Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2007 with funding from
IVIicrosoft Corporation
http://www.archive.org/details/directprimariesOOfannrich
DEBATERS' HANDBOOK SERIES
DIRECT PRIMARIES
Debaters' Handbook Series
American Merchant Marine
Debaters' Manual (2d ed. enl.)
Capital Punishment (3d ed. rev.)
Central Bank of the United States
Child Labor (2d ed. rev. and enl.)
City Manager Plan
Commission Plan of Municipal Govern-
ment (3d ed. rev. and enl.)
Compulsory Arbitration of Industrial
Disputes (Supp, to 2d ed.) 50c
Compulsory Insurance
Compulsory Military Training
Conservation of Natural Resources
Direct Primaries (4th ed. rev. and enl.)
Election of U. S. Senators (2d ed.)
Employment of Women
Federal Control of Interstate Corpora-
tions (2d ed. rev. and enl.)
Free Trade vs. Protection
Government Ownership of Railroads
(3d ed. rev. and enl.)
Government Ownership of Telegraph
and Telephone
Immigration (2d ed.)
Income Tax (3d ed. rev. and enl.)
Initiative and Referendum (3d ed. rev.)
Minimum Wage
Monroe Doctrine (2d ed. rev. and enl.)
Mothers' Pensions
Municipal Ownership (3d ed.) $1.50
National Defense Vol. I
National Defense. Vol. II
Open versus Closed Shop (2d ed.)
Parcels Post (2d ed. rev. and enl.)
Prohibition (2d ed.)
Recall (2d ed. rev. and enl.)
Reciprocity
Single Tax (2d ed.)
Trade Unions (2d ed. enl.)
Unemployment
Woman Suffrage (3d ed. rev.)
World Peace (2d ed. rev. and enl.)
Other titles in preparation
Each volume, unless otherwise noted,
$1.25 net
Debaters * Handbook Series
SELECTED ARTICLES
ON
DIRECT PRIMARIES
COMPILED BY
C. E. FANNING
Fourth and Revised Edition
NEW YORK
THE H. W. WILSON COMPANY
1918
Published, 1905
Third Edition, 191 i
Fourth Edition, October, 1918
EXPLANATORY NOTE TO FOURTH EDITION
This is the fourth edition of a volume first issued in 1905,
yet explanation should be made why it has little connection with
that except the title. When the Minnesota Debating League
chose the direct primary for its subject thirteen years ago, The
H. W. Wilson Company reprinted a small collection of those
magazine articles which offered the best arguments for the two
sides of the debate. When the edition was exhausted, a second
was put forth, with supplementary and revised material. By
191 1, when a third edition was needed, the adoption of this
feature of popular government had spread so generally that these
earlier books were quite obsolete in their information. There-
fore practically a new volume was compiled upon the same topic
with a selection from late articles. For the first time the Brief,
the Bibliography and the Introduction were added, thus fitting
the book for inclusion in the rapidly growing Debaters' Handbook
Series.
In 1918 the demand still continues for this handbook, hence
a fourth edition is presented. In reading the discussions printed
during the past seven years, one notices not so many new argu-
ments for and against the principle of the direct primary as more
thorough analyses of the strong and weak features of the
various state laws. As far as space permits, these summaries
are here reproduced. An effort has also been made to collect
the endorsements or criticisms of governors in their messages to
their legislatures because these are rarely available to the de-
bater.
Special attention is called to the Appendix containing a table
compiled by Miss Gertrude E. Woodard of the Law Library,
University of Michigan, which presents comparative information
not before obtainable in convenient form.
This edition varies from the third in seventy-four new pages
of additional reprints, the enlargement of the Brief, the revision
to date of the Bibliography and the new feature of Miss Wood-
ard's table. C. E. Fanning..
June, 1918.
383403
CONTENTS
Brief
Bibliography
Bibliographies xix
General Works xx
Magazine Articles
General xxvii
Affirmative xxix
Negative xxxiii
Introduction
Selected Articles
Macy, Jesse. Influence of the Primary Election upon
Party Organization
...American Political Science Association Proceedings 7
Lush, Charles K. Primary Elections and Majority
Nominations American Political Science Review 8
Cross, Ira. Direct Primaries Arena 8
Brickner, Isaac M. Direct Primaries versus Boss Rule.
Arena lo
Defects in the Direct Nomination System
Chautauquan 20
Direct Primary Nominations: Why They Should Be
Adopted for New York Citizens Union 21
Governor Hughes's Last Political Fight
Current Literature 43
Hemstreet, William. Direct Primary Nominations..
r Eclectic Magazine 44
Woodruff, Clinton Rogers. Nomination Reform in
America Forum 47
Abbott, L. J. Direct Primary in Action
Harper's Weekly 54
Jeffris, M. G. Primary Election Law 58
La Follette, Robert M. Primary Elections for the
Nomination of all Candidates by Australian Ballot .63
Value of Direct Primaries in Doubt Literary Digest 65
viii CONTENTS
Hempstead, Ernest A. Forty Years of Direct Primaries
....Michigan Political Science Association Publications 67
Monahan, James C. Primary Election Law 75
Primary Laws and Party Tactics Nation ^^
The Primary No Cure-All . . . . . . ......... ..Nation 78
Cost of Direct Primaries Nation 81
Record, George L. Regulation of primaries National
Conference on Practical Return of Primary Elections 82
West, Roy O. Convention Plan National
Conference on Practical Reform of Primary Elections 85
Johnson, Thomas L. Crawford County Plan in Cleve-
land National
Conference on Practical Reform of Primary Elections 88
Spahr, Charles B. Method of Nomination to Public
Office : An Historical Sketch
National Municipal League Proceedings 91
Woodruff, Clinton Rogers. American Municipal Tenden-
cies National Municipal League Proceedings 97
Greeley, Louis M. Present Status of Direct Nomina-
tions National Municipal League Proceedings 99-
Jones, Stiles P. Minneapolis' Experience
National Municipal League Proceedings 109
Ford, Henry Jones. The Direct Primary. .North American no-
Campbell, Henry M. Representative Government versus
the Initiative and Primary Nominations
• North American 123
Direct Primaries in South Carolina Outlook 125
Direct Primary in the South Outlook 126
Shaw, William B. Direct Primary on Trial Outlook 126
Governor Hughes on Party Nominations Outlook 127
Roosevelt, Theodore. Governor Hughes, The Legislature,
and Primary Reform Outlook 127
Blair, Emily Newell. Every Man His Own Manager .
Outlook 128
Public Control of Elections [in New Jersey] Outlook 136
Binkerd, Robert S. Doom of the Old "Machine" Conven-
tion Review of Reviews 138
CONTENTS ix
Illinois Primary Election Law World To-Day 140
Additional Articles for the Fourth Edition
Hart, Albert Bushnell. Direct Primary versus the Conven-
tion Academy of Political Science Proceedings 147
Brackett, Edgar T. Advantages of the Convention
Academy of Political Science Proceedings 148
Jones, Walter Clyde. Direct Primary in Illinois.
American Political Science Association Proceedings 149
Feldman, H. Direct Primary in New York State
American Political Science Review 150
Bard, Albert S. The Primary and Election Laws of the
State of New York I57
Boyle, Emmet D Address to Nevada Legislature 158
Byrne, Frank W Address to South Dakota Legislature 159
Capper, Arthur Address to Kansas Legislature 159
Capper, Arthur .Message to Kansas Legislature 160
Wilson, William H. Primary Elections as an Instrument of
Popular Government Case and Comment 160
Clarke, George W Message to Iowa Legislature 162
Debel, Niels Henriksen The Direct Primary in Nebraska 166
Eaton, Allen H The Oregon System 175 /
Forrest, Jay W Direct Primaries Will Broaden Manhood 176
Hammond, Winfield S... .Message to Minnesota Legislature 177
Harding, William L Message to Iowa Legislature 179
Hatfield, Henry D Message to West Virginia Legislature 181
Hedges, Gilbert L Where the People Rule 181
Horack, Frank E Primary Elections in Iowa 182
Hughes, Charles Evans. . .Message to New York Legislature 185
Hughes, Charles Evans. . .Message to New York Legislature 187
Indiana Bureau of Legislative Information. Statements on
Direct Primaries 188
Kales, Albert M. Unpopular Government in the United
States 196
Chicago, First Direct Primary Literary Digest 197
Willspaugh, Arthur C. Direct Primary Legislation in Michi-
gan . . Michigan Law Review ' 197
X CONTENTS
Miller, Charles R.. . • Address to Delaware Assembly 198
Direct Primary in New York Minneapolis Journal 199
Neville, Keith Message to Nebraska Legislature 199
New York Senate. Report o£ Special Committee of Senate
on Primary Law 201
Philipp, E. L Message to Wisconsin Legislature 203
Pardee, John S. When the Primaries Fail Public 204
Ray, P. Orman. Introduction to Political Parties and Prac-
tical Politics 204
Stewart, S. V Address to Montana Assembly 208
Sulzer, William. Why Direct Primaries 208
Butler, Nicholas Murray. What is Progress in Politics?
U. S . 62d Congress. 3d Session. Senate Document
No. 993 208
Johnson, Lewis Jerome. Preferential Ballot as a Substitute
for the Direct Primary U. S. 63d Congress. 3d
Session. Senate Document No. 985 209
Direct Primary Vermont Bulletin 209
Vermont. Legislative Reference Bureau. Direct Primaries 214
Appendix
Woodard, Gertrude E. Primary Election Laws 221
BRIEF
Resolved: That the system o£ direct primary nominations
s preferable to that of nomination by caucus and convention.
Introduction
I. History of the movement.
II. Definitions involved: primary, direct primary, open primary,
closed primary, caucus and convention.
Affirmative
I. Caucus and convention system is not satisfactory.
A. Caucus not representative of voters.
1. Voters do not attend.
a. Not over io% come out.
(i) No time convenient for all.
(2) Meeting places uninviting.
(3) Not well advertised.
b. No incentive to attend.
(1) All planned out by machine.
(2) No deliberation.
(3) Not interested in delegates because they are
only intermediaries.
(4) Independent voter no voice.
2. Elected delegate does not feel responsible to voters.
a. Elected on not more than one issue.
(i) Free to use own judgment on all others.
b. Doesn't know all names to come before conven-
tion.
c. Accepts power on unknown issues.
d. Own political future dependent on party leaders.
B. Convention is not the deliberative body that theory
intended.
I Action controlled by party machine.
a. Chairman named by machine,
(i) Under dictation of machine.
b. Credential committee named by machine.
:ii BRIEF
(i) Can seat or unseat delegates.
(2) Can pack convention.
c. Slate made out in advance.
2. Delegates unduly influenced.
a. Unofficial delegates exert pressure upon delegates.
b. Votes traded.
c. Opportunities for purchased votes.
d. After first vote delegates are not held by instruc-
tions.
e. Vote for probable winner to be in line for party
favors.
3. Convention can be stampeded.
C. Convention is costly to party.
1. Fixed expenses large.
a. Railroad fares.
b. Hotel accommodations.
c. Hall.
d. Clerical help.
e. Printing.
/. Advertising.
2. Party manager not interested in economy.
3. Those benefited are heavily taxed.
a. Tax levied upon
(1) Candidates.
(2) Office holders.
(3) Capitalists interested in legislation.
b. Those taxed demand return favors.
II. Direct primaries return power of nomination to the people.
A. Candidate appeals directly to the voters.
1. Voter makes his unbiased choice.
a. Uses his own knowledge of men.
b. Can inquire about unknown men.
2. This method used in England.
B. Voter can express choice for each state and local office.
I. State and local issues not confused.
C. Character of electorate built up.
I. Every man feels that his vote counts.
I BRIEF xifi-
a. Makes effort to attend primary.
b. Is ashamed to vote for poor candidate.
c. Takes pride in wise selection.
2. Voter made responsible for the welfare of the gov-
ernment.
a. His vote at primary as important as at election.
b. Party success depends on well chosen candidates.
3. Promotes intelligence on public affairs.
a. Voter must inform himself on issues.
D. Party bosses less powerful.
1. Can not influence entire electorate.
2. Publicity prevents corruption.
3. Simplicity of method eliminates boss.
III. Voters attend primaries in large numbers.
A. Statistics prove that 55%-95% attend direct primaries.
B. Direct primaries easy to attend.
I. Polls open half or whole day.
C. Worth voter's time to attend.
IV. Direct primaries insure good candidates,
A. Method brings forward good men.
1. Any man of integrity can present his case.
a. Does not need influence of boss.
b. Can enter politics to oppose dominant power.
2. Candidate must offer good qualities to receive rec-
ognition.
a. Success in public service.
b. Success in professional or business life.
c. Must present qualifications that win votes.
3. Candidate is before voters several weeks.
a. His record open to investigation.
b. Dark horses impossible.
B. Machine control eliminated.
1. Oflice holder must satisfy voters for renomination.
2. New candidates need not mortgage future to a ma-
chine.
3. Citizens can urge good men to become candidates.
C. Voters free to select best candidate.
xiv BRIEF
V. Experience has shown direct primaries are successful.
A. State officers drawn from city and rural communities.
I. In 22 states they come usually from small towns.
B. Expense to candidate is reasonable.
I. Filing fee is used towards advertising.
a. Oregon issues pamphlet with notice for each candi-
date.
Negative
I. The caucus and convention system is in harmony with our
representative form of government.
A. Is a direct application of delegated authority.
1. Our other political functions are delegated,
o. Legislative.
•^^ h. Administrative.
c. Judicial.
2. Large political units need representatives.
B. Is most efficient system.
1. Makes a responsible body for good nominations.
a. Delegates responsible to local voters.
h. Convention responsible to party organization.
2. Deliberation promotes success.
a. Time is taken to inquire into candidate's fitness.
h. Candidate's popularity can be tested.
c. Second choice possible.
d. Candidates can be drafted.
3. Is a school of practical politics for young men.
C. Convention perfects party organization.
1. Results in a cohesive, unified ticket.
a. Minority elements can have their share of offices.
h. Geographical distribution of offices can be consid-
ered.
2. Conciliates factions.
3. Arouses party life.
a. Inspires party spirit in delegates.
h. Delegates carry home enthusiasm.
D. Nominating power and platform-making belong to-
gether.
BRIEF XY
1. Candidates should be tested by issues.
2. Party will be committed to reforms.
II. The caucus and convention can be made satisfactory.
A. Evils have resulted from voters' apathy.
I. Citizens neglected political duties.
a. Left initiative to machine politicians.
b. Failed to vote at caucuses.
c. Failed to inform themselves on issues.
B. Well chosen delegates will insure satisfactory conven-
tion.
1. They will follow instructions.
2. They can not be corrupted.
3. They will make the public good the first considera-
tion.
4. They will select honest nominees. ^
C. Voters can demand reliable party administrators. •^
1. Good political leadership is an aid to party success,
o. In knowledge of practical conditions.
b. In co-ordinating efforts of party workers.
2. Corrupt bosses unnecessary.
a. Majority of citizens want clean politics.
b. Majority of party can choose the leader.
III. Direct primary nomination system is not satisfactory sub-
stitute.
A. It gives one party an opportunity to nullify the intent
of the other.
I. Smaller party attends primaries of the other.
a. Forces weak candidate on the stronger party.
b. Wins office at the election.
B. It promotes plurality nominations.
1. Many candidates split vote.
a. No way of limiting the number of candidates.
b. No way of uniting vote on good candidates.
2. Dummy candidates put up to split intelligent vote.
a. Corrupt candidates secure remaining votes.
C. It creates party bitterness.
I. Factions created before primaries.
BRIEF
o. No way of harmonizing them before election.
b. Defeated faction is free to bolt.
2. Numerically strong group has permanent advantage.
a. Can shut out small groups.
D. It destroys party responsibility.
1. It decentralizes party.
a. Small units control action.
b. Party leadership abandoned.
c. Masses of voters are not organized.
