SUFFRAGE AND ELECTIONS
_The purpose of this chapter is to explain who have the right to
vote, how the voters nominate public officials, and how elections
are held._
SUFFRAGE
[Sidenote: Direct and indirect popular control.]
=How the Voters Control the Government.=—A democratic government is one
in which the people, acting directly or through their representatives,
control the course of public affairs. This control may be exercised, as
has been pointed out, in either one of two ways. It may be exercised
directly, that is, by the use of the initiative and referendum. The
proposal for a law comes from a designated number of voters, and the
adoption or rejection of the proposal is decided by a majority of the
voters at the polls.
It is easy to see, however, that the people cannot perform the entire
work of government in this direct way. There are too many laws to be
made, too many details of administration to be handled, and too many
disputes to be adjusted. So most of the work of government is carried on
by persons who are chosen by the voters for this purpose or who are
appointed to office by the representatives of the people. Elective
officials, as a rule, have authority to determine matters of general
policy in nation, state, or municipality, while appointive officials,
for the most part, carry out the policy thus determined upon.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Illustration:
GOVERNMENT. By Elihu Vedder
_From a Copley Print, copyright by Curtis & Cameron, Boston.
Reproduced by permission._
]
GOVERNMENT
By Elihu Vedder
From a mural decoration in the Library of Congress.
Mr. Vedder portrays Government as a mature woman in
the fullness of her strength. She is seated upon a
bench of hewn marble, which is supported by the
figures of two lions—all emblematic of strength and
power. Behind is an oak tree, which typifies slow,
deep-rooted growth. In symbolic pictures the ballot
box is usually represented as an urn. Here the
marble bench rests upon urn-shaped vases. In the
lions’ mouths are mooring-rings to remind us that
the ship of state must not drift aimlessly but
should be moored to strength.
In her left hand Government grasps a golden sceptre
(the Golden Rule) to signify that all her actions
are based upon respect for the rights of others; her
right hand holds a tablet upon which is graven a
notable epigram from Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address.
On either side of Government are two genii or
mythical figures. One holds a bridle which typifies
restraint, discipline, and order—the bulwark of
effective government. The other supports an
unsheathed sword, emblematic of defence and justice.
In this picture, therefore, the author prefigures
the outstanding marks of a successful free
government—strength; fairness, democracy, restraint,
security, and justice.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
=The Citizen and the Voter.=—Government by the people does not, of
course, mean government by all the people. [Sidenote: Not all citizens
are voters.]In every country there are many persons who are not
competent to exercise a share in the government. Very young persons, for
example, do not have maturity of judgment, which a share in government
requires. Insane persons, prisoners in jails, aliens, and others are
also, for obvious reasons, usually debarred from the privilege of
voting. It is not to be assumed that everyone who is a citizen is also a
voter. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject
to American jurisdiction are citizens no matter what their ages or
mental capacity may be, but not all are voters. The voters are those
upon whom the privilege of voting has been conferred by law. In the
United States they comprise a large proportion of the adults but they do
not form a majority of the entire population. Out of a national
population of about one hundred and five millions the voters of the
United States number about thirty-five millions. This number is quite
large enough to ensure an adequately representative government.
[Sidenote: The gradual widening of the suffrage]
=Development of the Suffrage.=—Voting is a privilege and duty rather
than a right. In the earlier states of American history the privilege of
voting was restricted to property-owners and taxpayers. This condition
of affairs, moreover, continued for a considerable period after the
Revolutionary War. One by one, however, the various states began to
abolish their restrictions and by the middle of the nineteenth century
the principle of manhood suffrage had become firmly established so far
as the white population was concerned. The struggle for the extension of
the suffrage to men who did not own property was a prolonged and bitter
contest in which the opponents of manhood suffrage vainly argued that
the extension would put all political leadership into the hands of noisy
agitators and would end in the ruin of orderly government. But manhood
suffrage ultimately triumphed because the country came to the conclusion
that the structure of democratic government could be made more secure by
broadening the base upon which it rests.
[Sidenote: The rights of the negro.]
=Negro Suffrage.=—In the Southern states prior to the Civil War colored
men were excluded from voting at all elections. But with the
emancipation of the slaves the question of guaranteeing the suffrage to
colored men had to be faced. By the terms of the Fourteenth and
Fifteenth Amendments to the national constitution no state is permitted
to withhold voting rights from any man on account of his color; if it
does so, the constitution provides that such state shall have its number
of representatives in Congress reduced. As a matter of fact, however,
there has always been a very strong sentiment among the white population
of the Southern states in opposition to political equality on the part
of the colored element, and this has prevented the enforcement of the
guarantees contained in the constitution.
[Sidenote: How negroes are excluded from voting.]
By various devices the Southern states have for the most part excluded
negroes from suffrage. One of these is the requirement that all voters
shall be able to read and write. If this provision were impartially
applied to the white and the colored population alike; if all illiterate
persons irrespective of color were excluded, this action would be
entirely justified. But the aim of the South is to eliminate the negro
as a voter whether he is illiterate or not.[34] The attitude of the
white population in the South is not difficult to understand. In the
days immediately following the Civil War the colored men were given the
ballot in all the Southern states, and the results were disastrous.
