Page 2
University Daily Kansan Monday, Sept. 28, 1964
Hoopla
Amateurs vs. Pros
By Phil Newsom UPI Foreign News Analyst
LONDON-On Oct. 19, out of some 35 million voters eligible, it is expected that between 25 and 26 million Britons actually will cast ballots in national elections.
But so close is the outcome expected to be in the race between the Conservatives led by Prime Minister Sir Alec Douglas-Home and the Laborites led by Harold Wilson, some analysts are saying that as few as 125,000 votes in the right places could decide the winner.
The result is that political forecasters on both sides are reduced to mathematical tricks showing how a switch of one per cent or less here and there could give either a 25 or 30 seat majority necessary to govern safely.
The changes in the two views were becoming apparent as early as 1945.
Back of it lies a gradual melding of political viewpoints formerly at great odds—the Conservatives in all-out defense of capitalism and Labor in all-out opposition, founded on a demand for public ownership.
In that campaign year, Winston Churchill said "There is a broadening field for state ownership and enterprise"—a remark which sounded as if it came out of a Labor's book.
In the same year, Labor party spokesman Herbert Morrison said "A case can be made for private enterprise in appropriate fields."
In this campaign year the extreme voice of left-wing Labor, demanding ever-increasing nationalization of industry at home and neutrality abroad, has been silenced.
Both parties, for example, claim credit for Britain's socialistic national health service, a cradle-to-the-grave service far more extensive than any U.S. politician has dared to propose.
In its years in power between 1945 and 1951. Labor nationalized the steel and coal industries, trucking, the power industries and the railroads.
The Conservatives, committed to free enterprise, denationalized steel and the trucking industry upon their return to power in 1951 but retained and even expanded the government hold elsewhere.
In much the same manner as would be employed by the Laborites, the Conservative government has used its power to bring new industry to the north of England, notably the automotive industry.
Lancashire, hard hit by the decline of the textile industry, has been re-vitalized with the arrival of new industry and an emphasis on the more expensive textiles, leaving the cheaper goods to Hong Kong and elsewhere.
The differences between the two parties boil down then largely to a question of detail and which can inspire in the British voter the greatest trust.
On this score, the heaviest responsibility falls upon the two leaders—a contest between what the London Sunday Times called "The studied and skillful amateurism" of Douglas-Home, and the "complete professionalism without adornment or concealment" of Wilson.
On Tour
Presidential Elections In Retrospect
(Editor's Note: This is the first article of a series on American elections reprinted from the "Atlanta Constitution." The articles were prepared for presentation by Wilmer D. Jones, professor of history at the University of Georgia.)
It should be noted at the outset that the story of the American elections is a highly complex one, and in the early period is even more so because there was no uniform system for selecting and voting for candidates. It was left to the states to decide who would vote, and how the presidential electors would be chosen.
THE STORY BEGINS in September, 1788, when the Congress of the Confederation passed a resolution decreeing that the electors of the president and vice-president should be appointed on the first Wednesday in January, that they should meet in their states and cast their votes the first Wednesday in February, and that the new Congress should meet the first Wednesday in March and announce the result. Thereafter nature was left to take its course.
The leaders in the various states were unanimous in the opinion that Washington should be made president, and the feeling was that the vice-president should, therefore, come from a northern state. Many thought that John Adams, who held no office where his services were needed, would be a logical choice. Beyond the understandings reached among various state leaders, there were no nominations of candidates at the election of 1789.
AN EVEN MORE perplexing question arose—how should the electors be chosen? The time was short, and decisions had to be made quickly by the state governments. In 5 of the 11 states participating (North Carolina and Rhode Island had not yet accepted the constitution) the electors were chosen by the state legislatures, and in the others the
systems were such that there was little popular participation in the choosing of the electors. Even if there had been a direct election of the electors by the voters at this time, only about 25 per cent of the people would have cast ballots, for the franchise was still highly restricted in most states.
DURING THE NEXT FOUR years the parties became somewhat more disciplined and effective, and each worked in the states to secure electors of 1800. The decisive victory in this respect was won by Aaron Burr, who utilized the Society of St. Tammany to secure a Republican legislature in New York. Thus, when the same four candidates were nominated in 1800 as in 1796, the result was just the
opposite. By carrying the South, New York and most of Pennsylvania's vote, Jefferson and Burr defeated Adams and Pinckney, but because the Republican electors had cast their two votes along strict party lines, Jefferson and Burr ended with the same number of votes.