2. Decreases efficiency.
a. No one responsible for getting good candidate'
b. No one responsfble for getting out voters.
E. It does not bring voters together to make a platform.
1. Platform is as important as men.
a. Convention necessary for discussion of issues.
2. Candidates' meetings fail to make good platforms.
a. They are interested only in vote-getting issues.
F. It gives too many opportunities for corruption.
1. Each candidate can build up his own machine.
a. Campaign workers expect some return
(i) In money.
(2) In political favors.
b. Hirelings paid for every signer of petition.
c. Candidates can unite into uncontrolled maci'ii;e^
d. More opportunities to use money.
2. Bosses can interfere without publicity.
a. More campaigns give greater opportunity.
3. The interests can put up several candidates.
G. It is unfair to country districts.
1. Rural candidates at disadvantage.
a. Not as large an acquaintance.
b. Campaign more expensive.
2. City candidates take county offices. v
o. Can reach majority of voters near home.
b. County voters influenced by city papers.
3. Rural voters lack leadership.
H. It is too costly to candidates and taxpayers.
I. Makes two campaigns for candidates. .. ^
BRIEF xvii
a. State offices involve extensive campaigns.
h. In large states, campaigns would cost a term's
salary.
2. Makes expense of two elections to taxpayers.
a. Cost as great when no contests.
It does not secure good officers.
1. Men seek the office, not the office the men.
a. Gives opportunity to egotistical men.
h. Gives opportunity to men with hobbies.
2. Office holders have advantage.
a. Well known.
h. Hard to oppose without unfair criticism.
3. Voters can't know qualifications of all candidates,
o. Most familiar name gets the vote.
(i) This puts premium on newspaper publicity or
notoriety.
h. First name on ballot has advantage.
(i) Rotation of names is a confession of unintelli-
gent voting.
4. Direct primaries have brought out no better men than
the convention system.
a. Greatest men in political history were chosen by
conventions.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
An asterisk (♦) preceding- a reference indicates that the entire
article or a part of it has been reprinted in this volume. Many of
the magazine articles listed here, as well as similar material that
may be published after this volume is issued, may be secured at
reasonable rates from the Wilson Package Library, operated by
the H. W. Wilson Company.
Bibliographies
Brookings, W. Du Bois, and Ringwalt, Ralph Curtis. Briefs for
Debate. New York. 1908.
pp. 27-9. Bibliography on the Caucus System will be helpful
on affirmative of this question.
Cleveland, Frederick A. Organized Democracy, p. 228. New
York. 1913.
Dallinger, Frederick William. Nominations for Elective Office
in the United States. Appendix A. Cambridge, Mass. 1915.
Debel, Niels Henriksen. Direct Primary in Nebraska.
pp. 109-10. University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Neb. 1914.
Intercollegiate Debates, ed. by E. R. Nichols. New York, 1913.
Volume II. pp. 438-41 of 1912 edition.
Volume III. pp. 76-9 of 1913 edition.
Intercollegiate Debates on Direct Primaries, pp. 7-10. Four
Seas Co., Boston, 191 1.
Merriam, Charles Edward. Primary Elections. 2d ed. pp. 289-95.
Chicago. 1909.
New York State Library Bulletin iii. (Legislative Bulletin
30b.) pp. 22-6. Annotated. Albany. 1906.
•Ray, P. Orman. Introduction to Political Parties and Practical
Politics, pp. 1 19-21. New York. 1918.
Schaffner, Margaret Anna. Primary Elections. (Comparative
Legislation Bulletin, no. 13, August, 1908.) pp. 3-4. Wiscon-
sin Free Library Commission. Madison.
United States. Library of Congress. List of References on
Primary Elections. Particularly Direct Primaries. 1905.
United States. Library of Congress. Select List of References
on Corrupt Practices in Elections. 1908.
XX BIBLIOGRAPHY
General Works
♦Academy of Political Science, Proceedings. 1913. pp. 210-19.
Direct Primary versus the Convention. Albert Bushnell
Hart.
The 1913 Proceedings are the same as Volume 3, with the title
"Efflcient Government."
♦Academy of Political Science, Proceedings. 1913. pp. 220-8.
Advantages of the Convention. Edgar T. Brackett.
Academy of Political Science, Proceedings. 1913. pp. 229-39.
Statements on Direct Primaries.
Endorsement of direct primaries by the three candidates for
governor in New York.
*American Political Science Association, Proceedings. 1907.
pp. 175-8. Influence of the Primary Election upon Party
Organization. Jesse Macy.
American Political Science Association, Proceedings. 1907.
pp. 179-88. Some Disputed Points in Primary Election Legis-
lation. Charles Edward Merriam.
Same in Merriam's "Primary Elections." pp. 143-58.
♦American Political Science Association, Proceedings. 1910.
pp. 138-62. Direct Primary in Illinois. Walter Clyde Jones.
American Political Science Association, Proceedings. 1910.
pp. 163-74. Direct Primaries in Missouri. Isidor Loeb.
American Political Science Association, Proceedings. 1910.
pp. 175-86. Primary Elections in Iowa. Frank E. Horack.
Practically the same as the pamphlet by the author, issued by
the Iowa State Historical Society.
American Political Science Association, Proceedings. 1910.
pp. 187-98. Direct Primary Movement in New York.
Charles A. Beard.
American Year Book: a Record of Events and Progress
1916. p. 49. New York. 1917.
♦Bard, Albert S. Some Observations on the Primary and
Election Laws of the State of New York with Special Refer-
ence to the Nomination and Election of Judges. Ass'n of
the Bar of the City of New York, 42 W. 44th St., New York.
1914.
Beard, Charles A. American Government and Politics, pp.
685-703. Macmillan. 1910.
Lists arguments on both sides.
BIBLIOGRAPHY xxi
Bliss, William D. P., and Binder, Rudolph M. New Encyclo-
pedia of Social Reform, pp. 439 and 951-2. New York.
1908,
Boots, Ralph Simpson. Direct Primary in New Jersey. R. S.
Boots, 420 W. I2ist St., New York. 1917.
*Boyle, Emmet D. Address of the Governor of Nevada to the
Legislature, January 15, 1917.
Bryce, James. American Commonwealth. Vol. I. pp. 670-2.
Vol. II. pp. 89-92. New York. 1910.
*Byrne, Frank M. Address of the Governor of South Dakota
to the Legislature, January 2, 1917.
♦Capper, Arthur.- Address to the Legislature of Kansas,
January 13, 1915.
♦Capper, Arthur. Address to the Legislature of Kansas,
January 10, 191 7.
♦Citizens Union. Direct Primary Nominations: Why They
Should Be Adopted for New York. New York. 1909.
♦Clarke, George W. Message to the Legislature of Iowa,
January 9, 1917.
Cleveland, Frederick A. Organized Democracy, pp. 228-42.
New York. 1913.
Dallinger, Frederick William. Nominations for Elective Office
in the United States. Cambridge, Mass. 1915.
pp. 127-37. Abuses of the convention system.
♦Debel, Niels Henriksen. Direct Primary in Nebraska. Uni-
versity of Nebraska, Lincoln, Neb. 1914.
♦Eaton, Allen Hendershott. Oregon System, the Story of
Direct Legislation in Oregon, pp. 82-91. Chicago. 1912.
♦Forrest, Jay W. Direct Primaries Will Broaden Manhood,
Will Eliminate Plutocratic Dictation, n. p. n. d.
An address delivered in Schenectady, May 21, 1913.
♦Hammond, Winfield S. Message of the Governor to the
Legislature of Minnesota. 1915.
♦Harding, William L. Inaugural Address before the Legislature
of Iowa, January 11, 1917.
Hart, Albert Bushnell. Actual Government, pp. 109-10. Reform
of Party Methods. New York. 1905.
xxii BIBLIOGRAPHY
*Hatfield, Henry D. Message of the Governor to the Legisla-
ture of West Virginia, January 13, 1915.
♦Hedges, Gilbert L. Where the People Rule; or, The Initia-
tive, Referendum, Direct Primary Law and the Recall in
Use in the State of Oregon, pp. 45-92. Bender-Moss Co.,
San Francisco. 1914.
*Horack, Frank E. Primary Elections in Iowa. pa. 35c. Iowa
State Historical Society, Iowa City. 1912.
*Hughes, Charles Evans. Message of the Governor of New
York to the Legislature. 1909.
*Hughes, Charles Evans. Message of the Governor of New
York to the Legislature, January 5, 1910.
*Indiana Bureau of Legislative Information. Statements on
Direct Primaries. 1915. [Typewritten.]
Intercollegiate Debates, ed. by E. R. Nichols, New York.
1913.
The affirmative argument of the William Jewell College ap-
pears in Volume- II, pp. 405-41 in the 1912 edition. It is reprinted
in the 1913 edition of Volume III on pp. 43-79.
Intercollegiate Debates on Direct Primaries, pa. 50c. Four
Seas Co. Boston. 191 1.
Contains the Harvard-Yale debate and the Harvard- Princeton
debate.
*Jeffris, M. G. Primary Election Law. Milwaukee. 1901.
Speech before the Senate and Assembly Committees on Privi-
leges and Elections of the Legislature of Wisconsin.
Jones, Chester Lloyd, ed. Readings on Parties and Elections in
the United States, pp. 53-79. New York. 1912.
The selections are from Robert M. La Pollette, Charles Edward
Merriam and Ernest Christopher Meyer.
*Kales, Albert M. Unpopular Government in the United
States, pp. 107-17. Chicago. 1914.
*La Follette, Robert M. Primary Elections for the Nomina-
tion of all Candidates by Australian Ballot.
Address delivered before Michigan University, Ann Arbor, March
12, 1898.
Larned, Josephus Nelson. History for Ready Reference. Vol.
VII. pp. 221-2. Elective Franchise — United States. Spring-
field, Mass. 1910.
Contains summary quoted from the pamphlet issued by Citizens
Union, New York, in support of a direct primary bill.
BIBLIOGRAPHY xxiii
McLaughlin, Andrew Cunningham, and Hart, Albert Bushnell,
eds. Cyclopedia of American Government Vol. III.
pp. 51-5. New York. 1914.
♦Merriam, Charles Edward. Primary Elections: a Study of the
History and Tendencies of Primary Election Legislation. 2d
ed. Chicago. 1909.
Very thorough survey of the history of primary regulation and
legislation for direct primaries. It summarizes the judicial in-
terpretation of primary election legislation and the practical work-
ing of the direct primary system. The appendices contain: re-
prints of typical laws in Illinois, New York, Florida, Wyoming,
Iowa and Wisconsin; a summary of present laws; bibliography;
list of important cases; and list of primary laws enacted.
Meyer, Ernst Christopher. Nominating Systems: Direct Pri-
maries versus Conventions in the United States. Madison,
Wis. 1902.
Part 2, Direct Primary Legislation in the United States. Part 3,
An Analysis of the Main Arguments for and agamst the Direct
Primary.
Michigan Political Science Association, Publications. 1904.
5:482-92 (or 134-44). Direct Primary Elections [in De-
troit]. Charles C. Simons.
Michigan Political Science Association, Publications. 6: 3-30.
Mr. '05. Direct Primaries in Kent County. Roger W.
Butterfield.
Describes successful operation of direct primaries in Grand
Rapids, Mich.
♦Michigan Political Science Association, Publications. 6: 31-54.
Mr. '05. Forty Years of Direct Primaries [in Crawford
County, Penn.]. Ernest A. Hempstead.
Michigan Political Science Association, Publications. 6: 55-72.
Mr. '05. Direct Primaries in Minnesota. John A. Fairlie and
others.
A history and discussion of Minnesota's experience with direct
primaries.
Michigan Political Science Association, Publications. 6: 73-92.
Mr. '05. New Primary Law in Wisconsin. Howard L. Smith.
Gives history of fight for direct primaries in Wisconsin and dis-
cusses in detail law of 1903.
Michigan Political Science Association, Publications. 6: 93-105.
Mr. '05. New York Primary Law. Henry Adsit Bull.
The author outlines the New York law of 1898 with its revisions
of 1899; shows what results It accomplished; and indicates changes
of detail that would make it still more useful.
xxiv BIBLIOGRAPHY
Michigan Political Science Association, Publications. 6: 106-17.
Mr. '05. Bronson Primary Law in Ohio. A. H. Tuttle.
Discusses Ohio's early attempts at primary reform.
Michigan Political Science Association, Publications. 6: 118-24.
Mr. '05. Chicago Primary System. Charles Edward Mer-
riam.
Discusses the law of 1898 governing Chicago primaries.
Michigan Political Science Association, Publications. 6: 125-49.
Mr. '05. Constitutional Limitations on Primary Election
Legislation. Floyd R. Mechem.
*Miller, Charles R. Address of the Governor to the Assembly
of Delaware, January 11, 1917.
*Monahan, James G. Primary Election Law. Milwaukee.
1901.
Speech before the Committees of Privileges and Elections of the
Senate and Assembly of the Wisconsin Legislature.
National Conference for Good City Government, Proceedings.
1894. pp. 186-90. How to Bring Public Sentiment to Bear
upon the Choice of Good Public Officials: Through the
Primaries. Alfred Bishop Mason.
*National Conference on Practical Reform of Primary Elec-
tions. New York. 1898. (Printed by W. C. Hollister, Chicago,
1898.)
Contents: — Legalization of the Primary, John R. Commons; New
Orleans Machine, Walter C. Flower; Kentucky Direct Primaries,
Edward J. M'Dermott; Pennsylvania Primary Elections, Clinton
Rogers Woodruff; Caucus Laws of Massachusetts, Richard L. Gay;
Illinois Primary Law, George F. Rush; Regulation of Primaries,
George L. Record; Convention Plan, Roy O. West; Crawford Coun-
ty Plan in Cleveland, Thomas L. Johnson; Boston's Party Caucus,
Josiah Quincy; Proposed New York Legislation, Edward Lauter-
bach, John Ford, W. R. Spooner, William H. Hotchkiss; " Wiscon-
sin Primary System, Charles E. Monroe; California Primary Re-
form, F. S. Stratton; Missouri Primary History, William Flewellyn
Saunders.
♦National Municipal League, Proceedings. 1904. pp. 321-7.
Method of Nomination to Public Office: Historical Sketch.
Charles B. Spahr.
National Municipal League, Proceedings. 1904. pp. 328-36.
Recent Primary Legislation and Statutory Provisions Reg-
ulating Independent Nominations to Public Elective Office.
Horace Edward Deming.
BIBLIOGRAPHY xxv
National Municipal League, Proceedings. 1904. pp. 337-50.
Fundamental Principles Underlying the Proposed Municipal
Nominating Law. Horace Edward Deming.
National Municipal League, Proceedings. 1904. pp. 351-60.
Right of Every Elector to a Free and Equal Share in the
Selection of Candidates for Municipal Elective Office.
George W. Guthrie.
National Municipal League, Proceedings. 1904. pp. 366-75.
Unsatisfactory Character of Present Methods of Nominating
to Municipal Office. Clinton Rogers Woodruff.
National Municipal League, Proceedings. 1905. pp. 293-308.
Political Organization and Primary Legislation in Pennsyl-
vania, 1881-1904. Scott Nearing and Lawrence W. Trow-
bridge.
National Municipal League, Proceedings. 1905. pp. 309-26.
Political Organization and Primary Legislation in New
York, 1882-1904. Horace Edward Deming and Lawrence
W. Trowbridge.
National Municipal League, Proceedings. 1905. pp. 327-46.
Political Organization and Primary Legislation in Minne-
sota. Charles Baldwin Cheney and David F. Simpson.
National Municipal League, Proceedings. 1905. pp. 347-65.
Dangers of the Control by Permanent Political Organiza-
tions of the Methods of Nomination to Elective Municipal
Office. Horace Edward Deming.