Unfit men were elected to office, public money was spent wastefully, and
government was badly conducted in all these states under the domination
of the colored voters. As a result the white population took the control
once more into its own hands and has kept it there. But this can
scarcely be regarded as a final solution of the problem. No political
problem can be solved in this country in defiance of the constitution.
Many Southerners realize this and are endeavoring to find some solution
which will be for the best interests of the negro while protecting the
white man’s political supremacy. The negro question is particularly the
Southerner’s problem; he knows the colored race as no Northerner can;
and if he cannot settle it justly and wisely, no man can.
[Sidenote: The extension of the suffrage to women.]
=The Nineteenth Amendment.=—It is now more than fifty years since women
first began to claim, in this country, the right to equal political
privileges with men. Those who supported this claim argued that women
were quite competent to assume an active share in government and that in
some branches of public administration (such as the management of
schools and the enforcement of the laws regulating child labor) women
have an even greater interest than men. Women were required to pay taxes
and it was urged that on this account they were entitled to
representation. On the other hand the extension of the suffrage to women
was opposed on the ground that it would tend to weaken the interest of
women in the home, thus impairing the strength of the family as a social
unit, and also that women would not use the ballot wisely. They would be
influenced by their sympathies and emotions rather than by their
judgment, it was predicted, and would bring an element of instability
into public policy. Another objection commonly raised was that with
twice as many voters the cost of holding elections would be doubled. But
despite these objections the movement for woman suffrage made gradual
headway in one state after another and finally, in 1920, it was made
compulsory upon the entire country by the provisions of the Nineteenth
Amendment.[35]
[Sidenote: Citizenship, age, and residence.]
=Present Qualifications for Voting.=—Each state decides who shall not
vote. Each state has entire freedom to do as it thinks best in this
matter subject only to the provisions of the national constitution,
which stipulate that the privilege of voting shall not be denied to any
citizen by reason of sex, or because of race, color, or previous
condition of servitude. There is no reason, therefore, why the
qualifications for voting should be the same in all parts of the
country, and as a matter of fact they differ a little from state to
state. At present the restrictions relate mainly to age, citizenship,
and residence, but sometimes also to literacy and taxpaying. In every
state the privilege of voting is restricted to persons who are
twenty-one years of age or over. As for the residence requirement it
varies considerably in different states, running usually from six months
to a year. It is imposed in order to make sure that those who vote in
any community shall be somewhat acquainted with its affairs. In most of
the states none but citizens are permitted to vote, but in two or three
states the privilege is extended to those aliens who have declared their
intention of becoming citizens.
=Educational Tests for Voters.=—Educational qualifications for voting,
in one form or another, exist in nearly one-third of the states.[36] In
some the requirement is that anyone who desires to be enrolled as a
voter shall be able to write his name and also to read aloud any clause
taken at random from the state constitution. Exemptions from this test
are always granted to persons who by mere reason of physical disability
are unable to read or write.
Several of the Southern states have provided additional exemptions which
result in excusing from the test all white persons who are unable to
read and write while strictly applying the requirement to all colored
applicants. [Sidenote: How educational tests are applied.] Various
methods are employed to this end. In one case the provision is that no
one may be registered as a voter unless he can read any clause in the
state constitution or “give a reasonable interpretation thereof”. The
white officials in charge of the registration then decide, in their own
discretion, whether the interpretation is reasonable or not. In some
other states the attempt has been made by what is commonly known as the
“grandfather clause” to excuse from the literacy test all persons who
had the right to vote before 1867, and all descendants of such persons.
As there were no colored voters in any of the Southern states prior to
this date the “grandfather clause” virtually establishes a racial
discrimination which the Supreme Court, a few years ago, declared to be
unconstitutional.
=Is an Educational Test Desirable?=—In the majority of the states men
and women are permitted to vote even though unable to read or write. The
question is often asked whether this practice is wise. Would it be
better to insist on an elementary educational qualification everywhere,
or is it desirable that in a democracy no distinction be made between
those who can read and those who cannot?
[Sidenote: The arguments for and against educational tests.]
On the one hand it is argued that men and women who have never had the
advantages of a grammar school education may nevertheless be good,
patriotic citizens, and indeed may be better informed upon questions of
government and politics than some who have had far greater educational
advantages. People are not required to read and write before they are
permitted to own property or compelled to pay taxes. Men who could
neither read nor write were drafted to serve in the army during the war.
If, then, we compel illiterate persons to perform the duties of
citizenship, ought we not to grant its privileges to them as well? But
there is something to be said on the other side of this question. Bear
in mind that we provide free public elementary education for everyone in
the United States. The privilege of learning to read and write is not
the privilege of a single class; it is within the reach of everyone. We
no longer allow aliens to enter the United States unless they can read
and write, nor can any illiterate person become naturalized. Under these
circumstances is it unreasonable to require an elementary educational
test for voting? It may be true that persons who are unable to read are
able to mark a certain type of ballot without spoiling it, but they can
hardly hope to exercise an intelligent choice as among individual
candidates on the ballot; they are unable to use any ballot which does
not arrange the names of candidates in straight party columns and they
cannot vote upon referendum questions except by mere guess-work. If we
are regularly going to submit questions to the voters at the polls for
their decision, should not the voting lists be confined to those who are
at least able to read the questions?
