The State, at first, had paid little attention to the party, which was
regarded as a purely voluntary aggregation of like-minded citizens.
Evidently the State could not dictate that you should be a Democrat or
a Republican or force you to be an Independent. With the adoption of the
Australian ballot, however, came the legal recognition of the party; for
as soon as the State recognized the party's designated nominees in the
preparation of the official ballot, it recognized the party. It was
then discovered that, unless some restrictions were imposed, groups of
interested persons in the old parties would manage the nominations of
both to their mutual satisfaction. Thus a handful of Democrats would
visit Republican caucuses or primaries and a handful of Republicans
would return the favor to the Democrats. In other words, the bosses of
both parties would cooperate in order to secure nominations satisfactory
to themselves. Massachusetts began the reform by defining a party as a
group of persons who had cast a certain percentage of the votes at the
preceding election. This definition has been widely accepted; and the
number of votes has been variously fixed at from two to twenty-five per
cent. Other States have followed the New York plan of fixing definitely
the number of voters necessary to form a party. In New York no fewer
than 10,000 voters can secure recognition as a state party, exception
being made in favor of municipal or purely local parties. But merely
fixing the numerical minimum of the party was not enough. The State took
another step forward in depriving the manipulator of his liberty when it
undertook to determine who was entitled to membership in the party and
privileged to take part in its nominations and other party procedure.
Otherwise the virile minority in each party would control both the
membership and the nominations.
An Oregon statute declares: "Every political party and every volunteer
political organization has the same right to be protected from the
interference of persons who are not identified with it, as its known and
publicly avowed members, that the government of the State has to protect
itself from the interference of persons who are not known and registered
as its electors. It is as great a wrong to the people, as well as to
members of a political party, for anyone who is not known to be one
of its members to vote or take any part at any election, or other
proceedings of such political party, as it is for one who is not a
qualified and registered elector to vote at any state election or to
take part in the business of the State." It is a far reach from the
democratic laissez faire of Jackson's day to this state dogmatism which
threatens the independent or detached voter with ultimate extinction.
A variety of methods have been adopted for initiating the citizen into
party membership. In the Southern States, where the dual party system
does not exist, the legislature has left the matter in the hands of
the duly appointed party officials. They can, with canonical rigor,
determine the party standing of voters at the primaries. But where
there is party competition, such a generous endowment of power would be
dangerous.
Many States permit the voter to make his declaration of party allegiance
when he goes to the primary. He asks for the ticket of the party whose
nominees he wishes to help select. He is then handed the party's ballot,
which he marks and places in the ballot-box of that party. Now, if he is
challenged, he must declare upon oath that he is a member of that party,
that he has generally supported its tickets and its principles, and that
at the coming election he intends to support at least a majority of its
nominees. In this method little freedom is left to the voter who wishes
to participate as an independent both in the primaries and in the
general election.
The New York plan is more rigorous. Here, in all cities, the voter
enrolls his name on his party's lists when he goes to register for
the coming election. He receives a ballot upon which are the following
words: "I am in general sympathy with the principles of the party which
I have designated by my mark hereunder; it is my intention to support
generally at the next general election, state and national, the nominees
of such party for state and national offices; and I have not enrolled
with or participated in any primary election or convention of any other
party since the first day of last year." On this enrollment blank he
indicates the party of his choice, and the election officials deposit
all the ballots, after sealing them in envelopes, in a special box. At a
time designated by law, these seals are broken and the party enrollment
is compiled from them. These party enrollment books are public
records. Everyone who cares may consult the lists. The advantages of
secrecy--such as they are--are thus not secured.
It remained for Wisconsin, the experimenting State, to find a way of
insuring secrecy. Here, when the voter goes to the primary, he is handed
a large ballot, upon which all the party nominations are printed. The
different party tickets are separated by perforations, so that the voter
simply tears out the party ticket he wishes to vote, marks it, and puts
it in the box. The rejected tickets he deposits in a large waste basket
provided for the discards.
While the party was being fenced in by legal definition, its machinery,
the intricate hierarchy of committees, was subjected to state scrutiny
with the avowed object of ridding the party of ring rule. The State
Central Committee is the key to the situation. To democratize this
committee is a task that has severely tested the ingenuity of the State,
for the inventive capacity of the professional politician is prodigious.
The devices to circumvent the politician are so numerous and various
that only a few types can be selected to illustrate how the State is
carrying out its determination. Illinois has provided perhaps the most
democratic method. In each congressional district, the voters, at the
regular party primaries, choose the member of the state committee for
the district, who serves for a term of two years. The law says that "no
other person or persons whomsoever" than those so chosen by the voters
shall serve on the committee, so that members by courtesy or by
proxy, who might represent the boss, are apparently shut off. The law
stipulates the time within which the committee must meet and organize.
Under this plan, if the ring controls the committee, the fault lies
wholly with the majority of the party; it is a self-imposed thraldom.
Iowa likewise stipulates that the Central Committee shall be composed of
one member from each congressional district. But the members are chosen
in a state convention, organized under strict and minute regulations
imposed by law. It permits considerable freedom to the committee,
however, stating that it "may organize at pleasure for political work as
is usual and customary with such committees."