National Municipal League, Proceedings. 1905. pp. z^-T^-
Requisites of a Municipal Nominating Law. Clinton Rogers
Woodruflf.
National Municipal League, Proceedings. 1906. pp. 308-28
Corrupt Practices and Electoral Methods [in New Jersey]
Horace Edward Deming.
National Municipal League, Proceedings. 1906. pp. 329-48.
Primary Legislation and Party Organization in Wisconsin
Clarence B. Lester.
National Municipal League, Proceedings. 1906. pp. 445-53
Discussion on Nominations.
National Municipal League, Proceedings. 1907. pp. 36-43
Massachusetts Primary Law. Robert Luce.
xxvi BIBLIOGRAPHY
♦National Municipal League, Proceedings. 1908. pp. 171-3.
American Municipal Tendencies. Clinton Rogers Woodruff.
National Municipal League, Proceedings. 1909. pp. 103-8.
American Municipal Situation. Clinton Rogers Woodruff.
♦National Municipal League, Proceedings. 1910. pp. 328-39.
Present Status of Direct Nominations. Louis M. Greeley.
♦National Municipal League, Proceedings. 1910. pp. 533-44.
Nomination Reform Discussion.
♦Neville, Keith. Message of the Governor of Nebraska to the
Legislature. 1917.
New International Encyclopaedia, 2d ed. Vol. XIX. pp. 204-5.
New York. 1916.
New York. Report of the Joint Committee of the Senate and
Assembly of the State of New York, Appointed to Investi-
gate Primary and Election Laws of This and Other States.
1910.
The report was adverse to direct nominations. The commit-
tee claimed that the direct nomination schemes were still in an
experimental stage and that there was a wide diversity of opin-
ion among wise and patriotic citizens as to their desirability as a
means of selecting candidates for elective offices.
♦New York Senate. Report of Special Committee of Senate on
Primary Law. Submitted with Bill to Establish State Wide
Judicial Conventions. March i, 1918.
New York (State) Library. Legislative Reference Department.
Table Showing Comparison of Vote Cast at Primary in New
York State for Delegates to State Convention in 1912 with
Votes Cast at Direct Primary 1914-1916. Typewritten, 40c.
Obtained only thru Public Affairs Information Service. 958-
964 University Av., New York City.
Ostrogorski, M. Democracy and the Party System, pp. 342-8.
New York. 1910.
♦Philipp, Emanuel L. Message of the Governor to the Legis-
lature of Wisconsin, January 11, 191 7.
♦Ray, P. Orman. Introduction to Political Parties and Prac-
tical Politics, pp. 140-64. New York. 1918.
Reed, Thomas H. Government for the People, pp. 49-68.
New York. 1915.
Deals with the history of nominations and the development of
the direct primary.
BIBLIOGRAPHY xxvii
Saxe, John Godfrey. Treatise on the New York Laws Relating
to Elections, pp. 30-3. New York. 1913.
Schaffner, Margaret Anna, comp. Corrupt Practices at Elec-
tions, Contributions and Expenditures. (Comparative Legis-
lation Bulletin, no. 3.) Wisconsin Free Library Commis-
sion, Legislative Reference Dept., Madison. 1906.
Schaffner, Margaret Anna. Primary Elections. Wisconsin
Free Library Commission. Madison. 1908.
Deals with the nature of the test of party affiliation and also
digests the laws and judicial decisions upon such tests.
Scott, Samuel B. State Government in Pennsylvania, pp. 223-
41. Harper Press, Philadelphia. 1917.
♦Stewart, S. V. Address of the Governor to the Legislature
of Montana, January 2, 191 7.
♦Sulzer, William. Why Direct Primaries? Why Keep the
Faith? Why Should We Do Right? n. p. n. d.
Three speeches delivered at Buffalo, May 19, 1913; Elmira, May
20, 1913; Schnectady, May 21, 1913.
Taft, William Howard. Popular Government: Its Essence,
Its Permanence and Its Perils, pp. 96-121. New Haven.
1913.
♦United States. 62d Cong. 3d Sess. Senate doc. 993. What
is Progress in Politics? Nicholas Murray Butler. Supt. of'
Doc. 1913.
♦United States. 63d Cong. 3d Sess. Senate doc. 985. Prefer-
ential Ballot as a Substitute for the Direct Primary. Lewis
Jerome Johnson. Supt. of Doc. 1913.
An address before the National Popular Government League,
January 4, 1915.
♦Vermont. Legislative Reference Bureau. Direct Primaries.
Montpclier. 1914.
Woodburn, James Albert. Political Parties and Party Prob-
blems in the United States. New York. 1903.
Primary Election Reform, pp. 283-94.
Magazine Articles
General
American Political Science Review, i: 83-4. N. *o6. Primary
Elections. Robert H. Whitten.
Outlines Pennsylvania law of 1906 and Illinois law of 1906.
xxviii BIBLIOGRAPHY
American Political Science Review, i : 250-3. F. '07. Notes
on Corrupt Practices and Primary Reforms in Connecticut
Robert H. Whitten.
American Political Science Review, i: 254-5. F- '07. Direct
Nomination Law of Louisiana. Robert H. Whitten.
Outlines law of 1906.
♦American Political Science Review. 2: 43-7. N. '07. Pri-
mary Elections and Majority Nominations. Charles K. Lush.
Explains and advocates a provision in direct primary laws giv-
ing voters a second choice.
American Political Science Review. 2: 417-21. My. '08. Pri-
mary Elections. Leon E. Aylsworth.
Compares Illinois and Kansas primary laws of 1908.
American Political Science Review. 2: 578-85. N. '08. Primary
Elections. Leon E. Aylsworth.
Compares Maryland, Ohio and Oklahoma primary laws of 1908.
American Political Science Review. 3: 563-5. N. '09. Primary
Elections, Majority Nominations and the Second Choice
Vote. Leon E. Aylsworth.
American Political Science Review. 4: 569-71. N. '10. Primary
Election Law (1910) of Illinois. Leon E. Aylsworth.
American Political Science Review. 6:60-74. F- '12. Primary
Elections — Legislation of 1909-1910. Leon E. Aylsworth.
American Political Science Review. 7:87-90. F. '13. New
Primary Act [of 1912] in Minnesota. William A. Schaper.
American Political Science Review. 9:309-12. My. '15. Direct
Primaries.
Describes laws in many states.
American Political Science Review. 10:710-26. N. *i6. Opera-
tion of the Direct Primary in Michigan. Arthur C. Mills-
paugh.
Forum. 33: 92-102. Mr. '02. Primary Election Movement.
Albert Watkins.
Harper's Weekly. 53: 6. Mr. 20, '09. Initiative in Nomina-
tions.
♦Harper's Weekly. 55: 20. Mr. 25, '11. Direct Primary in
Action. L. J. Abbott.
Independent 68: 1020-6. My. 12, '10. Fight for a Gean Bal-
lot. Edward Ridley Finch.
About repeaters at New York elections. Says same frauds can
take place at primary elections because practically none of the
BIBLIOGRAPHY xxix
safeguards of the law to prevent fraud at the general elections
have as yet been adopted for primary elections.
♦Literary Digest. 39: 330-2. S. 4, '09. Value of Direct Pri-
maries in Doubt.
♦Literary Digest. 42:445. Mr. 11, '11. Chicago's First Direct
Primary.
-♦Nation. 87: 131-2. Ag. 13, '08. Primary no Cure-Ail.
Gives experience of Illinois, Oregon, Missouri and Kansas in 1908
■elections.
♦Nation. 92: 232. Mr. 9, '11. Cost of Direct Primaries.
♦Outlook. 60: 146. S. 10, '98. Direct Primaries in South
Carolina.
Outlook. 83: i44^-5. My. 26, '06. Illinois Primary Elections.
^Outlook. 83: 821-2. Ag. II, '06. Direct Primary [in the South].
Outlook. 89: 965-7. Ag. 29, '08. Illinois Primaries.
Outlook. 91: 370-2. F. 20, '09. Nominations by Convention
and Direct Nominations.
Outlook. 96:305-10. O. 8, '10. "Battle of Saratoga." Harold
J. Howland.
On the fight for direct primaries In the New York Republican
•convention.
Review of Reviews. 34: 172-6. Ag. '06. Oregon as a Political
Experiment Station. Joseph Schafer.
Shows primary in Oregon was a general success but was heavy
expense to candidate.
Review of Reviews. 35: 748-51. Je. '07. Democracy and the
Referendum in Oregon.
Affirmative
American Magazine. 67: 407-14. F. '09. Old Order Changeth.
William Allen White.
American Political Science Review. 3: 371-81. Ag. '09. New
York Direct Primaries Bill of 1909. Arthur Ludington.
American Political Science Review. 3: 561-2. N. '09. Primary
Elections, Constitutional Law. John A. Lapp.
Illinois law of February 1908 is declared unconstitutional.
American Political Science Review. 5:600-4. N. '11. Second
Choice Nomination Laws. S. Gale Lowrie.
Argues that second choice prevents the election of a minority
■candidate.
XXX BIBLIOGRAPHY
Annals of the American Academy. 25: 203-15. Mr. '05. Muni-
cipal Nomination Reform. Horace Edward Deming.
Annals of the American Academy. 28: 442-52. N. '06. Prob-
lem of Primaries. J. De Lancey Verplanck.
Arena. 34: 417-8. O. '05. Why the People and not the Ma-
chines Must Control the Nominations.
♦Arena. 35: 587-90. Je. '06. Direct Primaries. Ira Cross.
Arena. 36: 52-4. Jl. '06. What Is the Direct Primary? Ira.
Cross.
Arena. 41: 377-8. Mr. '09. Governor Hughes on Direct Pri-
maries. Robert E. Bisbee.
Arena. 41: 461-6. Jl. '09. People's Rule in Oregon. C. H.
McColloch.
♦Arena. 41: 550-6. Ag. '09. Direct Primaries versus Boss
Rule. Isaac M. Brickner.
Chautauquan. 65:97-9. D. '11. Latest in Government. Arthur
E. Bestor.
♦Current Literature. 49: 5-7. Jl. '10. Governor Hughes's Last
Political Fight.
♦Forum. 42: 493-505. D. '09. Nomination Reform in America.
Clinton Rogers Woodruff.
Harper's Weekly. 54: 14. Jl. 2, '10. Direct Primaries and
the Special Session at Albany. Charles Johnston.
Independent. 66: 267-8. F. 4, '09. Senator Root on Direct
Election of Senators.
Independent. 66: 924-5. Ap. 29, '09. Is It a Moral Issue?
Independent. 70: 870-1. Ap. 27, '11. In New Jersey.
Summary of Geran election bill which embodies Governor Wil-
son's ideas of primary and election reform.
McClure's Magazine. 37:505-i9- S. '11. "Statement No. i" :
How the Oregon Democracy, Working under the Direct
Primary, Destroyed the Political Machine. Burton J.
Hendrick.
McClure's Magazine. 38:479-80. F. '12. What the Direct
Primary Did for California.
Municipal Affairs. 5: 802-9. D. '01. Minneapolis Plan of Di-
rect Primaries. William Charles Hodder.
BIBLIOGRAPHY xxxi
Munsey's Magazine. 47:377-80. Je. '12. Nation in Revolt
against the Political Boss. Frank A. Munsey.
An endorsement of the preferential primary.
Nation. 82: 28-9. Ja. 11, '06. New Phases of Primary Reform.
♦Nation. 83: 48. Jl. 19, '06. Primary Laws and Party Tactics.
Nation. 88: 30. Ja. 14, '09. Governor Hughes' New Fight.
Nation. 88: 128-9. F. 11, '09. Speaker Wadsworth and Pri-
maries for New York.
Nation. 88: 182-3. F. 25, '09. Hughes' Plan for Direct Nomina-
tions.
Nation. 88: 268-9. Mr. 18, '09. Mopping Back the Flood.
Comment on New York bill.
Nation. 88: 292. Mr. 25, '09. Publicity for Parties.
Comment on New York bill.
Nation. 89: 46. Jl. 15, '09. Interest in Direct Primaries [in
New York].
Nation. 92: 335-6. Ap. 6, '11. New Jersey Elections Law.
Nation. 98:133-4. F. 5, '14. Logic of the Direct Primary.
Allan Ball.
Advocates non-partisan nominations.
Nation. 103:338-9. O. 12, '16. Primaries and Issues.
Says the primary can be used to voice the issues.
Nation. 106:313. Mr. 21, '18. Damning the Primary.
New Republic. 7:201. Je. 24, '16. First Perfect the Primary.
Charles H. Langmuir.
Outlook. 79: 611. Mr, II, '05. Primary Law of North Dakota.
Outlook. 83: 586-7. Jl. 14, '06. Direct Primary [in Wisconsin
f and Illinois].
Outlook. 84: 120-5. S. 15, '06. Trend toward a Pure Demo-
cracy. Philip L. Allen.
Has map showing primary laws in the United States in 1906.
Outlook. 84: 688-9. N. 24, '06. Grand Rapids Plan for Non-
partisan Primaries.
Outlook. 85: loi. Ja. 19, '07. Direct Primaries [in New Jersey].
Outlook. 88: 343-4. F. 15, '08. Direct Primaries for Illinois.
Outlook. 89: 976-7. Ag. 29, '08. Conventions vs. Direct Pri-
maries.
Outlook. 90: 51-2. S. 12, '08. Direct Primary and the New
Idea in New Jersey.
xxxii BIBLIOGRAPHY
Outlook. 90: 239-40. O. 3, '08. Nominations in New Jersey.
♦Outlook. 90 : 383-9. O. 24, '08. Direct Primary on Trial.
William B. Shaw.
Comments on results of primaries for the y^ar 1908.
*Outlook. 91 : 91-2. Ja. 16, '09. Governor Hughes on Party
Nominations.
Outlook. 91 : 426-8. F. 2"], '09. Direct Nominations [for New
York].
Outlook. 91: 848-9. Ap. 17, '09. Direct Nominations in Cali-
fornia and New York.
Outlook. 95: i3i*-2*. My. 28, '10. Defeat of the Direct Pri-
mary in New York.
Outlook. 95: 468-9. Jl. 2, '10. Direct Nominations.
Outlines Hinman-Green and Cobb bills of New York.
*Outlook. 95: 507-8. Jl. 9, '10. Governor Hughes, the Legis-
lature, and Primary Reform. Theodore Roosevelt
*Outlook 97: 945. Ap. 29, '11. Public Control of Elections [in
New Jersey].
Outlook. 104: 16-18. My. 3, '13. Direct Primary and the Direct
Election of Senators.
Outlook. 104:85. My 17, '13. Direct Primary Movement in
New York.
Outlook. 104:221-2. My. 31, '13. Sulzer Primary Fight.
Outlook. 104:353-4. Je. 21, '13. Non-partisan Campaign for
Direct Primaries.
Outlook. 104:555-6. Jl. 12, '13. Two Issues: Direct Pri-
maries and Judges of the Right Type. Theodore Roosevelt.
Outlook. 114:297-8. O. II, '16. New Jersey Primaries.
Political Science Quarterly. 27:648-68. D. '12. Forestalling
the Direct Primary in Oregon. James D. Barnett.
Public. 13: 225-6. Mr. 11, '10. Primary Election in Wiscon-
sin. J. D. Beck.
Reviews report of the Wisconsin Bureau of Labor and Industrial
Statistics on the primaries of 1908, in that state.
Public. 15:273-4. Mr. 22, '12. How Not to Do It. A. J.
Portenar.
Describes New York's unsatisfactory makeshift for a primary-
law.
BIBLIOGRAPHY xxxiii
Public. 17 797- Ag. 21, '14. Advantage of Direct Primaries.
Samuel Danziger.
Advises quizzing Congressional candidates on their stand on
measures in Congress.
