  434. THE PROBLEM.—In an important sense, good government is a matter of getting the right men into office, hence one of the most vital problems in American democracy has to do with the choice of public officials. In any representative democracy nominations and elections must be a difficult and complex matter; in the United States the problem is rendered doubly difficult by the great size of the country, and by the rapidity with which its population is increasing. In this country hundreds of thousands of public officials are placed in office annually, all of them either elected at the polls, or chosen by agents who are themselves elected. The problem before us involves four questions: First, how can we perfect the mechanism by means of which the officers of government are selected? Second, how can we elect officials who represent a majority, rather than a plurality [Footnote: See Section 444.], of those actually voting? Third, how can voters be helped to make intelligent choices at the polls? Fourth, how can we encourage qualified voters to make an habitual use of the ballot? 435. NOMINATION BY CAUCUS.—One of the earliest methods of choosing party candidates in this country was by means of the caucus. The caucus was an informal meeting in which the local members of a political party nominated candidates for town and county offices. Candidates for state offices were named by a legislative caucus, in which legislators belonging to the same party came together and determined their respective nominations. The legislative caucus spread to all of the states, and in 1800 was transferred to Congress as a mode of nominating the President and Vice-President. After 1825 the caucus declined in importance. In the lawmaking bodies of both nation and states there continues to be a legislative caucus, but its influence upon the choice of public officials has greatly diminished. Outside of the state and National legislatures the caucus is now found only in towns, wards, and other small areas. In these areas it is used for the purpose of nominating candidates for local offices, and for the purpose of electing delegates to nominating conventions. Except in some parts of New England, it should be noted, this local caucus is now generally known as the primary. 436. RISE OF THE NOMINATING CONVENTION.—After 1825 the caucus was largely superseded by the convention. The convention is a relatively large meeting of party delegates chosen for the express purpose of deciding upon party policies and candidates. The convention device was developed, partly because party bosses had come to dominate the caucus, and partly because the increasing population of the country necessitated larger congregations of party members. The convention was made possible by improved means of transportation, which allowed relatively large groups of individuals to come together for deliberative purposes. By 1850 all of the political parties had adopted the convention plan for the nomination of candidates for most local, state, and National offices. 437. DECLINE OF THE CONVENTION.—The convention was an improvement upon the caucus in that it allowed a greater number of party members to participate in nominations. Unfortunately, delegates to the convention continued to be chosen in local caucuses, where the party "ring" or machine usually determined the choice of delegates. Bosses prepared "slates," bribed delegates, and otherwise manipulated what was supposed to be an expression of the party will in convention. In many cases the convention became-merely a cut-and-dried affair in which party members ratified nominations previously agreed upon by party leaders. In the latter part of the nineteenth century, and especially after 1900, these defects stimulated the development of measures designed to reduce or eliminate the abuses of the convention system. The most important of these reform measures is the Direct Primary. 438. NATURE OF THE DIRECT PRIMARY.—The terms caucus, primary, and direct primary are easily confused. We have seen that the local caucus is now generally known as the primary. The essential difference between this caucus or primary and the Direct Primary is this: in the Direct Primary, party members vote directly for the party's candidates at the forthcoming election; in the caucus or primary, on the other hand, party members do not vote directly for the more important of these candidates, but instead vote for delegates to a convention. Later these delegates meet in convention and there vote directly for party candidates. Thus the Direct Primary is really an election within the party, held for the purpose of allowing party members to choose the candidates who will represent the party at the approaching regular election. When adopted, the Direct Primary abolishes the convention by allowing party members to cast their ballots directly for their party's candidates. Those individuals are nominated who receive a plurality of all votes cast. In most states the Direct Primary has recently been placed under detailed legal control. Such laws generally prescribe the time and place of holding the Direct Primary, the qualifications of those who may participate, and the organization and general management of this party election. There is provision for polling places, official ballots, and election of officials, just as there is provision for similar machinery in the regular election which follows the Direct Primary. 439. EXTENT OF THE DIRECT PRIMARY.