=Tax-Paying Qualifications for Voting.=—In a few states the male
suffrage is restricted to persons who have been assessed for a poll tax.
Massachusetts has such a provision and enforces it strictly. Some
Southern states also impose this qualification, partly, no doubt,
because it is effective in debarring large numbers of colored men who
are remiss in paying their annual poll taxes. There is a difference, of
course, between a taxpaying qualification and a property qualification.
Many people pay taxes, income and poll taxes, for example, without
owning any property. Nowhere in the United States is the ownership of
property a requirement for voting at national elections.
[Sidenote: The requirements vary from state to state.]
These, then, are the general and special qualifications. It will be
observed that since each state prescribes its own requirements, no two
of them establish the same qualifications, or, if they do, it is merely
by accident. It is not strictly true that every adult citizen of the
United States has the privilege of voting; but it is approximately true.
Those who are excluded by the residence, educational, or tax paying
qualifications (apart from colored citizens in the Southern states) form
a relatively small fraction of the total adult citizenship, probably
less than ten per cent.[37]
[Sidenote: The registrars of voters.]
=How Voters are Registered.=—In order to obtain a ballot on election day
it is necessary that one’s name shall be on the voters’ list. This list
is prepared by officials designated for this purpose in every community
or district. These officials are commonly known as registrars of voters.
Whoever desires to be enrolled must appear before these registrars and
usually must make a sworn statement as to age, citizenship, residence,
and other qualifications. If there is an educational test, it is applied
by the registrars. The printed lists of enrolled voters are then posted
for public inspection.[38] In some states a new voters’ list is compiled
every year, and it thus becomes necessary for everyone to register
annually. In others it is the practice to keep a voter’s name on the
list so long as he continues to pay poll taxes.[39] But in any case the
only way a voter can be sure of having his name on the list at every
election is to give this matter his personal attention. In the eyes of
the law voting is a privilege, not a right, and the voter is responsible
for seeing that he obtains his privilege.
NOMINATIONS
[Sidenote: The chief purpose of nominations.]
=Why Nominations are Essential.=—The choice of elective public officials
usually involves two steps—the nomination and the election. Nominations
may be made, and they are sometimes made, by a caucus or by a convention
of delegates. More often, however, they are made by the voters at a
preliminary election or primary. But the question may fairly be asked:
Why have nominations at all? Why not give the voters blank ballots and
let them write in whatever names they please? Apart from the fact that
many voters (in states which impose no educational test) would not be
able to write, there is the objection that so many different persons
would be voted for that no one would have anything like a majority. In
order to ensure that those who are elected will represent the choice of
a substantial body of the voters and if possible an actual majority, it
is desirable that there be some way of eliminating all but the stronger
candidates. That is why we provide for formal nominations.
=History of Nominating Methods.=—During the past hundred years or more
we have tried a variety of nominating methods. First came the caucus,
sometimes a gathering of legislators and sometimes of voters, brought
together to select a candidate. [Sidenote: The convention method.] The
caucus gave place, in time, to the _convention_, which is a body of
delegates chosen by the voters of each locality. To this day the
convention remains the mechanism by which nominations are in some cases
made. But the convention method, for a variety of reasons, did not prove
satisfactory and it has been replaced, throughout the greater portion of
the United States, by the system of nomination at a primary election.
[Sidenote: Different forms of primary.]
=The Primary.=—The primary, in our electoral system corresponds to the
“qualifying trials” in athletic contests. Its purpose is to see that the
race is confined to the swift. It eliminates those who have no chance to
win. Those who desire to be candidates for any public office present
their names on nomination papers, each of which must bear the signatures
of so many qualified voters—say twenty-five or fifty. The names of the
candidates are placed on a ballot, and a primary election is held some
time before the regular election. But the details of primary elections
differ somewhat from state to state. An _open primary_ is one at which
voters are not restricted to the ballot or column of their own party,
but may exercise entire freedom of choice among all the names on the
primary ballot. In some states there are party primaries or _closed
primaries_. This means that none may vote at the primary except those
who are members of a political party.[40] Each party may hold its
primary on a different date, in which case it is called a _separate
primary_; or both parties may hold their primaries together, in which
case we call it a _joint primary_. At a joint primary there may be a
separate ballot for the voters of each party or there may be a single
ballot which contains the names of different party candidates in
parallel columns. In some cities and towns another form, the
_non-partisan primary_, is provided, in which case the ballot bears no
party designations at all. The procedure at a primary election is like
that of a regular election, with printed ballots, ballot boxes, and
regular officials in charge of the polls.
[Sidenote: Advantages of the primary.]
=Merits and Defects of the Primary.=—As a method of making nominations
the primary, whether closed, open, or non-partisan, has both merits and
defects. It is better than the convention in that it places nominations
directly in the hands of the voters, thus making it more difficult for
party bosses to dictate who the candidates shall be. Conventions
consisting of a relatively small number of delegates, many of them
officeholders, can be manipulated by wire-pulling politicians.