Review of Reviews. 31: 337-41. Mr, '05. Political Movements
in the Northwest. Charles Baldwin Cheney.
Gives experience of Minnesota and other states of the northwest
with direct primaries.
Review of Reviews. 39: 274-7. Mr. '09. Direct Nominations in
New York.
♦Review of Reviews. 41: 597-9. My. '10. Doom of the Old
"Machine" Convention. Robert S. Binkerd.
Review of Reviews. 46:439-45. O. '12. Direct Primary:
Promise and Performance. Arthur Wallace Dunn.
Review of Reviews. 47:682-6. Je. '13. Gov. Sulzer and the
Fight for Direct Primaries.
♦Vermont Bulletin. 11:3-19. D. '13. Direct Primary, the
Preferential Primary, the Nominating Convention. Class in
Politics, University of Vermont.
World's Work. 2>2)'7' N. '16. Recent Experiments with the
Primary.
Negative
American Political Science Review. 5:535-52. N. '11. Direct
Primaries and the Second Ballot. A. N. Holcombe.
♦American Political Science Review. 11:494-518. Ag. '17.
Direct Primary in New York State. H. Feldman.
Atlantic Monthly. 110:41-5. Jl. '12. Direct-Primary Experi-
ment. Evans Woollen.
♦Case and Comment. 23:396-9. O. '16. Primary Elections as
an Instrument of Popular Government. William H. Wilson.
♦Chautauquan. 52: 324-6. N. '08. Defects in the Direct Nomin-
ation System.
♦Eclectic Magazine. 146: 79-82. Ja. '06. Direct Primary
Nominations. William Hemstreet.
Forum. 50:48-58. Jl. '13. Failure of the Primary, Direct or
Otherwise: an Appeal for Direct Elections. Joseph Dana
Miller. . •
xxxiv BIBLIOGRAPHY
Independent. 66: 730-2. Ap. 8, '09. How the Primary System
Works [in South Carolina]. J. C. Hemphill.
♦Michigan Law Review. 15:21-37. N. '16. Direct Primary
Legislation in Michigan. A. C. Millspaugh.
♦Minneapolis Journal. O. 12, '17. Direct Primary in New
York.
Municipal Affairs. 6: 180-4. Je. '02. Referendum in Party
Nominations. Robert H. Whitten.
Advocates, as superior to direct primaries, convention nomina-
tions with provision for optional referendum.
Nation. 105 :336-7. S. 27, '17. Defects of the Primary.
National Municipal Review. 2:657-60. O. '13. Primary Elec-
tion Expenses in Chicago. Harold L. Ickes.
National Municipal Review. 3 :49-56. Ja. '14. Proportional
Representation, Preferential Voting, and Direct Primaries.
Clarence G. Hoag.
National Municipal * Review. 6:727-8. N. '17. Philadelphia's
Scandal. C. R. Woodruff.
New Republic. 7:65-7. My. 20, '16. Great Primary Humbug.
Lafon Allen.
♦North American. 190: 1-14. Jl. '09. Direct Primary. Henry
Jones Ford.
♦North American. 190: 222-30. Ag. '09. Representative Gov-
ernment versus the Initiative and Primary Nominations.
Henry M. Campbell.
North American. 200:235-43. Ag. '14. Nominating Primary.
William Thomas Laprade.
Outlook. 59: 797. Jl. 30, '98. Dark Side of Direct Primaries.
Direct nominations cause newspapers to demand high advertis-
ing rates for any candidates who wish to make themselves known
through the press. Therefore expensive.
♦Outlook. 97: 426-33. F. 25, '11. Every Man His Own Cam-
paign Manager. Emily Newell Blair.
♦PubUc. 17:895. S. 18, '14. When the Primaries Fail. John
S. Pardee.
Review of Reviews. 48:596-9. N. '13. Direct Primary and the
Preferential Method. Karl A. Bickel.
♦World To-Day. 19: 940-4. S. '10. Illinois Primary Election
Law.
SELECTED ARTICLES
ON DIRECT PRIMARIES
INTRODUCTION'
In the early days of the Republic the nominating system, as
now known, did not exist. Candidates for local office were
presented to th6 electorate upon their own announcement, upon
the indorsement of mass meetings, or upon nomination by in-
formal caucuses, while aspirants for state office were generally
named by a "legislative caucus" composed of members of the
party in the legislative body, or later by a "mongrel caucus" in
which legislators and outside representatives of the party united
to select party nominees. In the national field, candidates for
president were named by the congressional caucus. After a
long struggle the legislative caucus and the congressional caucus
were overthrown, and a system of representative party govern-
ment developed. When the delegate system was adopted, it
was regarded as a great triumph for the plain people over the
aristocracy. Andrew Jackson had been one of the bitterest an-
tagonists of King Caucus, as the congressional caucus was
known, and it was the Jacksonian democracy that definitely
established the representative party system. By 1840 the delegate
convention system had been generally adopted, and entered
upon its period of trial. Without interference from the law,
the political party was left free to carry on the nominating
process in such manner as party tradition, custom, or rules might
provide.
♦This Introduction Is compiled from Charles Edward Merriam's
Primary Elections published by the University of Chicago Press.
2 SELECTED ARTICLES
The abuses that arose under a system that staked the im-
mense spoils of party victory on the throw of a caucus held
without legal regulation of any sort were numerous and varied.
They ranged from brutal violence and coarse fraud to the
most refined and subtle cunning, and included every method
that seemed adapted to the all-important object of securing the
desired majority and controlling the convention.
In short, 'the primary election, having become one of the
most important steps in the process of government, was open
to every abuse that unscrupulous men, dazzled by prospects of
almost incredible wealth and dictatorial power, could devise
and execute. Not all of these evils appeared in one place and
at one time; but they were likely to occur at any time when
factional rivalry became sufficiently intense. Especially were
these abuses felt in the great cities where opportunities were
largest and rewards most alluring, and where the shifting
population rendered personal acquaintance among all the voters
impossible.
These evils might have been remedied by action within the
party, either by organized effort on the part of those opposed
to such practices, or by refusal to support candidates who had
been nominated by such methods. Indeed some attempts were
made to regulate party affairs from within by means of party
rules designed to secure order and regularity in the nomination
process.
But these plans were not as a rule effective in operation and
no material, or at least no adequate, improvement of con-
ditions was apparent. The appeal of the voters was generally
made to the law, and therefore the progress of primary reform
may be traced through the channels of legislation.
Down to 1880 primary legislation had made but little
progress. The state of California alone had a law of a com-
prehensive character, and this was left optional with the political
parties. The Ohio law was likewise optional, and was still less
complete, and the Missouri law was both optional and local.
The New York and New Jersey acts were primarily .intended?
to prohibit only the participation of illegal voters in the pri-
DIRECT PRIMARIES 3
raaries. Public regulation of party primaries had barely be-
gun to develop, and was in a rudimentary condition.
During the decade 1880-90, the question of the legal reg-
ulation of elections occupied the attention of the public in an
increasing degree. The attack upon the evils of the party
system was successfully directed against the fraud and trickery
in the use of the ballot, and resulted in the adoption of the
Australian system in modified form.
Summing up the characteristic features of this period, it
may be said that where the laws were at all complete, they
were mainly optional in nature; that where mandatory, they
were generally local and special; and hence that the primary
was still almost wholly under party control. The appearance
of the mandatory and detailed act, even though local in ap-
plication, was a distinctive feature of this period.
The most important problems of this time were whether the
expense of such elections should be made a public or a private
charge; what form the test of party allegiance should take and
by whom it should be prescribed; whether the primary should
be fully assimilated to a general election and governed by
identical laws; whether the primary law should be optional with
parties or mancfetory in its terms.
The next period of primary reform [1890-99] covers the
decade immediately following the adoption of the Australian
ballot, and extends to the date marked by the passage of the
regulated convention systems of Illinois, New Jersey, and New
York in 1898 and the passage of the mandatory direct primary
law in Minnesota in the year 1899.
The legal regulation of the convention system, however
thoroughgoing and complete in its provisions, was unable to
meet the demand for popular control of the party system.
Despite the fact that in many cases the primary had been
surrounded by practically all of the safeguards of an ordinary
election, the public remained unsatisfied. Advancing even more
rapidly than the movement for legal regulation of the nominat-
ing process, came the attack upon the convention system and
the demand for nomination by direct vote of the party.
Direct nomination, however, was by no means original with this
4 SELECTED ARTICLES
period,, but was already a generation old. Pennsylvania had
experimented with various forms of it in the 6o's, and for many
years it had been in use throughout the southern and western
states. Here it had flourished without legal protection, except
such as was involved in the recognition of nomination so made
as legal nominations, which might properly be placed upon
the official ballot when certified by the party authorities. This
direct system was now demanded as a compulsory method of
nominating candidates. None of the early enthusiasm for legal
regulation of primaries was abated, but to this there was added
the demand for the abolition of the indirect nominating process.
The movement was in part a democratic one, and was an-
imated by a desire for wider popular participation in govern-
ment. In this sense it was a part of a broad tendency in the
direction of popular control over all the agencies of politics.
The referendum, the initiative, the recall, and the direct primary
are organic parts of a general growth of democratic sentiment,
demanding methods by which more direct responsibility of the
governor to the governed can be secured.
In the second place, the demand for the direct primary grew
out of the general discontent regarding social and industrial
conditions. The party system was regarded as an important
element in these conditions, and popular opposition converged
upon the convention as the source of much of the evil it was
desired to eliminate. Startling disclosures respecting the be-
trayal of public trust by party leaders aroused the people to
a crusade for responsible party government.
In the last ten years about two-thirds of the states have
enacted direct primary laws varying in types. Some of these
laws have been obligatory and others optional; some have been
general in application and others merely local.
Although the main outlines of the direct primary laws are
similar, yet there are important and interesting differences in
detail. The method of nominating the candidates, the majority
required, the formulation of a platform, are all questions of
importance in recent primary laws and must be carefully
scrutinized.
The forty years of primary legislation may be summarized as
DIRECT PRIMARIES 5
follows. Starting with unregulated primaries, the advance was
made to the prohibition of flagrant offenses such as bribery and
illegal voting, or to optional legal regulation and control;
then to compulsory regulation; then on to the abolition of the
convention system, and the establishment of the direct primary;
and finally we encounter the demand for the preliminary non-
partisan primary as in Iowa, and for the adoption of a system
•of nomination by petition only, as in Wisconsin.
SELECTED ARTICLES
American Political Science Association, Proceedings. 1907.
pp. 175-8.
Influence of the Primary Election upon Party Organization.
Jesse Macy.
An important change to be effected by the primary election
is found in the distinction which it enforces between state and
federal politics. The earlier system of party conventions with
its vast array of party machinery tended to obliterate the dis-
tinction between state and nation. The two governments which
the constitution makes distinct were, in the hands of party
committees, fused together in such a way as to render intelligent
action on the part of the voter difficult or impossible. The new
system enforces a separation and compels a distinction between
state and federal politics. The convention system and the
existing national committees still serve in the management of
federal politics, while in the states a radically different system
is adopted. This in itself enforces a difference and a contrast.
The new method also furnishes the means for partially re-
moving the one instance of capital maladjustment in our federal
constitution. I refer to the provision for the election of United
States senators, which has resulted in compelling the voter, in
a single act, to attempt the impossible task of expressing an
opinion on the policies of two governments which the constitu-
tion makes distinct. When he votes for men to make laws for
his state, it is a mere accident if these men represent his views
in national politics. Through the device of a primary election it
has been found possible virtually to relieve the state legislature
of the responsibility of selecting United States senators. This
makes it possible to develop and maintain distinct and independ-
ent policies in the states.
8 SELECTED ARTICLES
American Political Science Review. 2; 43-7. November, 1907.
Primary Elections and Majority Nominations. Charles K. Lush.
Under the present nominating law it is necessary that the
"boss," or leader, should "eliminate" the candidates of the major-
ity before the primaries are held, otherwise the candidate of the
minority would be the nominee of the party. Under the second
choice feature, which was a part of the Australian law and left
off by the drafters of the Wisconsin law, the voters do this
"eliminating" at the primaries. Until this opportunity of selec-
tion is placed in the hands of the people there can be no true
representative government.
Arena. 35: 587-90. June, 1906. /
Direct Primaries. Ira Cross.
To-day we find that the caucus and convention no longer
express the popular will. Delegates have become the main-
shafts of political machines. Corporate wealth and influence
dictate the policies of the dominant parties, while candidates and
office-holders, instead of being responsible to the voters, are
responsible to the boss and the ring which nominate them.
All attempts at reforming the caucus and the convention have
resulted in dismal failures. New York, California, and Cook
county, Illinois, which have the most highly legalized caucus-
systems, are still boss-ridden and machine-controlled.
There can be but one remedy, — the government must be
brought back to the people. They must be given the power
to directly nominate their party-candidates. If they are suf-
ficiently intelligent to directly elect them by means of the
Australian ballot, they are sufficiently intelligent to directly
nominate them.
Under the caucus-system, no matter how highly legalized, the
voters will not take part in making the nominations. They
are not even interested, for in the caucuses they do not nominate
candidates, they only elect delegates, and a delegate, no matter
how honest he may be, cannot correctly represent the wishes of
DIRECT PRIMARIES 9
his constituents upon all, and quite often not even upon a
small portion, of the candidates to be nominated in the conven-
tion. Do the facts uphold the argument? Take the caucus-
system at its best and what do we find? In San Francisco,
New York city, and Cook county, Illinois, which places since
1901, 1900, and 1899 respectively, have had the most highly
legalized and reformed caucus-systems in the United States,
an average of but 39 per cent of the voters of San Francisco,
41 per cent of those in New York, and 38 per cent of those
in Cook county, Illinois, take part in making nominations. If
but this small number of people attend the caucuses when such
great care is taken to protect the voice and the will of the
people, what a handful must turn out in those states in which
few if any legal regulations are thrown around the nominating
machinery! Under the caucus-system the resulting govern-
ment cannot represent the will of the majority. It can only
represent the will of the minority, and it is to this small
minority (composed though it usually is of men who are in
politics for what there is in it) that our officials are directly re-
sponsible, not only for their nomination but also for their subse-
quent election.
On the other hand, it cannot be denied that the direct
primary greatly increases the attendance at the primaries. The
reason for this is that it gives the voters a real voice in making
party nominations. They can express their choice upon all
candidates from governor down to justice of the peace, and by
this means are able to exert a direct influence upon the final
results.
In Cleveland, Ohio, under the old caucus-system, only 5,000
voters took part in nominating the Republican candidates for
city offices in 1892, but in 1893, when they used one of the most
poorly-framed and extra-legal primary systems imaginable,
over 14,000 Republicans turned out. This number increased to
23,000 in 1896, to 28,000 in 1899, and to 31,000 in 1901, the vote
at the primaries during these years averaging more than 95
per cent of the vote cast by the Republicans at the subsequent
elections. In Crawford county, Pennsylvania, where the direct
primary has been used since i860, the average attendance at the
10 SELECTED ARTICLES
primaries has been more than ^z per cent. In the 25th Con-
gressional district, where the system has been used since 1890.
TJ per cent of the voters have made the nominations. Even
where there was no contest, as was the case in 1894 and 1900,
more than 62 per cent of the voters attended the primaries.
What other portion of the United States can show such a
record as this? "In Minneapolis," writes Mr. Day of that city,
"under a highly legalized caucus-system, but 8 per cent of the
voters attended the caucuses." Under the direct primary, how-
ever, 91 per cent of the voters attended in 1900, 85 per cent
in 1902, an off-year, and 93 per cent in 1904. In Hennepin
county, Minnesota, in 1904, over 97 per cent of the voters took
part in making congressional nominations. In the same year
the returns from eighteen counties, scattered indiscriminately
throughout Minnesota (all the returns that could be obtained),
showed that over 72 per cent of the voters took part in the
primaries. These figures show most conclusively that the dif-
ficulty is not the apathy of the people. Their civic patriotism
is as strong as it has ever been in years past. They are in-
terested in the government and will attend the primaries, if they
are but given the opportunity to directly nominate their party
candidates. The difficulty lies with the caucus-system. It is
indirect and inefficient.
