SAMUEL J. ELDERSVELD and ALBERT A. APPLEGATE. Michigan's Recounts for Governor, 1950 and 1952: A Systematic Analysis of Election Error. Pp. viii, 178. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1954. No price
| Author | Cortez A.M. Ewing |
| Published date | 01 July 1955 |
| Date | 01 July 1955 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/000271625530000126 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
137
were
in
fact
only
a
grant
from
the
nation.
This
view
he
believes
is ’borne
out
by
the
fact
that
some
three-fourths
of
the
states
have
subsequently
been
admitted
to
the
Union
and
could
not
have
had
any
prior
inherent
powers.
Congress
may
be
the
best
defender
of
states-rights,
as
is
witnessed
by
its
action
after
the
Southeastern
Under-
writers
insurance
decision,
and
the
off-shore
oil
decisions.
On
the
practical
side,
he
opposes
any
new
constitutional
limits
on
the
federal
taxing
power,
believes
it
is
not
feasible
to
separate
arbitrarily
the
subjects
of
federal
and
state
taxation,
opposes
the
earmarking
of
taxes
for
specific
purposes,
except
for
some
pen-
sion
and
retirement
trust
funds,
and
be-
lieves
it
is
not
feasible
normally
for the
federal
government
to
collect
taxes
for
the
states.
Some
of
the
opposition
by
gov-
ernors
to
federal
grants-in-aid
he
ascribes
to
the
fact
that
federal
contacts
upon
these
grants
may
be
with
subordinates
of
the
governor
or
with
legislative
committees,
thus
by-passing
the
officials
head
of
the
state.
In
sum,
Professor
Anderson
believes
that
we
are
doing
very
well
under
our
present
allocation
of
powers
and
has
no
proposals
for
drastic
constitutional
changes.
W.
REED
WEST
George
Washington
University
SAMUEL
J.
ELDERSVELD
and
ALBERT
A.
APPLEGATE.
Michigan’s
Recounts
for
Governor,
1950
and
1952:
A
Systematic
Analysis
of
Election
Error.
Pp.
viii,
178.
Ann
Arbor:
University
of
Michigan
Press,
1954.
No
price.
The
unusual
occurrence
of
recounts
in
successive
gubernatorial
elections
(1950
and
1952)
presented
a
fruitful
opportunity
to
study
the
administration
of
elections
in
Michigan.
In
both
recounts,
G.
Men-
nen
Williams,
the
Democratic
candidate,
emerged
as
winner.
In
the
1950
race,
Wil-
liams’
original
plurality
was
1,154
votes
in
a
total
poll
of
1,879,382.
Before
the
re-
count
was
completed,
the
Republican
candi-
date
conceded
when
the
Williams’
plurality
reached
4,010
votes.
The
Republican
candidate
withdrew
from
the
1952
recount
when
Williams’
original
plurality
of
8,618
had
grown
to
10,760.
In
each
case,
the
recount
procedures
were
invoked
only
in
specific
precincts,
the
Republicails
chal-
lenging
the
returns
from
preponderant
Democratic
districts
and
the
Democrats
from
those
overwhelmingly
Republican.
The
authors
found
that
2
per
cent
of
the
total
1950
vote
was
affected
by
error
of
some
type.
The
incidence
of
error
was
fairly
general,
running
in
86
per
cent
of
the
precincts
recounted.
Three
of
every
four
errors
resulted
from
negligence
or
in-
competence
of
election
officials.
Only
one-
fourth
of
all
errors
could
be
attributed
to
the
voters.
~fficial
errors
included
failure
to
initial
ballots,
improper
initialing,
in-
accurate
counting,
and
carelessness
in
pro-
tecting
the
security
of
the
ballot
boxes.
The
most
frequent
voter
error
was
in
using
a
check
mark
rather
than
a
cross.
Viola-
tions
of
ballot
security
alone
involved
more
than
123,000
votes.
Many
boxes
were
not
sealed,
some
were
not
locked,
and
others
did
not
contain
the
official
pollbook
as
required
by
law.
The
investigators
discovered
that
the
ratio
of
election-officials’
errors
was
highest
in
rural
counties
which
were
preponderantly
Republican,
and
that
there
was
a
distinctly
partisan
flavor
to
these
mistakes.
This
partisanship
showed
itself
in
several
phases
-in
the
long
count
for
the
majority
party,
in
the
short
count
for
the
minority
party,
and
in
decisions
involving
invalidation
of
individual
ballots.
Most
of
the
irregularities
in
the
two
elections
sprang
from
the
incompetence
of
the
election
officials.
So
long
as
they
are
recruited
through
patronage
and
so
long
as
elections
are
administered
at
the
local
level,
there
will
be
inconsistencies,
errors
in
election-law
interpretation,
and
pure
and
unadulterated
partisanship.
It
should
be
remembered
that
politics
is
much
more
casual
in
a
rural
neighborhood
than
in
legislative
halls.
What
are
constitutions
and
laws
among
people
who
speak
to
each
other
almost
every
day?
If
there
is
a
weakness
in
this
excellent
monograph,
it
is
that
the
authors
have
not
attributed
suf-
ficient
importance
to
the
persistent
in-
formality
in
American
politics.
The
study
To continue reading
Request your trial