Nominations made by conventions have frequently been, for that reason,
very unsatisfactory to the rank and file of the voters. The primary
gives an opportunity to the man or woman who is popular with the voters
although not popular with the politicians. It tends to break down some
of the worst abuses of the party system.
[Sidenote: Objections to it.]
On the other hand there are some practical objections to the primary as
a method of making nominations and a vigorous fight is now being waged
to abolish it. A primary means an additional election with all the
attendant campaigning and expense. The total vote cast at a primary is
often small; hence the candidate who gains the nomination may or may not
be the real choice of his party.[41] The primary puts a burden upon
those who seek to gain elective public office, for they must virtually
fight and win two successive battles at the polls. To do this takes so
much time that men and women who have business of their own to attend to
are often deterred from becoming candidates. The field of political
activity thus tends to become monopolized by professional politicians
who have nothing else to do. The primary contests are so bitter at times
that they create dissensions in the party ranks and weaken the party at
the ensuing election. The use of the primary has not enabled us to get
rid of political bosses; it has merely made them work a great deal
harder to retain control.
[Sidenote: A new development.]
In some states the political parties have adopted the practice of
holding an “informal” convention some few weeks before the date of the
primary. This convention, which is composed of unofficial delegates,
makes recommendations as to the candidates who ought to be voted for by
members of the party at the primary. Members of the party are free, of
course, to do as they please at the primary, but the recommendations
made by an “informal” convention, in view of the fact that they are
largely the work of acknowledged party leaders, carry a good deal of
weight.
[Sidenote: This means a further complication.]
One result of the primary system has been, therefore, to complicate our
electoral machinery. If the practice of holding informal conventions
becomes general, there will be four steps which a party will have to
take in order to put its candidates in office, first the informal
convention, then the primary, then the official convention which drafts
the platform, and finally the election. Surely it should be possible to
elect our public officials under some less complicated arrangement than
this.[42]
ELECTIONS
[Sidenote: The election day.]
=How an Election is Held.=—The date on which an election is held is
fixed by law. National elections always take place on the Tuesday
following the first Monday in November.[43] State elections are usually,
although not always, held on the same date. Local elections take place
on such dates as the state laws or city charters provide. It is usually
thought best that local elections shall not be held on the same day as
the state or national elections because of a desire to keep national and
state politics out of local affairs. When national, state, and local
elections are held on the same day the tendency is for the voters to
focus their whole attention on national and state issues, giving very
little attention to the problems of their own communities. The names of
candidates for the local offices are away down near the bottom of the
ballot where they appear relatively unimportant. Separate elections
involve additional expense, however, and increase the number of times a
voter has to come to the polls.[44]
[Sidenote: Polling places and poll officers.]
The voting is done at polling places, one or more of which are located
in each precinct. The precinct is a small division of the county, town,
or city; as a rule it does not contain more than four or five hundred
voters. The polling place is in charge of officials, commonly known as
poll-wardens or inspectors, who are appointed by the state or local
authorities. They are assisted by clerks. The duty of these various
officials is to open the poll, give ballots to persons who are
registered and to no others, count the votes after the poll is closed,
and report the results to the authorities who are in charge of the
elections. They are responsible for the lawful and honest conduct of the
polling. Each party is also allowed to have one or more “watchers” at
the polling place and these watchers have the right to challenge any
person whom they believe to be an impostor. When anyone is challenged he
may take oath that he is entitled to vote, in which case he will be
given a ballot; but such ballots are counted separately. When a voter
receives a ballot, his name is checked off the voters’ list. Various
stalls or booths are provided, into one of which the voter then goes and
marks his ballot privately. Having finished marking it he folds the
ballot and hands it to one of the polling officials who, in the presence
of the voter, deposits it in the ballot box. Polls are kept open during
designated hours, usually from six or seven o’clock in the morning until
five or six o’clock in the afternoon.
[Sidenote: History of balloting.]
=The Ballot.=—The history of the ballot in the United States is
interesting. [Sidenote: 1. Oral voting.] Originally all votes were given
orally. The voter came to the polling place, stated his choice aloud and
the poll officials wrote it down. The objection to this plan was that it
precluded secrecy and left the voters open to intimidation. Then paper
ballots came into use, each party providing ballots for its own members.
[Sidenote: 2. The party ballot.] Outside the polling place, at each
election, stood a group of party workers each armed with a handful of
ballots, which were distributed to the voters as they came. This method
also was objectionable. [Sidenote: Objections to the party ballot.] It
encouraged the voting of a “straight party ticket”, in other words it
took for granted that everyone wished to vote for the entire slate of
party candidates without exception. If the voter desired to do
otherwise, it was necessary for him to scratch out the unacceptable
names and write others in. Most voters would not go to this trouble.