Arena. 41: 550-6. August, 1909.
Direct Primaries versus Boss Rule. Isaac M. Brickner.
It may be well to ask what is a political boss, what are
direct primaries, and in what way, if at all, will they relieve
us of this evil. A boss, for the purposes of this paper may be
defined as a man who makes politics a profession for purely
personal ends, not for the purpose of holding office, but more
frequently to control the actions of those who do.
Primaries are the bases upon which in the final analysis
this governmental structure is reared. At the primaries we are
now accustomed to elect delegates to diflFerent conventions, which
in turn choose those who, if elected, will be our public servants
DIRECT PRIMARIES ii
ior a period of years. The questions naturally arise: — Why
have conventions at all? Why not at the primaries choose our
own candidates for office? The answer to these questions an-
swers the query. What is a direct primary? It is just exactly
that. It is a primary at which the electors of a ward, city or
state as the case may be, will name those for whom the people
will vote at the ensuing election.
If the people voted directly for the men who are candidates
for the various offices, would it not naturally lead to a discussion
-of the qualifications of the various names proposed? Would it
not offer to the people the opportunity of voting for the better
of two men or the best of three or more? Would there not
be public meetings and perhaps public debates, at which the
A^arious candidates would present the reasons why they rather
than some opponent should be chosen? Would not more people
thus become interested and have a direct personal reason for
going to the primary, and express their preference for one
candidate or the other? Would this not naturally lead to a
better class of public men in office? And would not the
burden of choosing the right man for the right place be thus
thrown directly where it belongs, upon the shoulders of the
people themselves, rather than upon those of some political
hoss, whose sole aim is to preserve intact the party organi-
zation, and perpetuate in power himself and his friends? It
seems to me that the answer to all these questions is in the
affirmative, and explains why the politicians are opposed to this
method of choosing public officials.
Some may argue that all of these things can be done under
the convention system. Perhaps so, but every man knows that
except in rare instances, conventions might more properly be
called farces. They do not represent the people at all, but simply
register the will of some boss. In other words, whatever good
there might have been originally in the convention idea, it is
a fact that the system has broken down. The causes to some »
extent, it must be admitted, are to be found in the carelessness |
and indifference of the people themselves and their sometime I
foolish habit of voting a party label, but the fact remains that I
we are face to face with a situation. It has been well said,
12 SELECTED ARTICLES
by a writer on our institutions that "it profits little to know
the legal rules and methods of government, unless one alsa-
knows something of the human beings who tend and direct-
this machinery, and who by the spirit in which they work it,
render it the potent instrument for good or evil to- the
people." Yet the character and antecedents of candidates are
often overlooked when they are the one real and vital concern,
of every good citizen.
I have stated above that under the direct primary system,,
more people would become interested ,and attend the primaries.
Statistics on a matter of this kind are in the nature of the
case hard to find, but there have been some attempts made
to ascertain the truth along this line. The Attorney-General
of Kansas says that while the law is a new one in that state from
60 to 75 per cent of the voters attend the primaries. In Wiscon-
sin the testimony is that 65 per cent of the voters attend. I
have seen figures that indicate that in some parts of Min-
nesota, the attendance of voters at primaries under this system
has risen as high as 90 per cent. And in Oregon at the last
election for candidates, there was a very large turnout of
voters, and I may add a very large turning out of discredited
officials as a result. What the percentage is in states where
the convention system still holds sway, I have no statistics to-
show, but I am strictly within the truth when I say that it
seldom approaches the smallest percentage set forth above.
There are many cases where it would be hard to find that ten
per cent of the voters attended the primary.
Another argument advanced by the opponents of direct pri-
maries is that a poor man would have no chance of elec-
tion, as the expense attendant upon that experience would make
it prohibitive. I do not believe this is true. The experience
of Kansas again comes to the rescue. The Attorney-General
states that in his opinion, from facts in his possession, the
expenses under the system are not greater than under the
convention plan, and perhaps in many instances much less. At
all events, the expense can and should be regulated by law, and'
once the system is in vogue, the conscience of the people would
see that this was done. The main thing now is to establish the-
DIRECT PRIMARIES 13
principle. Besides under the old system, men with means
have always had a decided advantage. In this state, the Late
Governor Higgins' sworn statement showed an expense of
$22,000 for election to an office, the salary of which was only
$10,000 a year and the term two years. And, W. Hearst spent
if reports are true, a fabulous sum in an unsuccessful attempt
to be elected to the same office. What it cost him to secure the
nomination from the state convention at the hands of Murphy
and Connors, if known, would probably stagger people, and
end the argument so far as the question of expense is concerned.
Some years ago, a republican candidate for Congress, in New
York state, spent about $35,ooo for election to that office which
carried a salary of but $5,000 a year for a two year term. The
expense question will not win a single convert to the side of
the antis, among those who have studied the question in the
slightest degree.
The third stock argument of the opposition, is that there
would be no platform. That is eliminated by the bill intro-
duced at Albany which gives the party committees the power
to frame the declaration of principles. But assuming that there
would be no platform, what is the difference? Take the last
campaign in New York state for example. The Democratic
convention which met at Rochester, adopted an elaborate dec-
laration of principles which viewed with alarm all that the
opposition was doing and pointed with pride to what the dem-
ocrats had always done when in power. Among other things
they opposed government by commission. They nominated
a very respectable young gentleman, Mr. Chanler for governor,
and as long as Governor Hughes was in the west, Chanler was
safe. But once Hughes returned home and spoke to the people,
Chanler shifted his position from pillar to post, until there
was not enough left of the anti-commission plank to even cause
a ripple. In other words Hughes was his own platform.
He stood for administrative reform of a high order, was an
approved public servant in whom the people had confidence, and
his ofJponent also was his own platform, because the people
knew that every plank on which he stood was erected with the
idea of winning converts to the standard to that political pair
14 SELECTED ARTICLES
of Siamese twins, Connors and Murphy, who controlled the con-
vention. Possibly Chanler had he been elected, would have been
free from their baneful domination, but there was nothing in
his campaign to justify people in so believing.
Take Bryan for further example. Mr. Bryan has many
excellent qualities and even his opponents concede, that he is
honest and high-minded. But in the minds of thousands of
Democrats he is associated with what they believe a system
of financial heresy, advocated by him in his first campaign, and
partisans though they are they cannot bring themselves to
vote for a man who represents in himself the theories for which
he stood when first a candidate. In other words, he too is
his own platform. A platform is constructed by the average
politician to catch the votes of the malcontents and of those
who are out of jobs and want to feed at the public crib. Be-
sides not one voter in ten ever reads a platform, or knows
from its contents for what a candidate stands. So much for
the three stock arguments of the opposition.
Much respectability is lent to the opposition to direct pri-
maries by the fact that President Schurman of Cornell is in
its ranks. President Schurman certainly stands high in the
estimation of the people, as a man of principle, intelligence,
scholarly attainments, and good citizenship. His attitude on
any public question, is entitled to most respectful consideration,
and indeed it is fair to assume that there is no abler, fairer or
more high minded man in the ranks of the opposition. It is
equally fair to assume that his arguments are the result of both
study and conviction, and that they rank with the ablest argu-
ments the other side can produce. Yet every point he made
in his Utica speech seems easily answerable.
President Schurman started out by saying that he had agreed
with Governor Hughes on the race-track question, and the
public utilities bill because they were constitutional and moral
questions. He disagreed with him on the question of direct
primaries, because that was a practical question and political
men might honestly differ. Yet President Schurman certainly
did not treat it practically. He says: "From the unanimous
DIRECT PRIMARIES 15
testimony, I have received, in western states, I learned that the
system of direct nominations discourages self-respecting and
independent men from entering the public service and encour-
ages the demagogue, the self advertiser and the reckless and
unscrupulous soldier of fortune."
Without attempting to dispute the assertions of Mr. Schur-
man, though there is ample testimony on the other side, let
us carry that argument to its logical conclusion. The people are
not to be trusted to select between the self-respecting man
and the demagogue, they cannot pick the wheat from the chaff.
Yet they have for many years carried on popular government and
are choosing annually between the various candidates at each
election. By what process of reasoning does President Schurman
assume to argue that what they can do at election they cannot
do at a primary? And if he is correct, does it not mean that the
people are not fit to govern themselves at all, and representative
government is a failure? And if it is, it makes no difference
whether we have direct primaries or not. Let us frankly admit
that we cannot govern ourselves and put a king in power at
Washington. But is it not a fact that the demagogue can control
a convention, especially if he happens to be a rich demagogue, a
great deal more easily than he can control the people.
President Schurman further says, "that men enroll and call
themselves Republicans or Democrats, honestly to select a strong
candidate for their own party or dishonestly to foist upon the
opposing party a weak candidate, whom they intend to vote
against at the election."
It must be admitted that no system can be devised that will
prevent a trick like that. It is done under the present system ; it
would be done under any other. It is inherent to some extent
in our system of government. But if it be true, that more people
attend the primaries under the new system than under the old,
and practically the unanimous testimony is to the effect that they
do, the influence of these men will count for less than it does now.
So that this argument carries its own refutation.
On the same point President Schurman says : "The baser ele-
ments of a party thus control the destinies of a commonwealth.
i6 SELECTED ARTICLES
And so you have the anomaly of Oregon, a Republican state with
a Republican legislature, just sending a Democrat to the Senate
of the U. S. Such a result is not only fatal to party organization,
but dangerous to political morality."
It seems to me that President Schurman was unfortunate, to
say the least, in the example he cited to prove this contention.
The situation in Oregon constitutes the best argument in favor of
direct primaries that could be brought home to the people. The
Republican candidate for the Senate was a man who in that body
had been unfaithful to the interests of people and betrayed his
trust. He was part of a system they wished to overthrow. How to
accomplish it was the question. His Democratic opponent was a
man twice chosen Governor of Oregon, a man of approved public
morals, faithful to the interests of the people, and close to their
hearts. The people of the state were not ready to turn the state
over to the Democratic party, so they pledged the candidates to
the legislature to vote for the man who received at the pri-
maries the highest vote for senator, regardless of party affili-
ations. In this way they chose a Republican legislature and
gave them definite, specific and binding instructions to vote for
a Democrat to the Senate. I have never known public opinion
to express itself so strongly or work so promptly and efficiently.
In spite of heavy pressure from high Republican sources, the
legislators were true to their pledges, many of them because
they knew that any other course meant political death to them.
It was the most stinging rebuke that could possibly have been
administered to the Republican derelict senator, and the most
potent argument in favor of the system which Mr. Schurman
condemns.
President Schurman then delivers this very remarkable utter-
ance; remarkable when we consider that he started with the
assertion that we are dealing with a practical question:
"A convention gives opportunity for deliberation, for con-
ference, for comparison, for weighing the merits and availa-
bility of candidates. The direct system oi nominations gives
the rein to the impulse of the moment, and makes deliber-
ation difficult. It puts a premium on passing popularity. The
DIRECT PRIMARIES 17
man who trims his sails to catch the breeze of popular favor
will secure the nomination. It will almost infallibly put the
destinies of the state in the hands of the city of New York,
(in combination perhaps, with the city of Buffalo.) By segre-
gating the other political units of the state, it nullifies their
power and influence. A delegate convention brings together in
one place representatives from every city and county in the
state and consequently gives the representatives from the rural
districts and smaller cities the same power in determining the
final result as is enjoyed by representatives of an equal num-
ber of voters in New York City."
One would think that Mr. Schurman had never seen a con-
vention. Deliberation and conference indeed, comparison and
weighing of candidates, forsooth. The man wanted by those
who control the convention, and who hold the delegates in
the hollow of their hands, will win the prize, if prize it be, and
no other candidates need apply. We are not concerned with
what a convention might be; it is a practical question that
confronts us. If conventions did what in theory it was believed
they would do, the question of direct primaries would not be
a burning issue. What does a convention actually do? That
is the point. The committee on credentials throws out duly
elected delegates because some ignorant and brutal boss tells
them to. The courts hold them to be a law unto themselves.
There have been cases, one is reported at the convention that
nominated Hearst at Buffalo, where contests were put up by
the boss when the defeated delegates at the primary never
wanted to contest. And the duly elected delegates marched
out of the convention, one of Mr. Schurman's deliberative
bodies and were not given the right to represent those whose
votes had sent them there, because a boss needed a few more
votes to carry his point.
New York and Buffalo, says Mr. Schurman would infallibly
control the political destinies of the state. Did he ever see a
convention run by Murphy and Connors on one hand, or Lit-
tle Tim and the Buffalo boss of the G. O. P. on the other? I
have, and if anything can beat the combination of New York
i8 SELECTED ARTICLES
and Buffalo, in one of those conventions, it has escaped the
attention of most observers.
No, a covention may not be influenced by prejudice or
passion. But it is not responsive to intelligent public opinion,
nor except in the rarest instances does it ever consider the
comparative claims of either candidates or sections of the state.
It registers the will of a boss; adopts a meaningless declaration
of principles, and adjourns to repeat the farce another year.
President Schurman also says that corruption is rampant
where there are direct primaries. But it stands to reason that
it is not as easy to bribe or corrupt all the electorate as it is the
bosses of those who are delegates to conventions. The larger
the number of people who participate in any function of gov-
ernment, the smaller the prospect of a corrupted franchise.
Any other theory than that is based upon the assumption that
most men are inherently dishonest, and that theory is rejected
by the testimony of history.
Finally Mr. Schurman says "The new movement when
logical analysis traces it back to its origin or forward to its
goal undoubtedly contravenes the principles which were adopt-
ed by the founders of the republic."
This too will be news to most students of history. The
convention system was never dreamed of in the inception of
this government as the means of naming candidates. The first
national convention was held in 1836.
But if it had been part of the original scheme, what differ-
ence would that make to us as practical men seeing a practical
solution of a practical and pressing problem? If the conditions
which obtained in 1800, do not work in 1900, is it not our duty
to discard those conditions and surround ourselves with new
ones?
It certainly was the scheme of the founders that the people
conduct the government by taking an active part in govern-
mental affairs. They believed in the people. Mr. Schurman
evidently does not. They thought the people could intelligently
pick out their own candidates. Mr. Schurman does not agree
with them. They held to the opinion that the people could
DIRECT PRIMARIES 19
be trusted to manage their own affairs and regulate their own
machinery of government. Mr. Schurman differs from them
in this respect.
Another argument that I have heard advanced by the
opponents, of direct primaries, and they are resourceful in
argument, is that instances are recorded where men defeated
at the primaries offer themselves for election to defeat the
primary choice. Has it never happened then that men defeated
in convention have done the same thing and succeeded in
defeating the convention's choice? Men of this kind, who will
not abide by the rule of the majority exist in every com-
munity, and will come to the fore at times under any system.
But it is no argument either way that these things have hap-
pened and will continue to happen. No machinery is per-
fect, but we as sensible men should try to get the best. I
believe the direct primaries offer the best available solution
for many of our political evils at present.
There is nothing sacred about the convention plan. There
is no special sanctity that surrounds it, not even that which
sometimes comes with respect for age. It was a device adopt-
ed by the people for their own convenience, and for a time it
worked well. Like other machinery that becomes worthless
with use and rusty with decay, it has broken down and fails
to properly perform its functions. Shall we be loyal and patri-
otic enough to adopt new mechanism to carry on the work the
decrepit convention cannot and will not any longer do?
Shall we not be large enough to try on a new scale, the
old town meeting? Shall we not in other words return to
first principles?