—Heralded as a cure for the defects of the convention, the Direct Primary spread rapidly after 1900. By 1919 every state in the Union had adopted it in some form, and about forty states were applying the state-wide primary. At first the Direct Primary was used only to nominate candidates for local offices, but at the present time state officers, and even Federal Senators and Representatives, are often nominated by this method. In more than a third of the states the voters at the Direct Primary are allowed to express their preference directly for one of the candidates for the presidential nomination. Altogether, the Direct Primary has largely supplanted the convention in about three fourths of the states. 440. ADVANTAGES CLAIMED FOR THE DIRECT PRIMARY.—A number of important advantages are claimed for the Direct Primary. It is said that the device reduces the power of the party boss, and insures democratic control within the party. Party members are more interested in the Direct Primary than in the local caucus or primary because in the Direct Primary they actually aid in the direct selection of party candidates. The local caucus or primary, on the other hand, does not directly select the more important party candidates, but can only choose delegates to a nominating convention. Because the Direct Primary increases the control of the individual over party policies, it encourages active political work on the part of the rank and file. It is maintained that the Direct Primary brings out a larger vote than would otherwise be possible. Better candidates are secured by means of the Direct Primary, it is claimed, because the nomination of individuals depends upon the presentation of their claims to the voters, rather than upon winning the favor of party bosses. 441. OBJECTIONS URGED AGAINST THE DIRECT PRIMARY.—The opponents of the plan claim that the Direct Primary has serious faults. It is said that in supplanting the convention the Direct Primary has made more difficult the exchange of views and opinions among party members. It is declared that the Direct Primary has disorganized the party and has therefore broken down party responsibility. It is claimed that the Direct Primary has not eliminated the boss, for rather than voting directly for candidates of their own choice, electors must make a selection from a list of candidates previously arranged by party leaders. All of these candidates may be objectionable to the voter. It is also pointed out that many worthy candidates have not the money to defray the expense of competing in the Direct Primaries. Frequently the "ring" brings out a number of candidates to divide the voters, while the henchmen of the ring concentrate their votes upon one man. Lastly, it is pointed out, the excessive number of candidates to be selected renders it impossible for the average individual to make an intelligent selection. In such a case, the average individual attends the Direct Primary only to confirm the choice of party leaders. 442. OUTLOOK FOR THE DIRECT PRIMARY.—Although there is much to be said for and against the Direct Primary, the belief is gaining ground that this device does not offer the final solution of the difficulty which led to its establishment. After an exhaustive study of the subject, Professor Munro concludes as follows: "In a word, the primary seems to afford protection against the worst fault of the convention, which was the frequent selection of incapable and corrupt candidates at the behest of a few political leaders. But it has not, in twenty years or more of experience, demonstrated that it can achieve positive results of a measurably satisfactory character. It has not rid the state of boss domination; it has increased the expense which every candidate must incur, and it gives a marked advantage to the man whose name is well known to the voters, whether he be a professional politician or not. To say that the primary secures on the average somewhat better results than the old convention may be stating the truth, but it is not high praise." 443. NOMINATION BY PETITION.—The system of nomination by petition came into use between 1880 and 1890. It provides that candidates may be placed in nomination by filing with some specified officer nomination papers, or petitions, signed by a specified number of qualified voters. The filing of these papers entitles the candidates named thereon to have their names printed upon the official ballot. The merit of this device is that it prevents the party machine from dictating the choice of candidates, and that it enables independent candidates to be brought forward. On the other hand, it has encouraged the circulation of petitions for hire. On the whole this method of nomination is proving more and more popular in local elections. It seems well adapted to the needs of municipalities, for it reduces partisanship to a minimum. It is said that in some cases it practically eliminates national politics from local elections. The supporters of nomination by petition are increasing, and it is now proposed to apply it to all local and state nominations. In such an event the Direct Primary would be radically modified, or even abolished. 444. MAJORITY REPRESENTATION.