THE PRIMARIES
Upon the first appearance of the professional adviser and director to
the politically ignorant voter he became a power in the presentation
of candidates for election. It was indeed an essential part of his
business in advising the voter how to vote that he should furnish
him with a candidate for whom the adviser and director could vouch.
At first the adviser and director of the politically ignorant voter
named only candidates in the smallest governmental districts. But as
the power and influence of the vote-directing organization spread to
larger and more important governmental areas its leaders continued to
control the nomination of candidates for office. At first the friends
of the electorate sought to meet the formidable advantage which the
vote-directing organization possessed by reason of its power to
control party nominations by laws which permitted the nomination of
independent candidates by petition. Of course, if the law provided
that no candidate should appear on more than one ticket, independent
nominations were likely to be very much discouraged. But even when the
election laws were most liberal in permitting independent nominations,
the vote-directing organizations were still able to hold the field
against all but the most violent and revolutionary independent
movements. In short, unpopular government by politocrats was still
reasonably safe.
There were two reasons for this. In the first place, the vote-directing
organization exists and prevails because the voter is ignorant with
respect to the personality and qualifications of candidates for
office. He must be advised and directed how to vote. The independent
movement simply matches the strength of a temporary and sporadic
effort to advise and direct the unorganized and inflamed but still
ignorant voter how to vote, against a permanent and well-organized
vote-directing machine. In the long run the latter will prevail.
Secondly, the permanent organization for directing and advising the
politically ignorant voter has always secured possession of a revered
party name. This has heretofore given it an overwhelming advantage. It
makes every independent an apostate of some party. So great has been
the good-will of the two principal national parties in the last fifty
years that independent movements have been confined largely to local
elections, and even then it is difficult to obtain candidates because
of the fear of party irregularity. Of these two reasons clearly the
former is the more important. The two principal national parties of the
last half-century might cease, but if the voter remained politically
ignorant as before, extra-legal government would still go on. On the
other hand, if the voter could be made politically intelligent at all
elections and in filling all offices from the candidates presented,
then extra-legal government would have to go and party names would not
militate seriously against independent movements.
Nevertheless, when the friends of the electorate came to appreciate
the failure of independent movements to make headway against the
extra-legal government they did not plan to attack the fundamental
difficulty of enlightening the voter’s political ignorance. Instead,
they did as they had done before and sought a cure by attempting
to eliminate the superficial and obvious cause. Mr. La Follette in
Wisconsin thought that he could have no political success unless he
continued to be a member of the Republican party. As matters stood,
however, he could not obtain the nomination from that party because
it was controlled by men who did not want him in office. Yet Mr. La
Follette was more popular with the electorate who usually voted the
Republican ticket than were the gentlemen who controlled the use of
the party name. The obvious move for Mr. La Follette was to take the
control of the party name from those who held it. This he did by
means of legislation which permitted any candidate who could secure a
plurality of votes of the Republican party voters at a primary election
to use the Republican party name in the election for the office.
This was merely a legal and orderly way of depriving an extra-legal
government of the advantage of using a revered and popular party name.
That is the proper function of a primary election law.
The availability of the primaries might, of course, have been limited
to situations such as Mr. La Follette created in the Republican party
in Wisconsin--namely, when an independent in the party wished to
wrest the control of the party name from an extra-legal government
which had lost the confidence of the party electorate. If so limited
its use would practically have been confined to the occasions when
a well-organized revolt was in progress against the wing of a party
in control of the party name. Such occasions would be infrequent
because such revolts are infrequent. Extra-legal government having
become established and having obtained control of the party name,
the tendency would be to let the matter alone. Small uprisings in
regard to nominations for some particular office might occur, but a
well-organized, persistent, and ably led revolt such as Mr. La Follette
has conducted in Wisconsin is the event of a generation. Illinois, and
no doubt many other states, are just as much in need of the leadership
of a man like Mr. La Follette as Wisconsin. But no such leader appears.
None seems likely to appear. Our state lines have very effectively
excluded Mr. La Follette’s efforts from every state in the Union except
his own. The use of the primary as a means of permanently and wholly
depriving an extra-legal government of its power to control the use of
a party name must be regarded as unusual and extraordinary and not at
all likely to occur.