The opposition tells us men may be named that do not
represent a majority-vote under the new system. A plan
might be devised by which this would not be so. A second
primary might be needed to name a candidate. This would
entail trouble and expense. But if American citizenship is
worth having, it is worth fighting and working for. If we
can name ward officers by direct means, I have confidence
20 SELECTED ARTICLES
enough in the people to believe we can successfully name city
and state officials by the same method.
If the people have found that the convention system is
wrong, who shall say them nay in their attempt to rectify it?
If you point to me the example of Stephenson, in Wisconsin,
as an argument against this new method, I point you to Piatt
and Depew in New York, as an argument against the old one.
We must not be too radical you tell us. I say in reply,
let us not be too conservative when conservatism means dan-
ger. You say "let us be careful and cautious in political action
lest haste shall lead us on to rocks that may wreck the ship of
state." I reply, "let us get away from the rocks and shoals
we have found near shore, and out onto the broad seas where
the sailing is easier and where a harbor of safety at least is in
full sight." You say "let us not change our methods because
'tis better to bear the ills we have than fly to others that we
know not of." I reply, "we have found by experience ^n,t this
proposition is not a flight to regions unknown, but is a safe
and substantial anchoring on the rock bottom principles of
eternal justice and right."
Chautauquan. 52: 324-6. November, 1908.
Defects in the Direct Nomination System.
Already the primary system has disclosed certain defects
which will need to be remedied. These defects have led its
foes to declare that it does more harm than good, that it
has been tried and found wanting. One defect is that voters
of one party vote at the primaries of another at the command
of powerful politicians. This has happened in Illinois, in
Missouri, in Nebraska, in Michigan, and elsewhere. To defeat
progressive candidates the spoilsmen of a party make "deals"
with those of other parties and secure support of voters who
have no intention of changing their affiliations but are willing
to lend themselves to interparty "trades" and stratagems.
And even where good candidates of one party are helped at the
primaries by the voters of another — and this sometimes hap-
DIRECT PRIMARIES 21
pens — it is felt that it is unjust that men who will not help
elect should have a voice in nominating.
Another defect in the primary system is the great expense
to which candidates are put. The lavish expenditure of money
in campaigns is an evil, for it involves practical blackmail of
candidates and corporations and the creation of political obli-
gations that cannot honorably be paid without sacrificing the
interests of the people. But if the expense is merely to be shift-
ed from machines and organizations to individuals the wealthy
candidates will have an undue advantage and the poor men
will be discriminated against in the operation of the whole sys-
tem.' The individual candidate must circulate petitions, do a
little advertising, pay hall rent and incur other legitimate ex-
penses; and he must do this twice in many instances, before
the primary and before the election.
The primary system must be simplified and safeguarded
against fraud and waste. It is the friends of direct nomina-
tions who must attend to these improvements, for otherwise
the spoilsmen and bosses will discredit and undermine the
new system by emphasizing its faults and imperfections.
Citizens Union.
Direct Primary Nominations : Why They Should Be Adopted
for New York.
The primary, under the present indirect system, is the
election by enrolled voters of party officers and delegates to
a series of conventions whose principal function is to nominate
candidates for public office. A direct primary is one in which
the enrolled voters choose by direct vote the party candidates
for public office, instead of choosing delegates to nominate
those candidates.
The Convention System
The present indirect system of nominating candidates has
convinced the average citizen of the futility of attempting any
22 SELECTED ARTICLES
contest in the primaries, and only a small percentage of the
enrolled voters go through the motions of voting for the dele-
gates already selected for them by the leaders. The primary
vote for delegates to conventions is largely cast by those who
make more or less of a profession of politics. The conven-
tion, when assembled, by no means represents the will of
even a respectable plurality of the party members. For in-
stance, the Republican delegation to the state convention from
Syracuse, in 1908, was opposed to the re-nomination of Gov-
ernor Hughes. Several thousand postal cards sent indiscrim-
inately to enrolled Republicans of Syracuse, however, re-
vealed the fact that about eight out of every nine stroTngly
desired the Governor's re-nomination.
The convention starts with the handicap of being unrepre-
sentative. The public is handicapped in any efifort to enforce
its will. This is necessarily so, as long as the convention
system is retained. Public opinion cannot express itself except
where the issue is defined. The machine, having taken no
stand prior to the primaries, and having announced no policy,
there is no specific issue which can be made against the dele-
gates which it has picked out. The public is in the position
of an individual, compelled to give a power of attorney with-
out knowing what will be done, and powerless to withdraw
the power of attorney, if its use is abused. At every step in
the process, the public must work in the open, while the
machine leaders conceal their hand, and thrive upon the con-
sequent inability of decent delegates to make any effective
opposition.
Furthermore, the meeting-place of a convention is about the
least conducive imaginable to sober consideration of merit.
Rumor flies after rumor. There is neither time nor oppor-
tunity for investigation. In a few hours or days, the con-
vention members, now brought together as a body for the first
time, will again part, never to meet again as a body. While
they fill the hotel lobby, swayed by this report and that,' the
real business of the convention is being done upstairs in a
private room where the leaders make the slate. When the
DIRECT PRIMARIES 23
slate is prepared, the convention is allowed for a few hours
to look like a deliberative body.
Suppose a movement is started in opposition to the pro-
posed final slate. Then ensues a contest to control the Com-
mittee on Credentials, and which ever faction wins, will gen-
erally dominate the convention. Contesting delegations, when
necessary, appear almost out of the air, over-night, in response
to a telegram, and are calmly seated.
If these tactics do not positively ensure success, there is
still a chairman to be elected, and chairmen can be found who
never see a member of the opposing faction rise to speak.
Though a hundred men yell "No," the chairman can hear
only "Yes." Though a dozen written resolutions may be
started toward the chairman's desk, they are lost on the way.
Finally, in the midst of an uproar in which it is impossible to
hear how delegates vote, amidst hisses and cat-calls and cheers,
the nominations are declared to have been made.
Proven Advantages of Direct Primaries
Aside from abolishing the evils which have developed in
the present system of nominations the direct primary offers
positive advantages over all other methods yet devised for
choosing party officials and party candidates. These advan-
tages may fairly be summarized under three heads, as follows:
(i) It substitutes responsibility to the enrolled voters for
responsibility to machine bosses.
(2) It is simpler than other systems.
(3) It makes the exercise of corrupt influence over the
nominating process more difficult.
(7) How the Direct Primary Substitutes Responsibility to the
Voters for Responsibility to Bosses
The importance of this feature can hardly be over-estimated.
As Governor Hughes pointed out in a recent speech in New
York City, three-fourths of the members of the present legis-
lature come from districts where the nomination of the domi-
nant party is equivalent to election. When, in such districts,
24 SELECTED ARTICLES
the candidates are nominated by a method which places the
real election in the hands of a few men, then in soberest earn-
est one may say that the forms of popular government are be-
come but a sham. That this is clearly realized in that section
of the country where one party has been longest and most
indisputedly in the ascendancy is shown by the fact that in
almost every state in the South the rules of the Democratic
party have required for years past that its nominations for
public office be made by the popular vote of its members.
That Republican candidates are not nominated in the same
way is due to the purely nominal importance of the minority
party's selections. Seven of these southern states have gone
further and provided for this method of nomination by state-
wide direct primary laws, four of these laws being optional
and three mandatory. Why should New York continue to
abdicate to party "leaders" or bosses the choice of any of
its public officers?
Even if in practice under the present system conventions
were not boss-ridden, and delegates felt that they owed their
positions to the decision of those who participated in primaries,
the system would not be truly representative unless more
votes were cast in the latter than is the case at present. Com-
monly, the indirect primaries are not attended by more than
ten per cent of the enrolled voters, and frequently by only a
fraction of one per cent.
Direct primaries bring out quite regularly from 25 to 95 per
cent, and in the majority party, especially where there is a sharp
contest, from 55 to 85 per cent of the enrolled voters. This is
because every voter has a voice in selecting party candidates.
Ask a hundred men who do not attend primaries whether they
would attend if they could vote directly for the candidates. Al-
most every man of them would probably reply in the affirmative.
In Minnesota in 1902, for example, after the direct nomi-
nations system had been extended in that state because of the
success of its trial in Minneapolis, about the same vote was
cast in the primaries as is cast in ofT-year elections. In Minne-
apolis in 1900, 69.2 per cent as many votes were cast in the
DIRECT PRIMARIES 25
direct primaries as in the general election. In Duluth, in
1901, in a municipal election, 69.8 per cent of those who later
voted in the election cast their votes in the primaries. In
the same year the direct nomination vote in St. Paul was 94.6
per cent of the election vote. In the Dodge county primary
in 1902, the direct primary vote was 28.6 per cent more than
it had been in the general election of 1900. The vote in the
Republican primaries throughout the entire state in 1902 was
78.8 per cent of the Republican vote in the election which fol-
lowed. In Minneapolis in 1905, the Republicans cast 97 per
cent of their votes in the primaries, and tlie Democrats 84
per cent.
In Crawford county, Pa., where the system has had the
longest trial, the average vote cast in the direct primaries for
thirty-one years was 73 per cent of the average election vote
for the same period.
In the Essex county. New Jersey, primaries last year, a
larger vote was cast than in the preceding election for gov-
ernor.
Under the old caucus system only 5,000 Republican voters
took part in the primaries in Cleveland, Ohio, in 1892. Next
year the direct primary system was established in the city, and
14,000 Republicans participated. That the great interest in
direct primaries is not due to their novelty is clearly shown
by Cleveland, for the Republican vote at the primaries in-
creased to 23,000 in 1896, 28,000 in 1899, and 31,000 in 1901,
being then 95.5 per cent of the vote cast by the Republicans
in the election which followed.
Governor Fred M. Warner of Michigan, in his inaugural
address to the legislature this year, calls attention to the
advantage gained under direct nominations through increasing
the popular participation in primaries. In Michigan the direct
nominations system is in force only for certain localities and
offices. Governor Warner says:
"The greater the number of offices involved in the pri-
mary, the greater will be the interest of the voters therein. At
2<S SELECTED ARTICLES
the last primary in Michigan, 200,000 Republicans and 40,000
Democrats recorded their will."
A candidate nominated in such a primary where the vast
majority of the enrolled voters actually express their prefer-
ence, is forced to recognize that his responsibility is to these
enrolled voters. A candidate nominated in a convention cre-
ated by indirect primaries, where only an exceedingly small
percentage of the enrolled voters actually attend and vote, is
forced to recognize as the sponsors of his candidacy the men
who, by possession of all the strategic advantages, are able to
control those primaries. This difference between the two sys-
tems cannot be disputed, even by those whose confidence in
the voters is so small, or whose selfish interests are so great
and compelling, that they prefer any system which will limit
to a few persons participation in the choice of candidates. '
{2) Wherein the Direct Primary is Simpler Than the Conven-
tion System of Making Party Nominations
Under the convention system there is a primary, followed
by various meetings of delegates. Under the direct nomina-
tions system, except where a single convention may be assigned
the duty of drafting a state platform, one day's primary elec-
tion settles everything, and the whole cumbrous and expen-
sive machinery of an out-worn system, with its delegates and
conventions innumerable, is at one stroke, and with no loss to
the community, abolished.
Enrolled voters, at present, go to the primary and caucus
and cast their ballots for the party officers and for delegates
to the Assembly district convention and to county, city, con-
gressional district, senatorial district, or judicial district con-
ventions, as the case may be. The delegates meet in the As-
sembly district convention and elect delegates to the state
convention. This is the usual roundabout system.
When Governor L. F. C. Garvin, of Rhode Island, wrote
in 1903, "a strong party organization, covering every section
of the state, entails a large expenditure, and the money comes
chiefly from candidates and holders of lucrative offices and the
DIRECT PRIMARIES 27
beneficiaries of legislation/' he had in mind such a cumber-
some and expensive system as is made necessary under our
present primary law.
An illustration of the uselessness of much of the machinery
of this system was furnished when a direct vote was taken in
certain New York City districts on the question of whether
Charles E. Hughes should receive the Republican nomination
for Governor. The County Chairman considered the vote as
instructions to the delegates. Why, then, should there be any
delegates when we can in every primary secure the direct
expression of the enrolled voters as to their choice for the
nomination?
is) How the Direct Primary Makes the Exercise of Corrupt
Influence Over the Nominating Process More DiMcult
It is easier to corrupt the few than to corrupt the many. It
has never been demonstrated that the average integrity of
the man who makes a business of politics is greater than the
average integrity of the average citizen. Under the present
system, men who have successfully made a business of politics
and who control the nominations are the only ones necessary
to be "seen" in order to get an undeserved nomination.
Direct nominations, as has been shown, actually bring out to
the primaries a large majority of the enrolled voters. This
majority, voting directly for the party nominees, has been
found more difficult to corrupt than the few who control the
nominations under the present system.
Where there have been serious charges of corruption in the
direct primaries, the fault has been the failure to place in the
statutes proper provisions against corrupt practices, or with
such weak provisions as appear in the laws of Wisconsin and
Missouri, for example, regarding the participation of the voters
of one party in the primaries of another party. In these two
states (Wisconsin and Missouri) it is now being charged that
the candidate of the majority party was nominated in the
primaries by purchased votes. These purchased votes included,
it is claimed, practically all of the purchasable element of the
28 SELECTED ARTICLES
minority party, which went into the primaries of the majority
party and there voted for candidates. The fact is that neither
of these states has any such provisions regarding party en-
rollment as are now in force in the State of New York. We
should retain these provisions under our direct primary and
will extend them to such localities as have not the full benefits
of this system under our present law. This is in accordance
with the recommendations of Governor Hughes. Further safe-
guards against corruption at the direct primary are suggested
in the following recommendations of the Governor:
'That the Corrupt Practices act be extended so as to pre-
scribe the expenses which may lawfully be incurred in con-
nection with candidacies for nomination and to ensure the
publicity of all expense.
"That the amount which may be expended by candidates
for nomination be limited.
"That generally, with such changes as may be necessary
for adaptation, the safeguards of the law governing general
elections be extended to primary elections."
Fallacy of Objections to the Direct Primary
Never was the convention system abolished in any state
wiithout a severe struggle against the special interests in-
trenched by that system. So it is in New York; and the ob-
jections offered are in some cases so plausible that they have
misled men whose sincerity is unquestioned. That there is
in no place where direct nominations are used any considerable
sentiment for a return to the old system, while there is a
nation-wide agitation for extending the system, is a clear
indication of the fallacy of these objections. Yet it may be of
advantage to take up in their order some of the points most
frequently raised by opponents, and to show what evidence is
obtainable bearing upon them.
(i) As to the Question of Expense
It has been charged that by making two campaigns nec-
essary instead of one, and rendering these campaigns more
DIRECT PRIMARIES 29
expensive than under the convention system, the direct primary
disbars the poor man in favor of the rich.
The general experience of other states fails to bear out
this assertion. Governor Ford of New Jersey, in his annual
message of January 12th, 1909, in which he recommends the
extension of New Jersey's present direct primary law for local
offices to include governor, congressman, delegates to national
conventions and members of party committees, says of this
assertion that it is "false and absolutely untrue." To the same
effect is the statement (quoted from Collier's Weekly, January
2^, 1909) of Everett Colby, former state senator of New Jersey,
"that the man who last received the Democratic nomination
for state senator in his county won it against the Democratic
machine with an expenditure of $250; this in a county of
350.000 inhabitants, after an aggressive campaign." United
States Senator-elect Joseph L. Bristow, who was nominated
in Kansas last summer by direct primaries over Chester I.
Long, the candidate of the railroads and the Republican ma-
chine, says in a letter to the New Hampshire Direct Primaries
Association: "Campaigning before a primary can be made as
expensive as the candidate is disposed to make it. Kansas
is 200 miles wide and 400 miles long, has a population of 1,800.-
000 and is subdivided into 105 counties. Our United States
senator this year was nominated by direct primary. One of
the candidates is reported to have expended $25,000 and the
other $3,500. The one who expended $3,500 was nominated.