This method of balloting was not secret, because a voter could be
watched from the time he received his ballot outside the polling place
until he deposited it in the box. This was an encouragement to bribery
and intimidation. It also facilitated fraud at elections since there was
no limit upon the number of ballots printed by the parties and it was
not difficult for dishonest voters or corrupt officials to slip extra
ballots into the box. This abuse, known as “stuffing” the ballot box
could only be prevented by having all the ballots officially printed.
When a definite number of official ballots is given to each polling
place every ballot must be accounted for.
[Sidenote: 3. The Australian ballot.]
In nearly all the states, therefore, an official ballot is now used.
This is commonly known as the Australian ballot. Usually the names of
all the candidates are printed in parallel columns, each party having a
column of its own, with the name and insignia of the party at the top.
Immediately below the insignia is a circle in which the voter, by
marking a cross, may record his vote for every one of the candidates in
the entire column. The voter who does this is said to vote a “straight
ticket”. But if he desires to vote for some of the candidates in the
column of one party and for some in the column of another party, he
leaves the circle unmarked and places a cross after such individual
names as he may choose. This is called voting a “split ticket”. In some
states there are no party columns; the names of the candidates are
printed on the ballot in alphabetical order, each name followed by a
party designation. In a few large cities, such as Boston and Cleveland,
the party designation is omitted. Here the voter must pick and choose
individually. The party-column arrangement encourages the voting of
straight tickets; the alphabetical plan does not.[45]
[Sidenote: Evils of the long ballot.]
=The Short Ballot.=—Throughout the United States the number of elective
offices steadily increased during the nineteenth century. The result was
that ballots gradually became longer until in some cases the voters
found themselves confronted with sheets of paper containing a hundred
names or even more. It proved exceedingly difficult to use proper
discrimination among so many names and hence there arose an agitation
for simplifying the ballot by reducing the number of positions to be
filled by election. In a democratic government all officials who have
authority to decide questions of general policy—the President, senators,
representatives, governors, assemblymen, mayors, councilors, and the
like—ought to be chosen by popular vote. But there are many other
officials, such as state auditors, county clerks, and superintendents of
schools, whose duties are chiefly administrative. These officials carry
out a policy which is laid down for them by law, and it is contended
that they should not be elected but appointed. If all such officials
were made appointive, the size of the ballot would be considerably
reduced, and the voters could concentrate their attention upon a smaller
number of names.
A ballot is not an effective instrument of popular government unless it
is simple enough for the average voter to use intelligently. When a
ballot is so long, so complicated, and so unwieldy that the voter is
tempted by sheer exhaustion into voting a straight party ticket, then
the party leaders, and not the people, are really choosing the officers
of government. The movement for a “short ballot” aims to make government
more truly democratic, not less so.
[Sidenote: Defects of the ordinary ballot.]
=The Preferential Ballot.=—Another defect of the ordinary ballot is that
it allows the voter to indicate only a single choice for each office. If
there are five candidates for the office of mayor, let us say, the voter
may mark his ballot for one of them only. He is not permitted to
indicate who would be his second choice, or his third choice among the
five. Whichever candidate gets the largest number of first choices among
the voters is the winner, although he may be the choice of a small
minority. To prevent this likelihood of election by a minority when
there are several candidates in the field for a single office a system
of “preferential voting” is sometimes used.
[Sidenote: How the preferential system works.]
Where the preferential ballot is in use, as it is in several American
cities, the voters are asked to indicate, in columns provided for this
purpose, not only their first but their second and third choices and
even their further choices among the various candidates. The names of
those candidates whom the voter does not want to support are left
unmarked. When preferential ballots are counted, any candidate who has a
clear majority of first choices is declared elected. But if no candidate
obtains a majority of first choices, the second choices are added to the
first choices and if the two totals combined give what would be a
majority of first-choice votes, the candidate who received them is
declared elected. In like manner the third choices are resorted to if
necessary.[46] The candidate elected by the preferential system is
practically always the choice of a majority among the voters, not the
first choice of a majority always, but one whom a majority have
indicated their willingness to support. The chief practical objection to
the preferential ballot is that many voters do not take the trouble to
mark their second and third choices.
[Sidenote: The problem of minority representation.]
=Proportional Representation.=[47]—Preferential voting should be
distinguished from proportional representation, which is a plan of
choosing legislative bodies in such a way that all considerable groups
of voters will be represented in proportion to their own numbers.
Whenever several representatives are elected on the same ballot it
usually happens that one political party secures them all. So many
voters adhere to the “straight ticket” that the entire party slate wins.
The minority party, even though it may comprise nearly half the voters,
in such cases obtains no representation at all. This, of course, does
not give us a true system of representative government; hence various
plans have been put forward for securing to “each considerable party or
group of opinion” a representation corresponding to its numerical
strength among the voters. The best known among these is the Hare Plan,
which has been used in several foreign countries and, during recent
years, in a few American cities.[48]
[Sidenote: The Hare plan explained.]
