and Cravens, in 1877, and were based on the same general principle as the preceding proposition, but differed as to the method employed in computing the vote. Mr. Maish's plan provided that the electoral vote of each State should be distributed among the candidates in the proportion the electoral ratio shall bear to the popular vote of each candidate. The electoral ratio was the quotient obtained by dividing the whole number of votes returned by the whole number of the State's electoral vote. Mr. Maish's resolution has been introduced four times since, twice by himself and twice by Mr. Beltzhoover, also from Pennsylvania.2

Mr. Springer's resolution proposed a like distribution among the candidates of the electoral vote of the State, the candidate having the largest fraction should have the odd Presidential votes, if any remain, each State should be entitled to as many votes as it had Senators and Representatives in Congress, except that States having but one member of the House of Representatives should be entitled to but two votes, and States having but two members of the House of Representatives should be entitled to but three votes in the election of President and Vice-President.3 Mr. Springer has introduced a resolution proposing this amendment in every Congress since 1882, the text of the proposed amendment being similar to the one first submitted by him, save the provision for reducing the number of electoral votes of the small States does not appear.1

Mr. Cravens's device for ascertaining the Presidential vote to which each person voted for in any State was entitled, was to multiply the whole number of votes of the qualified electors in the State for such person by the number of Presidential votes to which the State was entitled and divide the sum so obtained by the aggregate votes of the qualified electors of the State for all persons for President, using for that purpose not exceeding three decimal fractions.5 Resolutions proposing a similar method of computing the votes have been introduced eight times since. Two of these were reported favorably by the

App., No. 1437.

2 App., Nos. 1438, 1503, 1542, 1705; also introduced in the Fifty-first Congress by Mr. Maisb.

3 App., No. 1439.

4 App., Nos. 1569, 1624, 1640, 1735. No. 1569 contains this provision; the others do not. The fractional part of a Presidential vote remaining shall be added to the Presidential vote of the person receiving the highest number of votes in the State. App., No. 1441. 6 App., Nos. 1475, 1493, 1508, 1537, 1538, 1589, 1639, 1697. All applied the foregoing provi sions to the election of Vice-President.

H. Doc. 353, pt 2-7

Select Committee of the House of Representatives on the Election of President and Vice-President in 1878, and again in 1880.1 Since 1881 Mr. Browne of Indiana has proposed this amendment in each Congress. All of these amendments were presented in the House, but none were ever brought to a vote. Some provided that the person having the highest number of votes should be President; others that if no person had a majority the joint convention of the Senate and House should choose the President from the two highest on the list.3

4

Doubtless there is too much mathematics in some of these plans to make them popular, but the simpler method of computing the vote proposed by Messrs. Maish and Springer might easily be understood. Some such application of the system of proportional representation to the election of President and Vice-President seems not only practicable, but peculiarly just and equitable, inasmuch as it not only preserves the weight of each State, but also gives a proportional part of the electoral vote to the minority candidate in each State.

5

46. ELECTION FROM CANDIDATES DESIGNATED BY THE STATES.

Previous to the campaign preparatory to the Presidential election of 1832, the candidates for President had been nominated either by a caucus composed of the members of one party in Congress, or by the legislatures of the States, or even by certain counties in a State. Such nominations were far from carrying the weight possessed by the modern conventionthe voice of a powerful party organization.

The practice of nominating by party convention was first inaugurated in the campaign for the election of President in 1832. In 1830 the first political national convention of delegates representing the people was held by the Anti-Masonic party. The following year the same party inaugurated the practice of holding a national nominating convention, which

App., Nos. 1475, 1508. Able and interesting reports: 1878, H. Rep., Forty-fifth Congress, second session, Vol. IV, No. 819. It contains a table applying the proposed system to the vote given in 1876 for President. The minority report appealed to the spirit of State rights to defeat the measure, fearing interference by the Federal Government in the States on the ground of intimidation. 1880, H. Rep., Forty-sixth Congress, second session, Vol. II, No. 347.

2 As App., Nos. 1475, 1493, 1508. These made provisions for a tie to be settled as at present.

As App., Nos. 1441, 1538.

4 The method proposed by the Cravens plan is doubtless the most accurate, but correspondingly complicated.

5 For further discussion of proportional plan, see post, par. 51, and note.

6 Stanwood, p. 104-109.

practice was immediately adopted by the National Republican and the Democratic parties.' Thus was established our present system of nominating by party conventions.

However, there was one member of Congress at least who did not look with favor upon this method of nomination. Mr. Underwood of Kentucky, in 1838, and again in 1842, in connec tion with other amendments introduced by him, proposed a new method for the nomination and election of President and VicePresident. It provided that the State legislatures, by a joint vote of each house, should, in behalf of their respective States, nominate candidates for the Presidency and Vice-Presidency, respectively. The governors of the States having reported the nominations to the President, he should publish the same by proclamation. The citizens should vote directly for one person so nominated for each office. The results of the votes given in the respective States should be forwarded to the President. Congress should canvass the votes. The person receiving a majority of all the votes should be declared elected. If no person received a majority, then both Houses of Congress in joint session should choose a President or Vice-President from among those nominated for that office. The votes should be given viva voce, each member having one vote, and a majority of the votes given should decide.3

The only other resolution which proposed the nomination of candidates by the States was introduced by Senator Davis, also of Kentucky, in 1862, and on three subsequent occasions. These proposed amendments are perhaps as curious as any which have been presented during the century. By the terms of the original resolution any State might, within thirty days before the time for the election of President, in any mode adopted by the State, nominate to Congress one candidate; and from the candidates so nominated by the States the two Houses of Congress, meeting together as a convention, should choose one as President of the United States. The unanimous vote of all members elected to both Houses was necessary for the election of the President. This was to be secured by the dropping of the candidates having the least number of votes after a stated time had been spent in balloting. In the same manner the

'Ibid. The Democratic convention was called to decide upon a candidate for VicePresident, as the party was united for the reelection of Jackson.

