Garfield, the Republican
candidate for President, carried New York, and was elected; while four
years later Mr. Blaine, the candidate of the same party, lost it and was
defeated. In 1888 Harrison, the Republican Presidential candidate,
carried New York, and was elected; four years later he not only lost New
York, but also such important States as Indiana and Illinois, and came
within a few votes of losing Ohio. This was due to a slump in the
Republican vote throughout the country, which would have made a very
radical change in the National Convention of 1896 if the apportionment
of delegates to that convention had been based upon the votes cast for
Harrison in 1892. While McKinley, the Republican Presidential candidate,
was elected by a large majority in 1896, he lost such important Western
States as Kansas, Nebraska, Colorado, Montana, Washington and Nevada.
While he was reëlected four years later by an increased majority, he
again lost some of the same States. While Roosevelt, the Republican
Presidential candidate in 1904, carried every State that McKinley
carried in 1900, and several others besides, Mr. Bryan, the Democratic
candidate in 1908, though defeated by a large majority, regained some
of the Western States that Roosevelt carried in 1904,--notably his own
State of Nebraska.
There was a time when such States as Delaware, Maryland, West Virginia,
Kentucky, Missouri, and Tennessee were as safely Democratic as Texas and
Georgia. Will anyone assert that such is true of them now? There also
was a time when such States as Nebraska, Colorado and Nevada were as
reliably Republican as Pennsylvania and Vermont. Is that true of them
now? In addition to these, taking into consideration important elections
that have been held since 1880, the Republicans cannot absolutely rely
upon the support of such States as Massachusetts, Maine, Connecticut,
New York, New Jersey, Indiana, Illinois, Kansas, and even Ohio. Even the
strong Republican State of Pennsylvania has occasionally gone Democratic
in what is called an "off year." Other Republican States,--or States
that usually go Republican,--have gone Democratic when it was not an off
year,--Illinois, for instance, in 1892. All of this goes to prove how
unreliable, unsafe, unsatisfactory, unjust and unfair would be the
change in the basis of representation as thus proposed.
Another argument in support of the proposed change is that delegates
from Democratic States are, as a rule, controlled by the administration
then in power, if Republican, and that such delegates can be depended
upon to support the administration candidate whoever he may be,
regardless of merit, strength or availability. This argument, of course,
is based upon the assumption that what is true of Democratic States in
this respect is not true of Republican States. The slightest
investigation will easily establish the fallacy of this assumption. The
truth is that the federal office-holders--especially those holding
appointive offices,--can, with a few exceptions, always be depended upon
to support the Administration candidate, whoever he may be. The only
difference between the North and the South in this respect is that in
some of the Southern States, where but one party is allowed to
exist,--the Democratic party,--the Republican office-holders can more
easily manipulate and control the conventions of their party in such
States. But that the office-holders of all sections constitute an
important factor in the election of delegates to the National
Conventions will not be denied by those who are familiar with the facts,
and are honest enough to admit them.
For purposes of illustration we will take the National Republican
Convention of 1908, which nominated Judge Taft. It was known that Judge
Taft was the man whose candidacy was supported by the Administration.
The proceedings of the Convention revealed the fact that outside of five
States that had what were called "favorite son" candidates of their
own, there were perhaps not more than fifty votes in the whole
Convention that were opposed to the administration candidate, although
it is more than probable that Judge Taft would not have been nominated
but for the fact that he was the choice of the administration.
I am sure no fair-minded person will assert that, in thus voting, the
delegates from the Democratic States were influenced by the
administration, while those from Republican States were not. It is not
my purpose to assert or even intimate that any questionable methods were
used to influence the election, or control the votes of the delegates in
the interest of any one candidate. Nothing of that sort was necessary,
since human nature is the same the world over.
That the office-holders should be loyal to the administration to which
they belong is perfectly natural. That those who wish to become
office-holders should be anxious to be on the winning side is also
natural, and that, too, without regard to the locality or section in
which they live. It is a fact, therefore, that up to 1908 no candidate
has ever been nominated by a Republican National Convention who did not
finally receive a sufficient number of votes from all sections of the
country to make his nomination practically the choice of the party
without regard to sectional lines.
If, then, it be a fact that in 1908, for instance, delegates to the
National Republican Convention were elected and controlled through
administration influences in the interest of any one candidate, such
influences were no less potential in Republican than in Democratic
States. Outside of the administration candidate there were at that
Convention five very important States that presented candidates of their
own. They were New York, Indiana, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
That the delegation from each of said States were practically solid in
the support of its "favorite son" was due largely to the wise decision
of the managers of the administration candidate to concede to each of
said "favorite sons" the delegation from his own State without a
contest. But for this decision, which was wisely made in the interest of
party harmony, no one of those "favorite sons" would have had the solid
delegation from his own State. As it was, a large majority of the
delegates from the five States named was not unfriendly to the
Administration candidate. These delegates voted for their "favorite
sons" simply because they knew that in doing so they were not
antagonizing the administration. There never was a time, therefore, when
they could have been united upon any one candidate in opposition to the
one that had at his back the powerful support of the Administration. Our
government has reached that point in its growth, where it is not only
possible, but comparatively easy, for an administration to secure the
nomination of the one by whom it desires to be succeeded,--especially
under the present system of electing delegates. It was in anticipation
of this, and to prevent any one man from perpetuating himself in power,
that Washington established the precedent against a third successive
term.
If the advocates of this proposed change are to be believed, and if they
wish to be consistent, they should include the National Committee. The
composition of that body is somewhat similar to that of the United
States Senate. In the Senate Nevada and Delaware have the same
representation as New York and Pennsylvania. In the National Committee
each State, territory, and the District of Columbia has one vote. If any
change in the interest of reform is necessary, the National Republican
Committee is the organization where it should first be made; for it
often happens that that committee can not only shape the policy of the
party but control the nomination as well,--especially when the result
between opposing candidates is close and doubtful. In such a contest the
candidate that has the support of a majority of the National Committee
has a decided advantage over his rivals for the nomination. If the
result should be close that advantage will be more than likely to secure
him the nomination.
The National Committee prepares the roll of the delegates to the
Convention, and, in doing so, it decides primarily every contested
seat. If the contests thus decided should give any one candidate a
majority, that majority will be sure to retain the advantage thus
secured. It will thus be seen that if any change is necessary this is
the place where it should first be made. It occurs to me that instead of
changing the basis of representation the most effective remedy for the
evils now complained of is to have the delegates to National Conventions
elected at popular primaries, instead of by State and district
conventions.