This system of proportional representation is somewhat complicated but
may be concisely described as follows: First, the names of all
candidates are printed alphabetically on the ballot and the voter
indicates his choices by marking the figure 1 after the name of his
first choice, the figure 2 after the name of his second choice, and so
on. Then, when the polls are closed, the election officers compute the
number of votes needed to elect a candidate and this is called “the
quota”. This they do by dividing into the total number of votes cast the
number of places to be filled, plus one, and then adding one to the
quotient. For example, let us suppose that 10,000 votes have been cast
and that there are seven candidates to be elected. Ten thousand divided
by eight (seven plus one) is 1250 and any candidate who receives 1251
first-choice votes is declared elected. If such candidate, however, has
more votes than enough to fill his quota, the surplus votes are
distributed in accordance with the indicated second-choices among
candidates whose quotas have not been filled. If enough candidates are
not elected by this process, the candidate with the smallest number of
first choices is then dropped and his votes are distributed in the same
way. This process of elimination and distribution goes on until enough
candidates have filled their quotas or until the successive eliminations
have left no more than enough to fill the vacant positions. This plan is
not a model of simplicity, of course, but it is not so difficult to
understand as one might at first glance imagine, nor in its actual
workings does it present any serious complications. What the voter has
to do is simple enough. In so far as there are any difficulties they
arise in connection with counting the ballots, not in marking them. The
plan is workable and the attainment of proportional representation in
all our legislative bodies would be a great gain.
[Sidenote: Majorities and pluralities.]
=Counting the Votes.=—When the polls are closed the ballots are counted
by the officials of the polling place in accordance with whatever plan
is used. With ordinary ballots the counting does not take very long; if
preferential ballots are used, or if a system of proportional
representation is in vogue, the counting takes a good deal longer. When
a candidate receives more than one-half of all the polled votes, he is
declared to have a _majority_; when he merely obtains more votes than
the next highest candidate he is said to have a _plurality_. In the
United States, at nearly all elections, a plurality is sufficient. When
the counting is finished the result is certified to the proper higher
officials. A recount can usually be had at the demand of any candidate,
and recounts often take place when the result is close.
[Sidenote: Types of corruption.]
=Corrupt Practices at Elections.=—All elections afford some opportunity
for corrupt practices and various safeguards are provided against their
occurrence. _Personation_ is the offence of voting under a name which is
not your own. Voters who have died since the lists were compiled, or who
are absent, are sometimes impersonated by men who have no right to vote
at all. Vigilance on the part of the election officers helps to prevent
personation although the officials can hardly be expected to know
everyone who comes to the polls. _Repeating_ is the offence of voting
twice at the same election. To do this a voter must first, by fraudulent
means, become enrolled as a voter in two or more precincts or districts.
_Ballot-box stuffing_ is the practice of putting in the box ballots
which have no right to be there. With the Australian ballot the practice
is very infrequent. _Ballot-switching_ is the placing of marks on the
ballots, surreptitiously, while the ballots are being counted. A
dishonest official, with a small piece of lead under his fingernail, has
sometimes been able to spoil or to “switch” ballots by marking
additional crosses on them during the process of counting.
_Intimidation_ is the offence of influencing a voter’s action by threats
or wrongful pressure. _Bribery_, of course, is self-explanatory. All
these practices involve moral turpitude and are forbidden under severe
penalties. They have now become relatively uncommon at American
elections.[49]
=Absent Voting.=—It frequently happens, in the nature of things, that
many voters cannot conveniently be in their home districts on election
day. Soldiers and sailors, commercial travelers, railway conductors,
engineers and trainmen, fishermen, students in universities are obvious
examples. It has been estimated that in Massachusetts the number of
voters who are necessarily absent from their homes on election day
averages about thirty thousand. Many others, in order to cast their
ballots, are put to considerable expense and inconvenience. Now it has
seemed desirable, in many of the states, to make some provision whereby
those voters may cast their ballots without being actually at the polls
on election day. The usual arrangement is that a voter who expects to be
absent on election day must apply, some time before the election date,
to a designated official for a ballot. This ballot is then marked by the
voter and sealed in an envelope. The envelope is attested before a
notary public and deposited with an election official who sees that it
is counted when other ballots are counted. In some states the blank
ballot is sent by mail to absent voters who request it, and after being
marked the ballot is returned by mail before the election day. The chief
objection to absent voting is that it gives an opportunity for fraud,
but in practice this has not proved to be a serious objection.
=Compulsory Voting.=—Compulsory voting does not exist anywhere in the
United States at the present time although it has been frequently
proposed. Voting has been made compulsory, however, with legal penalties
for failure to vote, in several foreign countries, notably in Belgium,
in Spain, and in New Zealand. The usual procedure is to impose a fine
upon every voter who, without good excuse, stays away from the polls on
election day, or, for repeated absences, to strike his name off the
voters’ list altogether.
[Sidenote: The arguments for compulsory voting.]
Compulsory voting rests upon the argument that, in a democracy, the
right to vote imposes a duty to vote. The citizen must serve on a jury
in time of peace and in the army during war whether he likes these forms
of public service or not. Why, then, should he be allowed to shirk his
duty to vote, a duty which must be performed if democratic government is
to survive? If one voter has the right to stay away from the polls,
every other voter has the same right. And if all followed this policy,
we could not maintain a “representative” form of government. But there
is another side to the question. The voter who goes to the polls because
he will be fined if he stays away will not cast his ballot with much
discrimination, intelligence, or patriotism. [Sidenote: Are they valid?]