2 App., Nos. 679, 724.

3 In case a State should fail to nominate in the required manner or report the nomi nation made or the votes given in the manner and time required, the election shall be made without regard to such failure, and shall be valid.

Vice-President was to be elected from the remaining candidates. In case of no choice by the convention, the decision was to be referred to the Supreme Court. The same proposition was again made by Mr. Davis early in the following year.2 In December of 1864 Mr. Davis presented a long series of amendments which he desired should be submitted to a convention which should be called for the purpose of revising the Constitution. One of these proposed the same method of choice, changed in several particulars.3 The first section of the resolution contained in a modified form the suggestion he had made earlier in this same year for the consolidation of certain of the Eastern States into three States "for Federal and national purposes only."+ Provision was made that the President and Vice-President were to be taken alternately from the free and the slave States; that each State was to select one of its own citizens for either the Presidency or the Vice-Presidency, according as it was free or slave and as the free or slave States were entitled to the office. From the candidates so nominated the Supreme Court was to choose the President and Vice-President. In 1867 Mr. Davis proposed this method of nomination by the States for the last time, in a resolution similar to the one originally introduced by him nearly five years before, save that only a majority of the votes of the whole number of members of both Houses was by this proposition necessary to elect."

47. ELECTION OF PRESIDENT BY LOT.

Among the many curious amendments proposed for the elec tion of President, perhaps the most unique are three suggestions for the choice of the Executive by lot. The first of these was introduced by Mr. Hillhouse, a Federalist Senator from Connecticut, in 1808, as one of the remarkable series of amendments presented by him at this time, for the preservation of the country from the evils engendered by the growth of parties

'App., No. 978.

2 App., No. 980.

3 App., Nos. 1039b-d.

4 See post, par. 122., App., Nos. 987, 989. The earlier proposition had dealt only with New England. This proposed that Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont should form one State; Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island another, and Maryland, Delaware, and the Eastern Shore of Virginia a third.

5 App., No. 1207.

The plan for selecting electors by lot from the National Legislature was suggested by Wilson in the Federal Convention. Elliot's Debates, v, 362. Ante, par. 37, p. 75, note 8.

2

and party spirit.' This amendment provided that the Senators should hold their office for three years, and one-third retire annually. From the retiring Senators, one should be chosen by lot as President for the ensuing year, in the following manner: Each of these Senators should, in alphabetical order, draw a ball out of the box, one of which was colored; the Senator drawing the colored ball should be President. In his speech in support of these amendments, Senator Hillhouse declared that his experience in Congress for seventeen years had convinced him that some such change as he proposed was necessary for the perpetuity of the Government. "I should not have proposed this mode," said he, "if any other could have been devised which would not convulse the whole body politic, set wide open the door to intrigue and cabal, and bring upon the nation incalculable evils, evils already felt, and grow. ing more and more serious."3 No action was taken by Congress upon these propositions, but some twenty years later Hillhouse revived an agitation in favor of his plan outside of Congress, receiving letters favoring it from Chief Justice Marshall and William H. Crawford, but John Quincy Adams probably reflected the prevailing opinion when he wrote in his diary "a serious discussion of his amendments would be ridiculous." 225

The second, presented by Mr. Vinton of Ohio, in 1844 and again in 1846, arranged that each State should by popular vote elect from its citizens a candidate for the Presidency. From these candidates one was to be chosen by lot. The amusing details of this suggestion were that as many balls as there were Senators and Representatives from each State, inscribed with the name of the State, should be placed in a box. One ball should be drawn from the box and the candidate elected by the State, the name of which should be upon the ball drawn out, should be President.

For other propositions, see ante, pars. 26, 30; post, pars. 56, 57, 59, 60. 2 App., No. 392.

3 Speech in full in American Register for 1809, Chap. II (p. 15). He said that this method was suggested from the experience of "some of the republics of Switzerland,” Berne in particular. Ibid., pp. 17-18. He cited twelve reasons in favor of its adoption. 4 John Adams wrote a criticism on these amendments. See Works, Vol. VI., pp. 523 seq. It would seem he was dissuaded by his son from publishing it. See Memoir of John Quincy Adams, Vol. VII, pp. 225-226. For connection of Hillhouse with the schemes of a Northern Confederacy, ibid., p. 141. See also post, par. 60.

et

5 Marshall wrote: "We shall no longer be under the banners of particular men. Strife will no longer effect its object; neither the people at large nor the councils of the nation will be agitated by the all-disturbing question, Who shall be President?" Harper's Weekly, April 28, 1877; O'Neil, p. 258. Adams's diary, as above.

App., Nos. 740, 744.