In Wisconsin another plan was adopted in 1907. Here the candidates for
the various state offices and for both branches of the legislature and
the senators whose terms have not expired meet in the state capital at
noon on a day specified by law and elect by ballot a central committee
consisting of at least two members from each congressional district. A
chairman is chosen in the same manner.
Most States, however, leave some leeway in the choice of the state
committee, permitting their election usually by the regular
primaries but controlling their action in many details. The lesser
committees--county, city, district, judicial, senatorial, congressional,
and others--are even more rigorously controlled by law.
So the issuing of the party platform, the principles on which it must
stand or fall, has been touched by this process of ossification. Few
States retain the state convention in its original vigor. In all States
where primaries are held for state nominations, the emasculated and
subdued convention is permitted to write the party platform. But not
so in some States. Wisconsin permits the candidates and the hold-over
members of the Senate, assembled according to law in a state meeting,
to issue the platform. In other States, the Central Committee and the
various candidates for state office form a party council and frame the
platform. Oregon, in 1901, tried a novel method of providing platforms
by referendum. But the courts declared the law unconstitutional. So
Oregon now permits each candidate to write his own platform in not
over one hundred words and file it with his nominating petition, and
to present a statement of not over twelve words to be printed on the
ballot.
The convention system provided many opportunities for the manipulator
and was inherently imperfect for nominating more than one or two
candidates for office. It has survived as the method of nominating
candidates for President of the United States because it is adapted to
the wide geographical range of the nation and because in the national
convention only a President and a Vice-President are nominated. In
state and county conventions, where often candidates for a dozen or
more offices are to be nominated, it was often subject to demoralizing
bartering.
The larger the number of nominations to be made, the more complete was
the jobbery, and this was the death warrant of the local convention.
These evils were recognized as early as June 20, 1860, when the
Republican county convention of Crawford County, Pennsylvania, adopted
the following resolutions:
"Whereas, in nominating candidates for the several county offices, it
clearly is, or ought to be, the object to arrive as nearly as possible
at the wishes of the majority, or at least a plurality of the Republican
voters; and
"Whereas the present system of nominating by delegates, who virtually
represent territory rather than votes, and who almost necessarily are
wholly unacquainted with the wishes and feelings of their constituents
in regard to various candidates for office, is undemocratic, because
the people have no voice in it, and objectionable, because men are
often placed in nomination because of their location who are decidedly
unpopular, even in their own districts, and because it affords too great
an opportunity for scheming and designing men to accomplish their own
purposes; therefore
"Resolved, that we are in favor of submitting nominations directly to
the people--the Republican voters--and that delegate conventions for
nominating county officers be abolished, and we hereby request and
instruct the county committee to issue their call in 1861, in accordance
with the spirit of this resolution."
Upon the basis of this indictment of the county convention system, the
Republican voters of Crawford County, a rural community, whose largest
town is Meadville, the county seat, proceeded to nominate their
candidates by direct vote, under rules prepared by the county committee.
These rules have been but slightly changed. The informality of a hat
or open table drawer has been replaced by an official ballotbox, and
an official ballot has taken the place of the tickets furnished by each
candidate.
The "Crawford County plan," as it was generally called, was adopted
by various localities in many States. In 1866 California and New York
enacted laws to protect primaries and nominating caucuses from fraud. In
1871 Ohio and Pennsylvania enacted similar laws, followed by Missouri in
1875 and New Jersey in 1878. By 1890 over a dozen States had passed
laws attempting to eliminate the grosser frauds attendant upon making
nominations. In many instances it was made optional with the party
whether the direct plan should supersede the delegate plan. Only in
certain cities, however, was the primary made mandatory in these States.
By far the larger areas retained the convention.
There is noticeable in these years a gradual increase in the amount of
legislation concerning the nominating machinery--prescribing the
days and hours for holding elections of delegates, the size of the
polling-place, the nature of the ballotbox, the poll-list, who might
participate in the choice of delegates, how the returns were to be made,
and so on. By the time, then, that the Australian ballot came, with
its profound changes, nearly all the States had attempted to remove the
glaring abuses of the nominating system; and several of them officially
recognized the direct primary. The State was reluctant to abolish the
convention system entirely; and the Crawford County plan long remained
merely optional. But in 1901 Minnesota enacted a state-wide, mandatory
primary law. Mississippi followed in 1902, Wisconsin in 1903, and Oregon
in 1904. This movement has swept the country.
Few States retain the nominating convention, and where it remains it is
shackled by legal restrictions. The boss, however, has devised adequate
means for controlling primaries, and a return to a modified convention
system is being earnestly discussed in many States to circumvent the
further ingenuity of the boss. A further step towards the state control
of parties was taken when laws began to busy themselves with the conduct
of the campaign. Corrupt Practices Acts began to assume bulk in the
early nineties, to limit the expenditure of candidates, and to enumerate
the objects for which campaign committees might legitimately spend
money. These are usually personal traveling expenses of the candidates,
rental of rooms for committees and halls for meetings, payment of
musicians and speakers and their traveling expenses, printing campaign
material, postage for distribution of letters, newspapers and printed
matter, telephone and telegraph charges, political advertising,
employing challengers at the polls, necessary clerk hire, and
conveyances for bringing aged or infirm voters to the polls. The maximum
amount that can be spent by candidates is fixed, and they are required
to make under oath a detailed statement of their expenses in both
primary and general elections. The various committees, also, must make
detailed reports of the funds they handle, the amount, the contributors,
and the expenditures. Corporations are forbidden to contribute, and the
amount that candidates themselves may give is limited in many States.