Would the votes of such men be worth counting? Would they contribute
anything to the cause of good government? Moreover, it has been
demonstrated by foreign experience that while you can compel a voter to
go to the polls and drop a ballot in the box you cannot compel him to
mark his ballot properly, for he marks it in secret. In one of the Swiss
cities some years ago it was found that the chief result of compulsory
voting was to induce many hundreds of reluctant voters to drop blank
ballots in the box. It can well be argued that voting is a duty, but it
is a duty which ought to be performed from motives of patriotism and not
from dread of the penalties. Most citizens do not require compulsion and
it is questionable whether forcing others to vote would, in the long
run, serve any useful purpose.
[Sidenote: The merits and defects of voting machines.]
=Voting by Machine.=—In some cities of the United States the experiment
of permitting the voter to record his choice by means of a voting
machine has been tried with varying degrees of success. A voting machine
is constructed upon much the same principles as a cash register. The
keys bear the names of the various candidates and the voter merely steps
behind a curtain where he presses one key after another just as he would
mark crosses on a printed ballot. The mechanism is so arranged that a
voter cannot press two keys which register for the same office. The
voting machine plan has some distinct advantages in that it does away
entirely with the trouble and expense of printing ballots; it eliminates
spoiled ballots, it precludes all chance of tampering with the votes,
and it ensures an accurate count. On the other hand the machines are
expensive both to install and to maintain, particularly when several
machines are needed for each polling place. Moreover, like all other
complicated mechanisms, they get out of order, and when they do this on
election day it makes a bad mess of things. It is doubtful whether they
will ever supplant the printed ballot plan of voting.
=Summary.=—In order that any systems of popular voting shall be
permanently successful it is necessary that the ballot shall be simple,
intelligible, and secret. It must not be so long as to bewilder the
voter of average intelligence, and it ought to give the voter a
reasonable chance to “split” his ballot without running a serious risk
of spoiling it. A short ballot is a far more effective instrument of
democracy than a long ballot. Another essential is that the polling
place shall be adequately safeguarded against fraudulent practices of
any sort and that the counting of votes shall be conducted with absolute
honesty. Any corrupt practice in connection with elections is a blow at
the very heart of democracy. We hear a good deal, from time to time,
about unfairness, fraud, and corruption at elections in the United
States, particularly at elections in the larger cities. While these
things occur now and then they are much less frequent than they used to
be. American elections, taking them as a whole, are conducted with as
much fairness and honesty as the elections which are held in any other
country. Rival parties and candidates try hard to win; they seize every
opportunity to gain political advantages over their opponents, and in so
doing often travel very close to the line which separates right from
wrong; but on the whole they try to keep within the letter of the
election laws. Transgressions of the law may bring some temporary
success but in the long run they do not pay, and the politicians know
it.
General References
F. A. CLEVELAND, _Organized Democracy_, pp. 130-191;
P. O. RAY, _Political Parties and Practical Politics_, pp. 109-164;
298-321;
W. B. MUNRO, _The Government of American Cities_, pp. 102-152;
C. L. JONES, _Readings on Parties and Elections_, pp. 212-250;
A. N. HOLCOMBE, _State Government in the United States_, pp. 143-164;
K. H. PORTER, _A History of Suffrage in the United States_, pp. 20-46
and _passim_;
W. W. WILLOUGHBY and LINDSAY ROGERS, _Introduction to the Problem of
Government_, pp. 107-126 (Popular Government).
Group Problems
1. =The direct primary: is it a success?= Earlier methods of nomination.
Evils of the caucus and convention. Why the direct primary was
established. The different types of primary. Effect of the primary on
the party system. Has it curbed the power of the bosses? Cost of the
primary system. Percentage of votes polled at primaries. Has the primary
secured better candidates? Can it be improved? Probable effects of the
pre-primary informal convention. If not the primary, what then?
=References=: C. E. MERRIAM, _Primary Elections_, pp. 117-132; 133-176;
F. W. DALLINGER, _Nominations for Elective Office in the United States_,
pp. 95-126; R. S. BOOTS, _The Direct Primary in New Jersey_, _passim_;
F. A. CLEVELAND, _Organized Democracy_, pp. 228-242; A. N. HOLCOMBE,
_State Government in the United States_, pp. 182-204; C. G. HAINES and
BERTHA HAINES, _Principles and Problems of Government_, pp. 137-150; C.
L. JONES, _Readings on Parties and Elections_, pp. 53-79; P. O. RAY,
_Political Parties and Practical Politics_, pp. 140-164; A. B. HALL,
_Popular Government_, pp. 45-97.
2. =How can the ballot be improved?= =References=: E. C. EVANS, _History
of the Australian Ballot in the United States_, pp. 17-47; R. S. CHILDS,
_Short Ballot Principles_, _passim_; F. A. CLEVELAND, _Organized
Democracy_, pp. 262-272; C. A. BEARD, _American Government and
Politics_, pp. 474-487; P. S. REINSCH, _Readings on American Federal
Government_, pp. 364-383; C. G. HAINES and BERTHA HAINES, _Principles
and Problems of Government_, pp. 151-166; A. B. HALL, _Popular
Government_, pp. 242-269; _Cyclopedia of American Government_, Vol. I,
pp. 100-104.