—How can we make certain that an individual nominated or elected represents a majority of those voting? When there are only two candidates, the one receiving the largest number of votes receives both a plurality and a majority. But when there are several candidates, it often happens that the individual receiving the largest number of votes does not receive a majority. Suppose, for example, that 100,000 votes are cast, and that A receives 20,000, B 25,000 C 30,000 and D 25,000. Ordinarily C will be declared successful because he has received a plurality of the votes cast. But he has not received a majority of the votes cast. This custom of declaring successful the candidate receiving a plurality constitutes a defect in our representative system, since a plurality candidate may represent only a small minority of those actually voting. Several attempts have been made to remedy this defect. In some southern states it is the practice to require an absolute majority for election. If no aspirant receives a majority, a second ballot is taken on the two candidates standing highest on the list. In a number of northern cities, the evil of plurality voting has been attacked through the preferential voting device. This system of voting allows the voter to designate not only his first, but his second and third choices as well. If any candidate receives a clear majority of first choice votes, he is declared elected. But if no one receives such a majority, the second choices are added to the first choices. If this further calculation does not give any candidate a majority, third choices are resorted to. In cities where the plan has been tried, preferential voting is said to have proved markedly successful. 445. MINORITY REPRESENTATION.—Related to the question of making sure that successful candidates represent a majority of those voting is the problem of the adequate representation of the minority. The most notorious phase of this problem has grown out of our custom of electing one national Representative from each of the congressional districts into which every state is divided. Often gerrymandering [Footnote: The origin and nature of "gerrymandering" are discussed in Chapter XLII, Sections 542 and 543.] is resorted to, that is to say, congressional districts are so arranged as to give the minority party overwhelming majorities in a few districts, while the dominant party is allowed to carry the remaining districts by very small majorities. The result is gross misrepresentation in Congress, because the party having a bare majority often secures a large percentage of the representatives, while the minority is very inadequately represented. Such misrepresentation also appears in connection with the choice of representatives to the state legislatures. In the attempt to remedy this type of misrepresentation various plans of proportional representation have been put forth. In Illinois members of the lower house of the state legislature have long been chosen as follows: Each state senatorial district is given the right to elect three assemblymen. Every elector in the district has the right to cast three votes, one each for three different persons, or two votes for one candidate and one for another, or all for one candidate. By concentrating its votes upon one candidate, an average minority can be sure of at least one representative in each district. A plan employed in several other states likewise aims to give each political party representation proportional to the number of votes cast by the party, regardless of whether the number is a minority or a majority. The principle of proportional representation, if fully worked out, and if made simple enough to be comprehended by the average voter, would insure majority rule and at the same time allow the adequate representation of minorities. 446. OBSTACLES TO INTELLIGENTY VOTING.—Several obstacles to intelligent voting in this country are intimately connected with the long ballot. [Footnote: The term "long ballot" refers to the fact that so many officials are elective that the ballot on which their names appear is often of great length. The term "short ballot" refers to a reduction of the length of this ballot by making fewer officers elective.] The wave of democracy which swept the country in the last century had the double effect of increasing the number of elective offices, and of shortening the terms during which officials were allowed to hold office. A greatly lengthened ballot, together with the great frequency of elections, has made it impossible for the average voter to exercise proper judgment at the polls. The difficulty of investigating the merits of the numerous candidates, or even of becoming familiar with their names, has discouraged many from voting. Of those who still pretend to reach independent decisions regarding candidates and issues, a considerable number really rely upon the direction and advice of professional politicians. The long ballot is the enemy of democracy, since it allows politicians, rather than the masses, to control actual government. 447. SHORTENING THE BALLOT.—The chief remedy for these evils is the short ballot. The essential features of the short ballot plan are as follows: Popular elections should be resorted to only for the purpose of choosing those officials who have to do with public policies. For example, state voters ought to select only the governor, lieutenant governor, and members of the legislature; city voters ought to choose only the mayor and council; [Footnote: Where this form of municipal government is still employed.] while county voters ought to confine their attention to a small group of county commissioners or supervisors. All other officials ought to be appointed, either directly by chief executive officers, or by means of the merit plan. Along with the shortening of the ballot, we should be increasingly willing to allow officials to hold office for longer terms. A supplementary feature of great value would be the establishment of such means of popular control as would protect the public against abuse of power by officials to whom these longer terms had been extended. |
|