These exactions are reinforced by stringent laws against bribery.
Persons found guilty of either receiving or soliciting a bribe are
generally disfranchised or declared ineligible for public office for a
term of years. Illinois, for the second offense, forever disfranchises.
It is not surprising that these restrictions have led the State to face
the question whether it should not itself bear some of the expenses
of the campaign. It has, of course, already assumed an enormous burden
formerly borne entirely by the party. The cost of primary and general
elections nowadays is tremendous. A few Western States print a campaign
pamphlet and distribute it to every voter. The pamphlet contains usually
the photographs of the candidates, a brief biography, and a statement of
principles.
These are the principal encroachments made by the Government upon the
autonomy of the party. The details are endless. The election laws of New
York fill 330 printed pages. It is little wonder that American parties
are beginning to study the organization of European parties, such as the
labor parties and the social democratic parties, which have enlisted a
rather fervent party fealty. These are propagandist parties and require
to be active all the year round. So they demand annual dues of their
members and have permanent salaried officials and official party organs.
Such a permanent organization was suggested for the National Progressive
party. But the early disintegration of the party made impossible what
would have been an interesting experiment. After the election of 1916,
Governor Whitman of New York suggested that the Republican party choose
a manager and pay him $10,000 a year and have a lien on all his time and
energy. The plan was widely discussed and its severest critics were the
politicians who would suffer from it. The wide-spread comment with which
it was received revealed the change that has come over the popular idea
of a political party since the State began forty years ago to bring the
party under its control.
But flexibility is absolutely essential to a party system that
adequately serves a growing democracy. And under a two-party system, as
ours is probably bound to remain, the independent voter usually holds
the balance of power. He may be merely a disgruntled voter seeking for
revenge, or an overpleased voter seeking to maintain a profitable
status quo, or he may belong to that class of super-citizens from which
mugwumps arise. In any case, the majorities at elections are usually
determined by him. And party orthodoxy made by the State is almost as
distasteful to him as the rigor of the boss. He relishes neither the one
nor the other.
In the larger cities the citizens' tickets and fusion movements
are types of independent activities. In some cities they are merely
temporary associations, formed for a single, thorough housecleaning. The
Philadelphia Committee of One Hundred, which was organized in 1880
to fight the Gas Ring, is an example. It issued a Declaration of
Principles, demanding the promotion of public service rather than
private greed, and the prosecution of "those who have been guilty of
election frauds, maladministration of office, or misappropriation of
public funds." Announcing that it would endorse only candidates
who signed this declaration, the committee supported the Democratic
candidates, and nominated for Receiver of Taxes a candidate of its
own, who became also the Democratic nominee when the regular Democratic
candidate withdrew. Philadelphia was overwhelmingly Republican. But the
committee's aid was powerful enough to elect the Democratic candidate
for mayor by 6000 majority and the independent candidate for Receiver
of Taxes by 20,000. This gave the Committee access to the records of
the doings of the Gas Ring. In 1884, however, the candidate which it
endorsed was defeated, and it disbanded.
Similar in experience was the famous New York Committee of Seventy,
organized in 1894 after Dr. Parkhurst's lurid disclosures of police
connivance with every degrading vice. A call was issued by thirty-three
well-known citizens for a non-partizan mass meeting, and at this meeting
a committee of seventy was appointed "with full power to confer with
other anti-Tammany organizations, and to take such actions as may be
necessary to further the objects of this meeting as set forth in the
call therefor, and the address adopted by this meeting." The committee
adopted a platform, appointed an executive and a finance committee, and
nominated a full ticket, distributing the candidates among both parties.
All other anti-Tammany organizations endorsed this ticket, and it
was elected by large majorities. The committee dissolved after having
secured certain charter amendments for the city and seeing its roster of
officers inaugurated.
The Municipal Voters' League of Chicago is an important example of the
permanent type of citizens' organization. The league is composed of
voters in every ward, who, acting through committees and alert officers,
scrutinize every candidate for city office from the Mayor down. It does
not aim to nominate a ticket of its own, but to exercise such vigilance,
enforced by so effective an organization and such wide-reaching
publicity, that the various parties will, of their own volition,
nominate men whom the league can endorse. By thus putting on
the hydraulic pressure of organized public opinion, it has had a
considerable influence on the parties and a very stimulating effect on
the citizenry.
Finally, there has developed in recent years the fusion movement,
whereby the opponents of boss rule in all parties unite and back an
independent or municipal ticket. The election of Mayor Mitchel of New
York in 1913 was thus accomplished. In Milwaukee, a fusion has been
successful against the Socialists. And in many lesser cities this has
brought at least temporary relief from the oppression of the local
oligarchy.