This deadlock threw the election into the House of Representatives, where, after considerable balloting, Jefferson finally was victorious. It was obvious, however, that this same situation was likely to occur again and again in the future unless a constitutional amendment were adopted to change the voting procedure of the electors. Congress, therefore, finally drew up the 12th Amendment which required that the electors distinguish between their presidential and vice-presidential votes, and it was quickly adopted by the states.
THE ELECTION OF 1804 was almost uncontested. The Republicans at their caucus nominated Jefferson and George Clinton of New York, but the Federalists held no caucus and decided to "leave the arena free for the Democrats to squabble in." The result was that the Republicans carried all of the states except Connecticut, Delaware and two votes in Maryland.
The revolt against the "Virginia Dynasty" which had begun in 1808 reached full flower in 1812. The New York machine had now fallen into the hands of De Witt Clinton, who was determined to have the presidency for himself. Therefore, when the Republican caucus nominated Madison and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, the New Yorkers nominated Clinton, and a Federalist named Jared Ingersoll of Pennsylvania was given second place on the ticket. The result was a sectional election. Madison
carried the South, plus Pennsylvania and Ohio, while New York and the New England states supported Clinton in his losing effort.
THE FEDERALIST PARTY, which had been dying since 1804, passed almost out of existence after the 1812 election, and the Virginia Dynasty continued to dominate the Republican Party. Madison put the whole weight of the administration behind James Monroe, and he was reluctantly accepted, together with Daniel D. Tompkins of New York, at a congressional caucus. The Federalists offered no slate, but some of the leaders indicated a preference for Rufus King of New York. The result was another lop-sided victory for the Republicans, as King carried only Massachusetts, Connecticut and Delaware. If there were practically no opposition to Monroe in 1816, there was none at all in the election of 1820. At that time he won a victory of 231-1, the odd vote being cast for John Quincy Adams by an elector who may have been guided by a desire that Washington should be the only unanimously elected candidate, by his dislike of Monroe, or both.
By 1822 there was a widespread dissatisfaction with the congressional caucus system of nomination which had permitted Jefferson and Madison to designate their successors to the presidency.
IN HIS ELECTORAL VOTE Andrew Jackson led Adams 99-84, and he probably also defeated Adams in the popular vote, but it was a different story in the House of Representatives. Adams carried all of the New England states, New York, Maryland, Louisiana, Kentucky, Missouri and Ohio. Thereafter the Jackson forces charged that Adams had purchased Clay's support in Kentucky and Ohio by promising to make him Secretary of State, and, when Adams actually gave Clay that position in his cabinet, Andrew Jackson was determined to defeat the makers of that "corrupt bargain" at the next election. With the election of 1828, the "Jackson Era" in American history was to open.
In the election of 1828 there were still no parties as such, and both candidates, John Adams and Andrew Jackson, were Republicans. But by this time the party was fairly well divided between the "Adams Men" and the "Jackson Men." It proved to be an unequal contest. Jackson's popularity as a victorious general enabled him to beat Adams decisively both in the popular and electoral vote.
(Continued Sept. 30)
Dailu hansan
11 Flint Hall
University of New
University, 423646, newsroom
UNiversity 4-3198, business office
Founded 1889, became biweekly 1904.
January 1988, daily Jan. 16, 1912
Member Inland Daily Press Association
presidented by National Advertising Service.
18 East 50 St., New York 22, N.Y.
News service: United Press Interna-
tional Press (includes semester or $5 a year). Published in Lawrence, Kan., every afternoon during the University year except spring holidays, and examination periods. Second class postage paid at Lawrence, Kansas.
S If
NEWS DEPARTMENT
Roy Miller ... Managing Editor
Don Black, Leta Cathcart, Bob Jones, Greg Swartz, Assistant Managing Editors; Linda Ellis,
Feature-Society Editor; Russ Corbitt, Sports Editor.
The enter bv d
are only
EDITORIAL DEPARTMENT Jim Langford and Rick Mabbutt Co-Editorial Edito
Mabbutt ... Co-Editor Editors
BUSINESS DEPARTMENT
Bob Phinney ... Business Manager
John Pepper, Advertising Manager;
Dick Flood, National Advertising Manager; John Sulher, Classified Advertising Manager; Tom Fisher, Promotion Manager;
Nancy Holland. Circulation Manager;
Gary Grazda, Merchandising Manager.