Politics | News about Politics in America & the World

One problem in 1912 was that the 11 States of the old Confederacy, not aone of which had voted for the Republican presidential/vice-presidentialticket since the disputed Hayes-Tilden Election of 1876, had cast 197 ofthe votes in that key Roll Call vote cited in the previous paragraph-more than one-third of the total the Taft forces had been able tomuster. Assuming that these Southern States were over-represented(relative to their support of the Republican Party) by at leastone-third, it could be argued that these States were alone responsiblefor the Taft forces' margin of victory. Many Republican politicians,anxious to avoid another fractious Convention (it was the conventionalwisdom that the vicious Taft/Roosevelt split had elected DemocratWoodrow Wilson to the Presidency in 1912) , decided that it was finallytime for reform: it certainly seemed ludicrous that a Democratic Partystronghold such as Louisiana should have the same number of GOPConvention delegates as Kansas, which had voted for the Republicannational ticket 10 out of 12 times since becoming a State. So, for theCall of the 1916 Republican National Convention, it was decided that,for any congressional district in which fewer than 7,500 votes were castfor the Republicans in the previous election, only one district NationalConvention delegate would be allocated (instead of the usual twodistrict delegates, as had always been the case in the RepublicanConvention since 1860)- a kind of "reverse bonus": as a result, the 11"old Confederacy" States lost 78 GOP delegates between 1912 and 1916;the only non-Southern state adversely affected by this rule was NewYork and the loss of delegates to that state was minimal. These same"reverse bonus" rules also prevailed in the 1920 Republican Conventionin which the South lost an additional 7 delegates but only New York andMassachusetts- alone among Northern states- together lost a total of 3delegates as a result of this rule.

Official Store of the Democratic Party. Get your proud Democrat gear

One problem in 1912 was that the 11 States of the old Confederacy, not aone of which had voted for the Republican presidential/vice-presidentialticket since the disputed Hayes-Tilden Election of 1876, had cast 197 ofthe votes in that key Roll Call vote cited in the previous paragraph-more than one-third of the total the Taft forces had been able tomuster. Assuming that these Southern States were over-represented(relative to their support of the Republican Party) by at leastone-third, it could be argued that these States were alone responsiblefor the Taft forces' margin of victory. Many Republican politicians,anxious to avoid another fractious Convention (it was the conventionalwisdom that the vicious Taft/Roosevelt split had elected DemocratWoodrow Wilson to the Presidency in 1912) , decided that it was finallytime for reform: it certainly seemed ludicrous that a Democratic Partystronghold such as Louisiana should have the same number of GOPConvention delegates as Kansas, which had voted for the Republicannational ticket 10 out of 12 times since becoming a State. So, for theCall of the 1916 Republican National Convention, it was decided that,for any congressional district in which fewer than 7,500 votes were castfor the Republicans in the previous election, only one district NationalConvention delegate would be allocated (instead of the usual twodistrict delegates, as had always been the case in the RepublicanConvention since 1860)- a kind of "reverse bonus": as a result, the 11"old Confederacy" States lost 78 GOP delegates between 1912 and 1916;the only non-Southern state adversely affected by this rule was NewYork and the loss of delegates to that state was minimal. These same"reverse bonus" rules also prevailed in the 1920 Republican Conventionin which the South lost an additional 7 delegates but only New York andMassachusetts- alone among Northern states- together lost a total of 3delegates as a result of this rule.


Frontpage -- Daily Republican Newspaper -- The Nation's …

TOQ-AuthorF LNames-Subject-Vol 4 No 2