Of the two candidates for governor, one spent between $6,000
and $7,000, and the other about $3,500, and the one spending
the smaller amount was nominated." Of this same contest
William Allen White, the well-known writer and journalist,
speaking from personal observation, says: "His (Bristow's)
opponent, Chester I. Long, had all the money that public
service corporations cared to pour into the state, and yet
Long failed." Mr. Bristow himself adds, in another letter:
"It does not cost any more from the practical side of politics
to appeal to the people for their support than to pay the ex-
penses attendant to conventions."
30 SELECTED ARTICLES
Governor Noel of Mississippi bears similar testimony, as
follows: "While primary elections involve an expense of
travel, there is very little other expense. There were six can-
didates for governor in this state, and a canvass of fifteen
months practically. My expense was about $6,000. It need
not have been over $2,000, if the campaign had been limited,
as it should have been, to about four months, and proper re-
ports required." Ora Williams, Secretary to the Governor of
Iowa, says: "The successful candidate for governor (in the
recent primary election in Iowa) spent but a few hundred
dollars." James A. Frear, Secretary of State of Wisconsin,
says: "All of the present state officers in Wisconsin (who
were nominated by direct primaries) are what would be known
as men of modest means. Their selection resulted from their
attitude on public questions, or their legislative record in
recent years" Professor John A, Fairlie, a recognized author-
ity on public law, says in a letter: "In a hotly contested pri-
mary the necessary expenses will be greater than in a non-con-
tested convention; and a good primary law should contain re-
strictions on the amount and purposes of expenditure. Person-
ally I succeeded in a direct primary (for the constitutional
convention of Michigan) in a district covering two counties,
with eleven candidates for three places, at a total expense of
about $25.00 for railroad fare."
These statements, and many others of which they are but
a sample, prove conclusively that the man of limited means
is not debarred by the direct primary from obtaining nomina-
tion for, or election to, public oMce.
Nor is the advantage of wealth greater than under other
systems. What benefit did Senator Long derive from his
heavy expenditure before the Kansas primaries? His opponent
was nominated after spending one-seventh as much. In Wash-
ington, Senator Ankeny, the millionaire lumberman, was de-
feated for re-nomination by Wesley L. Jones, a comparatively
poor man. Senator-elect Johnson, of North Dakota, is a
farmer of moderate means, and spent almost nothing in his
campaign for nomination. His three competitors are said by
DIRECT PRIMARIES 31-
him to have spent at least $250,000 without avail. The chief
instance to the contrary, relied upon by the opponents of direct
primaries, is that of Senator Stephenson in Wisconsin; yet
as a matter of fact this case has no bearing on the question
of direct primaries in New York state, and for the following
reason: Wisconin has no law limiting the amount which
may be expended by a candidate for nomination. In New
York, on the other hand. Section 41Z of the Penal Code pro-
vides that no candidate shall expend ''for any purpose tending
in any way, directly or indirectly, to promote, or aid in se-
curing, his nomination and election" more than a certain speci-
fied amount, fixed by the act according to the office for which
he is running. Moreover, the direct primary law itself, as
outlined by Governor Hughes, would still further regulate the
amount which might lawfully be expended in connection with
candidacies for nomination. Such a remedy has now been
recommended for Wisconsin by Governor Davidson. Further-
more, it is charged that Senator Stephenson's enormous cam-
paign fund was largely spent in corruption, and this charge is
being investigated by the Wisconsin legislature. It is true
that to control a direct primary by corruption, when possible,
is vastly more expensive, as well as more difficult, than to
control an indirect primary by the same means.
The critics who dwell upon the alleged eJcpensiveness of
campaigning under direct primaries neglect to mention either
the amount, the source or the character of the expenses under
the present system. First, as to the amount and the source.
Governor Warner of Michigan says in a letter: "I am cer-
tain that I speak within bounds when I state that there was
a contest for the nomination of governor in Michigan a few
years ago under the convention system, when more money
was expended than will be used in the next ten years imder
the direct voting system." In his inaugural address to the
General Assembly, January 12th, 1909, Governor Kitchin of
North Carolina urges the adoption of regulated direct prima-
ries in place of the present unregulated convention system,
and says: "It ought to diminish the expenses of campaigns for
32 SELECTED ARTICLES
nominations. Should such expenses for legitimate purposes in-
crease as they have increased in recent years {under the conven-
tion system) it will soon be that none hut a wealthy man can
hopefully aspire to our higher offices unless others pay his cam-
paign expenses for the nomination"
What are some of these expenses under the convention
system? Disregarding its peculiar liability to improper ex-
penditures, and enumerating only such as it legitimately en-
tails, there are first of all those incident to the campaign for
the election of delegates from all parts of the state or district.
Then there are the clerical expenses required to plan and ar-
range for the convention. Above all, there are the heavy
expenses connected with the convention itself — the railroad
fares of the delegates, their hotel accommodations, the rent
of the convention hall, the printing, telephoning and telegraph-
ing, and finally the decorations, music and miscellaneous enter-
tainment provided. These things are never managed econom-
ically. Who pays for them? "The party organization," some-
one may answer. Yes, but where does the party organization
get the money? Some light is thrown upon this question by
the records of the Mazet Committee in 1900, where it was
shown from sworn testimony that 28 judges had paid from
$1,500 to $12,006 apiece — in some cases the equivalent of a
year's salary — to various party organizations and campaign com-
mittees, for the purpose avowed or understood, of obtaining
nomination.
All campaign contributions by candidates for judicial
ofifice have since been forbidden by section 41Z (b) of the Penal
Code, but the very fact that it was thought necessary to pass
this law, and the law above mentioned, limiting the campaign
expenses of all candidates, indicates that the cost of the con-
vention system, nominally paid by the party organization, really
falls in large part upon those seeking nomination. Nor can
the expenses of a candidacy for nomination under this system
properly be guaged merely by the amount paid out by the
aspirant prior to his nomination. A large proportion of the
party campaign fund, out of which the various expenses above
DIRECT PRIMARIES 33
specified are defrayed, is obtained from office-holders. Forty
per cent of the Democratic campaign fund in New York
county in 1907 was contributed from this source. Now if de-
pendence upon the party organization for nomination sub-
jects a man, after his election to office, to these periodical
contributions, which are to be used in large part for the pay-
ment of other men's nomination expenses, it is evident that
the real cost to him of his own nomination at present is far
greater than at first appears. May it not fairly be assumed
that he would spend less in the long run under a system which
at one blow relieved the party of the necessity of holding
conventions, placed the whole cost of primary elections upon
the state, and made the candidate indebted for his nomina-
tion, not to the organization, but to the party at large?
As to that portion of the expense of nomination under
the convention system which in no way falls upon the candi-
date, but is actually paid by the party organization, is it any
advantage, looked at from the broadest point of view, that it
should be so paid? When a candidate pays the whole cost of
his nomination himself is he apt to be more, or less, inde-
pendent than if part of that cost is paid by an organization, the
finances of which, as well as the control of nominations, are
in the hands of a small, irresponsible group of men? It is no
argument to say that, in any event, the expenses of a candi-
date's campaign for election are partly paid by the party, for
in this latter case he is the chosen representative of the party,
and, as such, entitled to its assistance. As a candidate for
nomination, on the other hand, he is merely an applicant for
this representative position, and if any portion of his expenses
in this capacity is paid by the party the result is merely to
render him the more indebted to the little group of men from
whom his nomination emanates. Governor Kitchin, of North
Carolina, continuing the passage from his inaugural address
above quoted, says : "// others pay his (the candidate for nom-
ination) expenses, he will feel under obligations to them, and
will not he in a position to render the people his best service,
especially in matters involving doubt as to the path of public
34 SELECTED ARTICLES
duty. The public should insist on having every official free from
obligation for his nomination for office except to the people"
As to the sources, other than candidates and office-holders,
from which the party organization itself derives the money with
which to pay the expenses of nominating conventions, Mr.
Everett Colby is reported by Collier's Weekly to have said:
*Tt is better for a poor man to stump on the streets, speak
from cart-tail or soap-box, or make a house-to-house canvass,
than to have him elected by money furnished by corporations
or by wealthy and interested individuals."
Finally, as to the character of the candidate's expenses
under the convention system and the direct primaries system
respectively — which is of more benefit to the community as
a whole, that huge sums of money should be wastefully and ex-
travagantly spent for party conventions, and objects incidental
thereto, or that similar amounts should be disbursed by the
candidates for nomination themselves, in traveling about mak-
ing speeches, and in printing and distributing literature in
advocacy of their claims? Which form of expenditure is of
greater educational value ? Here, as elsewhere, one must have in
mind, not conventions as they might possibly be, but conven-
tions as they unfortunately are; and to suggest that the state
conventions of recent years have exercised over the people at
large an educational influence of any sort, save perhaps as
horrible examples, is little short of ludicrous. On the other
hand, anything which forces candidates for party nomination
to go about amo'ng the voters and attempt to convince the lat-
ter that they should be selected, not only brings the candi-
dates into closer touch with popular needs and desires, but
extends to the preliminary campaign for nomination those
educative features which are so often praised in connection
with the campaign for election.
(2) As to Representative Government
The argument is advanced that direct primaries are a blow
at representative government. The truth is exactly the re-
verse. Even if the delegates to nominating conventions were
DIRECT PRIMARIES 35
chosen by the voters with as much care as would be exercised
in the election of candidates for office, and were free to exer-
cise their untrammeled judgment — neither of which assumptions
is in line with the notorious facts — nevertheless, the candidates
chosen by these delegates are, at best, indirectly representative
of a small fraction of the party, whereas those chosen by direct
primaries are directly representative of the masses of the en-
rolled voters who participate in the choice.
As to the principle involved, the following passage — from
Governor Hughes' speech at the dinner of The Hughes Al-
liance, New York, January 22nd, 1909 — is conclusive:
Representative government is government through representa-
tives. We choose officers to do for us what we cannot do or do
not think it wise to undertalce, ourselves. For example, we cannot
well make our laws directly, and so we elect legislators to make
them for us. We cannot as a people at large execute the laws
and so we select executive officers to represent us in their execu-
tion. We cannot in an assembly of the people decide judicial con-
troversies, and so we choose judges to represent us in deciding
cases.
But we do not elect men to choose our governors and our mayors
and the members of the legislature for us. We elect our governors,
our mayors, and our legislators direct. They are chosen by direct
vote of the people. These officers are none the less representative,
and we have none the less representative government, because we
choose them by direct vote. If any one were now to propose that
we should elect a body of men to choose our governor for us we
would laugh at him. If any one saw fit to argue that this was
necessary to the maintenance of representative government we
should think the argument ridiculous.
Now, if we elect a governor by direct vote of the people, how
is it a subversion of representative government for the enrolled
voters of a party to choose their candidates for Governor by direct
vote? If we elect an assemblyman in an assembly district by di-
rect vote of the voters in that district, why should not the mem-
bers of the party in that district decide directly who should be
their representative as a candidate for the assembly? Is the one
any the less representative government than the other?
The candidates of a party are the party representatives in running for
office, as the elected officer is the representative of the people in discharging the
duties of the office. If we are to make party government analogous to the gen-
eral government then we should elect the party representatives by the direct vote
of the members of the party.
(s) That State-Wide Direct Primaries Favor Populous Centres
as Against Rural Districts
This argument, in various forms has been used, perhaps
more widely than any other, to discredit Governor Hughes'
recommendation of a direct primary law for New York state.
36 SELECTED ARTICLES
The statement has been made by almost every opponent of the
system that such a law, if adopted here, would result in New
York City, Buffalo and Rochester's obtaining all the state
offices, and controlling state offices, and controlling state elec-
tions, to the exclusion of the smaller cities and the rural dis-
tricts.
Actual experience does not warrant any such assertion.
Governor Warner of Michigan, says in a letter: "This state-
ment that the primary system of making nominations favors
the populous centers as against the scattered rural popula-
tions is not borne out by experience here in Michigan. At
the last primary election there were three candidates for the
Republican nomination for Governor. My chief opponent as
well as myself reside in villages of less than one thousand
population, while the candidate who received the smallest vote
lives in the city of Detroit." The Hon. M. M. Beck, of Hol-
ton, Kansas, editor of the Holton Recorder, writes: "Eastern
Kansas is thickly populated, western Kansas sparsely. In the
western part of the state many large counties have only from
400 to 1,000 voters, and there is no special kick coming from
western Kansas. The primary law is as popular there as in
the more densely populated districts." F. S. Jackson, the at-
torney-general of Kansas, bears similar testimony as follows:
"The primary system does not favor populous centers any
more than the convention system ; in fact, not so much, as under
the convention system the populous centres are given very
large representation. The delegates are usually chosen ac-
cording to the dictates of party bosses, and, when assembled
in convention, they have every opportunity for trading and ar-
ranging to cast the vote of all the populous centres together
to defeat the rights of the rural population." Senator-elect
Joseph L. Bristow, of Kansas, bears similar testimony: "In
our state the primary did not favor the populous centres. The
man best and most favorably known will receive the votes of
the people, regardless of the section of the state in which he
may live." In support of this statement it may be noted that,
of the eight principal state officers nominated by direct pri-
DIRECT PRIMARIES Z7
maries and elected last fall, six came from cities or towns of
less than 3,000 inhabitants, one from a city of 4,851 inhabitants,
and one from a city of 10,862 inhabitants. The five largest
cities of the state are not represented on the state ticket.
Secretary of State James A. Frear, of Wisconsin, writes
as follows: "In Wisconsin, Milwaukee, the metropolis, has
over 300,000 inhabitants. The second city, Superior, has ap-
proximately 40,000. Of the five state officers elected under
the primary election only two, the Lieutenant-Governor and
Attorney-General, represent cities of over 5,000 inhabitants,
and several of the state officers come from still smaller com-
munities. The unsuccessful candidate for Attorney-General
was from Milwaukee."
Of the 21 governors, now in office, who were chosen by
direct primaries, six come from towns of less than 1,000
inhabitants, six more from cities or towns of less than 5,000,
four from cities of less than 20,000. This makes sixteen out
of twenty-one who come from cities of less than 20,000 in-
habitants. Of the remaining five, one comes from Birming-
ham, Ala., population 38.415; one from Portland, Oregon,
population 90,426; one from Memphis Tenn., population
102,320; one from Kansas City, Mo., population 163,752; and
one from Chicago, population 1,698,575.
These statistics, which were furnished by the Secretaries
of State of the several states above mentioned, are a con-
clusive answer to the assertion that, *under the direct primaries
system in New York, all the state officers would go to the
large cities, and the country districts would be left unrepre-
sented.
The sudden solicitude of convention system politicians for
the country voters has its amusing side in this state. One
would suppose that the conventions at present were usually
strongly influenced by the country delegates, and that the
tickets nominated contained at least a reasonable number of
rural candidates. If, however, we look at the Republican
state ticket of 1908, nominated by a state convention, we find,
as shown by the foregoing table, that the candidate for Gov-
38 SELECTED ARTICLES
ernor came from New York City, the candidate for Lieuten-
ant-Governor from Syracuse; the candidate for Comptroller
from Albany; the candidate for Treasurer from Rochester;
the candidate for Secretary of State from New York City;
the candidate for Attorney- General from Buffalo. Has the
rural voter ever heard of these obscure hamlets? The only
candidate who came from what might be called the rural
portion of the state was the State Engineer and Surveyor.
Who are the leaders in the deliberations of state conven-
tions? Those who control the machines of New York City,
Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse and Albany. A little reflection
will further reveal to the fair-minded reader the fact that the
cities tend to produce powerful political machines far more
than do the country districts, and that any system which
ensures to these machines the control of nominations, is
not a system which has at heart" the interests of the rural
portion of the state.
