The Constitution is the outgrowth of a desire of the people for a representative form of government. The foundation of such a system of government is, and always has been, that every elector entitled to cast his ballot stands upon a complete political equality with every other elector.
We reached the conclusion that a (preferential) system of voting...was contrary to the intent of the Constitution.
In reaching our decision we proceeded studiously and with deliberation, and conformably to the settled policy of this court in favor of a liberal construction of the Constitution. It is serious to declare a piece of legislation unconstitutional. It is a matter for deliberate consideration when it is seriously asserted that a piece of legislation impairs the constitutional right of suffrage of a citizen.
The preferential system directly diminishes the right of an elector to give an effective vote for the candidate of his choice. If he votes for him once, his power to help him is exhausted. If he votes for other candidates he may harm his [first] choice, but cannot help him. Another elector may vote for three candidates opposed to him. The mathematical possibilities of the application of the system to different situations are infinite.
When the Constitution was framed, and as used in it, the word vote meant… to exercise a choice. Since then it has meant nothing else. It was never meant that the ballot of one elector, cast for one candidate, could be of greater or less effect than the ballot of another elector for another candidate. It was to be of the same effect. It was never thought that with four candidates one elector could vote for the candidate of his choice, and another elector could vote for three candidates against him.
The Constitution does not contemplate, but by implication forbids, any elector to cast more than one vote for any candidate for any office. This prohibition is implied from the system of representative government provided for in that instrument.
Giving to the language of the Constitution its ordinary signification, it declares the principle that each elector is entitled to express his choice for representative, as well as all other officers, which is by his vote, and the manner of expressing such choice is by ballot. When he has expressed his preference in this manner, he has exhausted his privilege; and it is NOT in the power of the Legislature to give his preference or choice, without conflicting with these provisions of the Constitution, more than a single expression of opinion or choice.
The quotations made from the different cases are NOT chance expressions. They are indicative of the idea, which permeates all legal thought, that when a voter votes for the candidate of his choice, his vote must be counted one, and it cannot be defeated or its effect lessened, except by the vote of another elector voting for one.
Our further examination confirms us in our view. The decision is sound; and we do right in upholding the right of the citizen to cast a vote for the candidate of his choice unimpaired by second or additional choice votes cast by other voters.
To see the entire case CLICK HERE. (Adobe PDF document)