3. =Proportional representation in theory and in practice.=
=References=: J. R. COMMONS, _Proportional Representation_, pp. 99-131;
W. W. WILLOUGHBY and LINDSAY ROGERS, _Introduction to the Problem of
Government_, pp. 263-275 (also Appendix iii); Massachusetts
Constitutional Convention, 1917-1918, _Bulletins_, No. 28 (Proportional
Representation); American Proportional Representation League,
_Pamphlets_, especially Nos. 6 and 8. (The headquarters of the League
are at Haverford, Pa., and material relating to proportional
representation can be had on application.)
Short Studies
1. =The gradual extension of the suffrage in the United States.= F. A.
CLEVELAND, _Organized Democracy_, pp. 130-150.
2. =Who have the right to vote in European countries?= F. A. OGG, _The
Governments of Europe_ (see index).
3. =Qualifications for voting in the different states.= _World Almanac_,
1918.
4. =How American elections are conducted.= A. N. HOLCOMBE, _State
Government in the United States_, pp. 205-239.
5. =How voters are enrolled.= F. A. CLEVELAND, _Organized Democracy_,
pp. 220-227.
6. =The preferential ballot.= Massachusetts Constitutional Convention,
1917-1918, _Bulletins_, No. 27 (Preferential Voting). (See also
_National Municipal Review_, Vol. I, pp. 386-400, July, 1912.)
7. =The short ballot.= R. S. CHILDS, _Short Ballot Principles_,
especially pp. 21-30; P. S. REINSCH, _Readings on American State
Government_, pp. 372-383.
8. =Compulsory voting.= Massachusetts Constitutional Convention,
1917-1918, _Bulletins_, No. 24 (Compulsory Voting).
9. =Corrupt practices at elections.= C. L. JONES, _Readings on Parties
and Elections_, pp. 202-302.
10. Are elections =as fairly conducted in the United States as in other
countries=? CHARLES SEYMOUR and DONALD O. FRARY, _How the World Votes_
(see index).
Questions
1. Is the right to vote a _natural right_ or merely a _privilege_
conferred by the state?
2. Who have the right to vote at elections in your state? Who are
excluded? In order to vote, how long must one reside in your state? Your
county? Your precinct?
3. Who enrolls voters in your community? When and where do they enroll
voters? What evidence must you supply in order to be enrolled?
4. Make a diagram of a polling place showing its interior arrangement,
the booths in which voters mark their ballots, the location of the
ballot box, etc.
5. What are the different forms of primary and which form do you think
is the best (_a_) for state nominations; (_b_) for local nominations?
6. What effects would the use of the short ballot have upon (_a_) the
efficiency of government; (_b_) popular interest at elections; (_c_) the
quality of the officials chosen?
7. Explain the difference between _preferential voting_, _proportional
representation_, _limited voting_, and _cumulative voting_.
8. Explain the difference between _corrupt_ and _illegal_ practices at
elections. Make a list of each.
9. What are some of the reasons why so many voters stay away from the
polls on election day? Are the following excuses valid: “I do not
approve of either political party”; “My vote doesn’t count for
anything”; “I am too busy”; “I am not interested in politics”; “It is a
rainy day and I might catch cold”; “I have an engagement to play golf”;
“The polling place is too far away”; “I do not think any of the
candidates worth voting for”?
10. What are some of the practical objections to making voting
compulsory?
Topics for Debate
1. There should be an educational test for voting.
2. The failure to vote, in the absence of a valid excuse, should be
punished by some appropriate penalty.
3. There should be a limit on the amount of money that may be legally
spent by candidates in election campaigns.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GOOD ADMINISTRATION
By Elihu Vedder
From a mural decoration in the Library of Congress.
Good Administration, with benign countenance, sits
upon her throne, a perfect arch above her head.
As the strength of an arch depends upon all its
parts equally, so the maintenance of a strong
and efficient administration depends upon the
co-operation of all elements among the people. In
her right hand Good Administration holds evenly the
scales of justice; her left hand rests upon a
quartered shield to indicate the fair balance of all
parties and classes. On her lap is the book of the
law. At her feet, on either side, is an urn. Into
one of these urns a maiden is winnowing wheat drawn
from the waving fields in the background. The people
also, in choosing their public officials, should
winnow well. Into the other urn an eager youth, with
books of knowledge under his left arm, is casting
his ballot.
Mr. Vedder has also executed for the Library of
Congress a companion figure portraying Corrupt
Administration. She holds the scales, unevenly
balanced, in her left hand. A seeker of special
favors is placing a bag of gold in the scales; he
has seized the book of the law and upset the ballot
urn.
[Illustration:
GOOD ADMINISTRATION. By Elihu Vedder
_From a Copley Print, copyright by Curtis & Cameron, Boston.
Reproduced by permission._
]
------------------------------------------------------------------------