The use of primaries, however, has not been limited to occasions
when an organized attempt has been made to deprive the minority of
a party of the use of the party name. Instead, primaries have been
made compulsory and applied to the nomination of practically all
elective officers. They must be gone through with, although there is no
organized revolt against the usual nominating authority. This extreme
application of the primaries has been justified on the ground that
the holding of primaries would operate automatically and regularly
on all occasions to rid the electorate of control of the extra-legal
government. Again, we have had a popular application of the theory that
the cure for the ills of democracy is more democracy. If the number of
appeals to the electorate which we had before the primaries did not do
any good, we must have double the number of appeals. The futility of
this course will be observed no more clearly than in the operation of
the universal and compulsory primary.
Under the usual circumstances of normal conditions, when no organized
revolt is being led against it, the extra-legal government will as
effectively control the results at primaries as it does results at
elections themselves. The permanent organization of advisers and
directors to the politically ignorant voter will, of course, have a
slate of candidates for nomination, just as it provided a slate of
nominees under the convention system. There may be some independent
candidates for nominations. Most frequently, however, these are obscure
individuals who try for a nomination on the theory that they are no
more unknown than the slate candidates. The voter’s burden has been
doubled. Consequently his political ignorance, both at the primary
election for candidates and at the election itself, is probably greater
than it was at the election for office alone. At all events, the
voter comes to the primaries (if he comes at all) just as ignorant
of the personality and qualifications of candidates for nomination
as he formerly did of the candidates for office. His ignorance may
be so apparent that he does not vote at all. Perhaps he votes only
for a few names that he happens to recognize. In either case his vote
is negligible. The effective voter at the primaries is the one who
votes for candidates for all places. He must, however, as a result
of his dense political ignorance, vote the way he is told. As usual
the most effective force for telling him how to vote is the permanent
organization of advisers and directors to the politically ignorant
voter. It is that organization which will most often carry the primary
election which nominates candidates for most of the offices. In short,
the extra-legal government will influence and control the results
of the ordinary primary just as it has influenced and controlled the
results of ordinary elections. It is only in the language of the stump
that the primaries enable the people to nominate. While an extra-legal
government exists the people can no more nominate at primaries than
they can choose at elections. Such precisely has been the experience
in Cook County, Illinois. There, from the time the primaries first
went into effect, the leaders of the two principal vote-directing
organizations have made slates more or less secretly, secured the most
favorable position for the slate on the primary ballot, pushed the
slate at the primaries, and obtained the nomination in practically
every case of the slate candidates. In primary elections we have an
appeal to voters on matters apparently less important and conspicuous
than the filling of the offices themselves. If the vote-directing
organization can in the long run control elections to a majority of the
offices, it can certainly in the long run control the nominations for
those offices at the primary election.
We must not overlook one great advantage to the extra-legal government
in making nominations at primaries instead of at conventions. In the
convention the leaders of the extra-legal government were so openly
and publicly the makers of nominations that they were in a degree
responsible. They had to consider very carefully the popular temper
in giving each candidate a place on the ballot. Under the primaries,
however, the result is, in the language of the stump, “the judgment
of the people.” If, therefore, any black sheep slip into nominations
for obscure places it is the fault of the people, just as it used to
be the fault of the people when bad men were elected to office. The
popular demand, however, for primaries is a confession that elections
did not produce the choice of the people. Before long, experience with
universal and compulsory primaries to make nominations for long ballots
will indicate that they do not produce nominations by the people.
Not only is the compulsory primary for all elective offices entirely
ineffective to break up the power of the extra-legal government to
direct the nomination of its loyal adherents, but in the long run
its presence exaggerates the very condition which necessarily causes
the existence of a centralized extra-legal government controlling
a decentralized legal government. That condition is the burden of
political duties cast upon the voter which he will not and very likely
cannot possibly carry. It is that which makes him politically ignorant
and forces him to fall back upon the assistance of the professional
political adviser. When the primaries double the burden on the voter
they increase twofold the necessity for permanent organizations for
directing and advising the politically ignorant voter how to vote.
Consequently, so far from disrupting an extra-legal government, the
universal and compulsory primary makes its continued existence even
more certain.