CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



181 



" In the first place, I will state that, so far 

 as I can gather the evidence, the electoral col- 

 lege has never come within 10 per cent, of 

 representing the popular vote, and it several 

 times has differed from it more than 30 per 

 cent. 



The following statement of the result in the differ- 

 ent presidential elections from 1872 back to 1844= will 

 establish the truth of what we have said : 



In 1872 General Grant received 55 per cent, of the 

 votes of the people ; in the electoral college he re- 

 ceived 81 per cent. 



In 1868 General Grant received 52 per cent, of the 

 popular vote, and 73 per cent, of the electoral vote. 



In 1864 Mr. Lincoln received 55 per cent, of the 

 popular vote, and 91 per cent, of the electoral vote. 



In 1860 Mr. Lincoln received only 40 per cent, of 

 the popular vote; he received 59 per cent, of the 

 electoral vote. 



In 1856 Mr. Buchanan received only 45 per cent. 

 of the popular vote ; he received 59 per cent, of the 

 electoral vote. 



In this election Fillmore received 25 per cent, of 

 the popular vote, and only 2 per cent, of the electoral 

 vote ; but fourteen of his friends were elected to Con- 



In 1852 Pierce received 51 per cent, of the popular 

 vote, and 85 per cent, of the electoral vote. 



In 1848 General Taylor received 47 per cent, of the 

 popular vote, and 56 per cent, of the electoral vote. 



At this election Mr. Van Buren received about 10 

 per cent, of the popular vote, and received no elec- 

 toral vote ; but three of his friends were elected to 

 the House of ^Representatives. 



In 1844 Mr. Polk received not quite 50 per cent, of 

 the popular vote; he received 62 per cent, of the 

 electoral vote. 



" To compare the district system with the 

 general-ticket system and to see how much 

 nearer it comes to representing the people, I 

 call the attention of the Senate to the following 

 statements. I will take the four States of 

 Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois : 



These States voted solidly for Mr. Lincoln in 1860, 

 casting seventy-four electoral votes. At the same 

 election they returned sixty-six members of Con- 

 gress, of whom twenty-four were Democrats. 



In 1864 the same States cast seventy-six electoral 

 votes for Mr. Lincoln again, and elected the same 

 year sixty-eigbt members of Congress, of whom six- 

 teen were Democrats. 



In 1868 the same States threw seventy-six electoral 

 votes solidly for General Grant, and elected sixty- 

 eight members of Congress, of whom twenty-two 

 were Democrats. 



In 1872 the same States again voted solidly, giv- 

 ing eighty-five electoral votes to General Grant, 

 and elected seventy-seven members of Congress, of 

 whom twenty-five were Democrats. 



In these four States the Democratic strength, as 

 compared with the Eepublican, has been about as 

 nine to ten, but, under the operation of the general- 

 ticket system, they had been wholly unrepresented 

 in the electoral college ; but, in the House of Kepre- 

 sentatives, under the district system, they have had 

 an average of nearly one-third of the members. 



" Now I will take the State of New York 

 alone for the same period : 



In I860 New York cast her thirty-five electoral 

 votes solidly for Mr. Lincoln. At the same time 

 she elected thirty-three members of Congress, of 

 whom nine were Democrats. In 1864 she again cast 

 her thirty-three electoral votes solidly for Mr. Lin- 

 coln, and at the same time elected thirty-one mem- 

 bers of Congress, of whom eleven were Democrats. 



In 1868 she cast her thirty-three electoral votes sol- 

 idly for Mr. Seymour. The State was carried for 

 Mr. Sevmour by his overwhelming majority in the 

 city or New York, about the character of which 

 grave charges were made, but of which the com- 

 mittee expresses 110 opinion ; but the rest of the 

 State, unaffected in their districts by this large ma- 

 jority in the city, returned eighteen out of the thirty- 

 one members of Congress, who were opposed to Mr. 

 Seymour, thus showing conclusively how the voice 

 of the people of New York outside of the city had 

 been stifled in the presidential election by the city 

 majority, operating through the general-ticket sys- 

 tem. 



" There is a very fair illustration of the dan- 

 gers of the general-ticket system. A large 

 fraud in the city of New York controls the 

 election for Governor, controls the election for 

 President ; but in the election of members for 

 Congress by districts, out of the city, not being 

 affected by this large fraud in the city, they 

 elected eighteen Republicans out of thirty-one 

 members of Congress, showing what would 

 have been the voice of New York if the coun- 

 try had not been stifled by the enormous frauds 

 committed in the city, about which fraud there 

 was scarcely any dispute, and will be scarcely 

 any now. These cities present the elements 

 of fraud : New York, Philadelphia, Boston, 

 Cincinnati, St. Louis, and New Orleans, all 

 these large cities; and the fraud committed in 

 a city may control the vote of a whole State, 

 so far as the election by general ticket is con- 

 cerned ; but, if the election is by districts, that 

 fraud only affects the district in which it is 

 committed, and will not control the vote of 

 the whole State. Here is great temptation 

 to fraud; because, where parties are closely 

 divided in a State, with but a small margin 

 one way or the other, there is great tempta- 

 tion to commit a fraud which determines the 

 vote of the whole State. By the election by 

 districts you do not bring the vote absolutely 

 home to the people as you would by a vote as 

 one community, but you come as near to it as 

 possible. You find that the district system 

 approaches more nearly by one-third to the 

 whole popular vote than the election by gen- 

 eral ticket in the present method. I would 

 prefer to elect the President by the vote of the 

 whole people as one community ; yet I think 

 we cannot do that. I then prefer to come as 

 near to it as possible, to elect the President by 

 districts; and that is what we propose by this 

 amendment. We propose, in the first place, 

 that the candidate who gets the highest num- 

 ber of votes in a State shall have two presi- 

 dential votes. This is to preserve the autono- 

 my and the power of the small States. They 

 now have two presidential electors, two votes 

 at large, as they have two Senators. We pre- 

 serve that theory by giving them two presi- 

 dential votes ; and the man who gets the high- 

 est vote in the State shall get those two votes. 

 Then we have the State divided into as many 

 districts as it has members of Congress, and 

 the candidate who gets the highest vote in a 

 district has the vote of that district. He may 