If, then, it is the proved experience of other states that the
large cities enjoy no preponderance in the distribution of of-
fices, why should not the same hold true in regard to the
general control over nominations? Any expectation of a
contrary result must rest almost exclusively on the unsupported
assertions of those party leaders who are opposed to direct
primaries.
"'Large centers of population would dominate primary elec-
tions,' says Mr. Wadsworth. So they would at the general
election if they voted as a unit. But large centers of popu-
lation do not vote as a unit, at the general election, and
neither would they — at the primary elections. Big cities
probably have a greater influence under the convention sys-
tem than they would have under the direct nomination sys-
tem; New York county, with Erie, dominates Democratic
state conventions. Tammany dominates New York City
Democratic conventions. New York county is not without
influence in Republican state conventions, as the effect of
Representative Parsons' successful support of Governor Hughes
at the last two conventions proves. If Tammany has a bare
DIRECT PRIMARIES 39
majority of the Democratic votes in this city, it casts the
whole strength of the city in a Democratic state convention.
Under the direct system, if Tammany had only a bare majority,
almost half the party votes of this city could co-operate with
anti-Tammany elements in the rural districts. The Anti-Tam-
many Democrats in this city are voiceless now. Under the
direct system they would be effective in the measure of what-
ever strength they possessed. This illustrates the fallacy of the
Speaker's argument." (Quoted from an editorial in the New
York Tribune of February 8th.)
What the direct primaries system will really prevent is the
present dickering as to these nominations among party bosses,
and their geographical distribution between the several local
organizations on the same basis as appointive patronage. It
may well be that under direct primaries some leaders will secure
fewer offices for their henchmen than under the present
system, but the average voter will shed few t^ars over such
a result.
(4) That "Plurality Nominations" Are Unfair
The argument that the direct primaries system is unfair
because it permits the selection of candidates by a mere plurality
of the party, has a strange sound as coming from the lips of
those who support the present method. If it is such a dire
evil — an evil that must be prevented at all costs — that something
less than an absolute majority of the enrolled party voters shall
be able by direct vote to select the party candidate, what shall
be said of a system under which two or three per cent of
these enrolled voters in a bare majority of the election districts
can name the delegates to each Assembly district convention,
and a bare majority of these Assembly district conventions can
in turn choose delegates to the state convention, and a bare
majority of the delegates so chosen to the state convention can
finally have the privilege of registering the decision previously
arrived at by a dozen men in a back room! To what extent
the average nomination under this system can be regarded as
a nomination by the majority of the party, the reader may
decide for himself. Instead of rejecting the direct primary
40 SELECTED ARTICLES
because it fails to ensure the ideal result, namely, that all
nominations shall represent the actually expressed will of a
majority of the enrolled voters, we should rather hail it as
the method above all others by which, under actual conditions,
this ideal may be most nearly approximated !
Approach the question from another standpoint. Why
should one condemn in the case of the primary election a
criterion of popular choice what for years has been all but
universally accepted as decisive at the general election? If a
plurality of the people's votes may elect a man to public office,
why should a plurality of his party's votes be insufficient to
elect him candidate for that office?
(5) That Direct Primaries Would Prevent "Fusion," and the
Non-Partisan Nomination of Judges
A careful study of the facts fails to disclose any founda-
tion for the above assertion. What is the one controlling in-
fluence which first prompted, and has more and more fre-
quently compelled, the party leaders to adopt this policy in re-
gard to judicial nominations? What force has generated such
widespread discontent with a dominant machine as to break down
the traditional partisanship of majority party leaders, and unite
them with independent organizations in a "fusion" campaign?
Obviously the answer is to be found in the development of
public opinion. The party "leaders" have not been the leaders
in this movement. Their desire has been for a straight ticket
victory and for the distribution of nominations on the basis of
services rendered to the party organization. It is not they
who have educated the people to disregard party lines, for the
sake of independent judges or honest city government. It
is an increasingly enlightened public sentiment which has
wrung from them a tardy and reluctant recognition. Would the
direct primary system — increasing, as it does, the popular share
in the nominating process, and reducing to a minimum the op-
portunity of narrow-minded partisanship to obstruct the opera-
tion of public opinion — ^be apt to decrease the frequency of non-
partisan judicial nominations or fusion tickets? Would it not
rather increase the likelihood of such enlightened action?
DIRECT PRIMARIES 41
It is perfectly possible to provide in a direct primary law that
a candidate for judicial or other office may have his name
placed by petition on the primary ballots of all parties.
At least a portion of the press may be trusted to bring
the facts in regard to such candidacies to the knowledge of
every man who reads and who takes the slightest interest in
electoral campaigns. The ultimate decision, then, rests with
the voters, and provided only that the situation be clearly
brought to their attention, the friends of good government will
be content to leave the result in their hands.
Mr. Charles H. Young, President of the Republican Club of
New York City, spoke, in a recent address, as if a direct
nominations law would make it impossible for party leaders so
to control the action of their obstinate and blindly partisan fol-
lowers as to prevail upon the latter to vote for a candidate of
the opposite f)arty. On the contrary, it will leave the average
party voter — who sets far less store by regularity than does
the average party leader — free to follow that course which the
real leaders of opinion in the community are constantly making
more familiar and more acceptable to him. Under direct pri-
maries it might not have been possible for Pat McCarren —
against the protests of all the newspapers — to turn down Judge
Blackmar, a Republican, and nominate his personal counsel in
his stead. The fact that Blackmar and Stapleton, the non-
partisan candidates, were chosen on election day, proves that
the people of Brooklyn were more to be trusted in such matters
than the party bosses. The only sort of "fusion" which direct
primaries will render more difficult is that which Speaker
Wadsworth described — either unwittingly, or because it was the
only sort with which he was familiar — namely, "fusion" based
on a division of the offices between the contracting party ma-
chines. The value of this sort of thing was well illustrated
by the fate of the Hearst-Republican "fusion" ticket in the New
York City election of 1907. However good the intentions of
the Republican leaders may have been, their campaign was
based on a bargain rather than on a principle. The loss of this
type of "fusion" will be of little moment to the community.
42 SELECTED ARTICLES
(6) That Direct Nominations Permit the Voters of One Party
to Participate in the Primaries of Another
In closing we may consider for a moment the argument
that under the direct primaries system, the voters of one party
are given an opportunity to take part in the primaries of another,
for the purpose of forcing upon the other a weak or unfit
candidate. In support of this assertion it is urged that in Mis-
souri last fall, the purchasable element in the Republican party,
by participation in the Democratic primaries, succeeded in de-
feating Governor Folk for the nomination for United States
senator in favor of William J. Stone. Similar unfortunate re-
sults, it is said, have been experienced in Minnesota and in
several other states. In order to demonstrate, however, the utter
irrelevancy of this "argument," it is only necessary to call at-
tention to the fact that there are two kinds of direct primaries
— the "open primary" and the "closed primary." Under the
"open primary," which is the system in force in the states above
referred to, the voter who desires to take part in a primary
election, on entering the polling place either asks for the
party ballot, which he wishes to have given him, or in other
states, is given a "blanket ballot," containing (as do the ballots
at general elections in New York) the primary tickets of all
the parties; or, in still other states, is handed a packet con-
taining the separate primary ballots of all the parties, and in-
structed to use whichever ones he wishes, and leave the rest in
the voting booth. According to all of these methods, each voter
may vote_ for the candidates for nomination of any one party,
{though obviously not for those of more than one), and no
attempt is made to prevent Democrats from taking a hand in
Republican nominations, or vice versa.
It is not, however, any of these forms of the "open pri-
mary" which Governor Hughes has recommended for New
York state. It is the other system — the "closed primary" —
which he advocates.
Under this system participation in the primaries of any
party is limited by law to the members of that party. As in
the case of the "open primary," however, more than one form
DIRECT PRIMARIES 43
of the "closed primary" is possible, the diflFerence consisting
in the method by which party membership is determined.
Under one form, there is no party enrollment, such as we
are familiar with in New York state, but the voter, on en-
tering the polling place at the primary election, is asked which
of the several party primary ballots he wishes to have given
him. He must answer in a good voice, and if any person present
has reason to suppose that he is trying to obtain the ballot of
a party to which he does not belong, such person may challenge
him and compel him to take an oath as to his party allegiance.
This provision has often been found inadequate to prevent the
members of one party from participating in the primaries of
another.
The second form of "closed primary" — the form which
Governor Hughes recommends — is one under which the same
method of party enrollment which is now in use in New York
State for indirect primaries would be applied to direct primary
elections. Under this form of "closed primary" no voter could
participate — any more than under the present convention system
— in the primaries of any party of which he was not a duly
enrolled member. It is thus obvious that the argument against •
direct primaries, which might have some force as applied to
the "open primary," or to the "closed primary" without party
enrollment, has absolutely no bearing upon the direct primary
law recommended by Governor Hughes.
Current Literature. 49: 5-7. July, 1910.
Governor Hughes's Last Political Fight.
To the objection that the elimination of the nominating con-
vention means the destruction of party organization. Governor
Hughes replies:
It is not those who seek to control party machinery for the
benefit of themselves and their friends who give wholesomeness to
party life and afford assurances to party success. The party life
will be vigorous and its representation faithful to the extent that
the rank and file of its membership, representing broadly Its in-
telligence and spirit, have opportunity to make their wishes de-
cisive in party action. This is not hostile to leadership that is
worthy of the name; that will be encouraged. It is hostile to that
44 SELECTED AI^TICLES
spurious leadership which seeks through the use of public offices
to construct a virtual despotism, whether it be to gratify an ambi-
tion for power or to fill the pocketbook, or both.
Eclectic Magazine. 146: 79-82. January, 1906.
Direct Primary Nominations. William Hemstreet.
In our present spasm of political virtue it would be ungracious
to discount any sincere proposition for reform unless some-
thing clearly better can be substituted. Individual independence
at the late municipal election in New York City was the reac-
tion anticipated from a long period of boss-blundering, and
it showed the latent potentialities of the people. We must
mark the campaign of Jerome and Hearst as instructive. They,
without caucus, primary or convention, and from sheer popu-
larity, were spontaneously nominated in spite of organized
taboo. Now a multitude of reformers are urging new methods
to correct nominating evils without these violent, expensive
and risky revolutions.
The plan now receiving favor is that of the people at the
primary directly nominating the party candidates without the
aid of a convention. This would only be going backward; for
two or three generations ago that was practiced when the
population was sparse. The Athenian democracy made laws
by a popular vote in the open forum, or market place. But
great masses of people cannot come together, so they choose
delegates to make their laws. It is necessarily the same with
a great party. Our two great parties are here as a matter of
fact, with their old-time methods, simplified, which can no
more be wiped out than the mountain springs, the creeks
and the rivers. Their system is an unwritten constitution of the
land. It is a fact that delegates can work with more facility
than the mass because they are chosen for having a broader
knowledge of public necessities and individuals.
But it would seem that this direct nomination fad is only
another device of political dudes for sneaking out of the cau-
cus where the duty of the citizen commences. If independents
desire to ignore the caucus and the convention, why do they
DIRECT PRIMARIES 45
not ignore, also, the other part of the system — the primary —
and then nominate by popular clamor?
But the worst effect of direct nominations would be their
inevitable minority rule. The independents would be so divided
by a multitude of clique and personal preferences that the
organized machine would easily carry off the plurality vote.
Thus the party would have to go before the people with a
minority candidate who is always weak. In our country the
majority must rule, from stem to stern, or we shall become
politically tropicalized. The political caucus is only the natural
pre-consultation and pre-arrangement common to all social
movement. It prevents confusion and is a simple method of
pre-converging the party wish. It does not jeopardize the
party by allowing some unworthy but eager candidate to push
himself ahead with a plurality vote in the secret and furtive
surprises of a direct primary voting. The people might have
a trial of it for a year or two, but they would return to the
old beaten track. It is doubtful whether even that innovation
will arouse us from our apathy. All old-timers say it will not.
If system is required in legislation and in the election, it is
all the more required in the nominations. Direct nominations
for public office would tend to break up all system.
Now a final word as to the organization of the independents
without direct nominations, adhering to the old-fashioned way.
The reform must begin with the people, the neighbors in
each little polling or election district. It has been a trick of
the politicians to make that unit of representation so small
that there is no place in it for public assembly. Here is a
great opportunity for the young patriot of worthy political
ambition. His neighbors will be his constituency that will
outnumber the machine. Let the New York City voter get
from the "City Record," in the basement of the City Hall,
for five cents, a printed list of all voters in his Assembly
district, with their residence and politics. The board of elections
of any borough will give him for nothing, or any newspaper
will for ten cents, the election and primary laws. Then he is
armed and equipped to go into the caucus of the machine, to
46 SELECTED ARTICLES
which all are invited, although if not invited, to hold a caucus
of his own and draw up his ticket for the primary which
the state officers there will honestly canvass. Thus, good men
as delegates being chosen they would make up wise and un-
purchasable conventions that no boss could control by patron-
age nor any aspirant by money, and that would make the
present election and primary laws good enough, without amend-
ment.
If we undertake to have a popular government we must
assume popular responsibilities. The Assembly district com-
mittee with its executive member is useful in routine work,
but the trouble is that by their concentrated authority they
have assumed to dictate nominations and patronage. Then
for this new primary district of seven election districts the
board of elections could more practically find a meeting room
for caucus or deliberation. A delegate from every election
district in a county committee would, make such a pande-
monium of from 800 to 1,200 that they would quickly cry out
for a boss. The above new apportionment, along with the
amendment of the primary law allowing no one as a dele-
gate or permanent committeeman who is on the public pay-
roll, also voting in all committees and conventions by ballot
only, will clear the political atmosphere.
It is these three evils that have reduced the interest of
the party, namely: Indirect representation by the election
district association, patronage-slavery in committees and con-
ventions, and the crack of the machine whip through voting
by voice.
But while conventions should be retained for public official
nomination there might be direct voting for party administra-
tors, because they stand in a relation to the party that a public
official does to the public. The voter for them at the primary
is like a delegate in a convention, voting directly for his ob-
ject. If a domestic minority wins that is no concern to the
public. The principle must be established, that delegates should
not vote for other delegates. Direct voting for public officials
would be disorganization, but it would be good organization as
DIRECT PRIMARIES 47
applied to the party administrators, such as committeemen
and their officers, as that ticket is wholly cut and dried be-
forehand, and, to save time, the voters would, assent.
We are inching along toward electoral perfection, the main
step to which is a popular caucus. Without that no new rules
will be effective. Let us be patient and persistent or else
own up our treason to the country.
Forum. 42: 493-505. December, igog.
Nomination Reform in America. Clinton Rogers Woodruff.
Party labels having so much value and significance, and
the artful politician making such powerful use of them for
his own ends, the question of determining who should bear
them has become a dominating one in American politics. And
the demand for direct nominations is the natural fruit of the
awakening consciousness of the American voter to the fact
that his part in politics consisted in choosing between two or
more lists of candidates set up, sometimes by rival politicians,
oftentimes by the same group of men operating under two or
more party banners, and in the selection of which, nine times
out of ten, he had no say, or real opportunity of saying any-
thing.
The convention was the approved means of the politician to
effect his ends. Composed of men unknown to the public and
of no further responsibility to those who elected them, but
personally known and responsible to the politicians, the con-
vention carried out the will and wishes of its masters and
went out of existence unhonored and unsung.
In theory the party convention, like the electoral college,
was admirable. Composed of representative men really reflecting
the highest aspirations of their constituents, its deliberations
concerning candidates would be worthy of the support of
their fellow-partisans, on the basis of merit; but the op-
portunities for manipulation were too obvious and the con-
vention soon became, first in the more populous centres and
48 • SELECTED ARTICLES
then practically everywhere, what we now know it to be, the
automaton of skilful manipulators.
The direct primary, which is practically the only im-
mediate remedy suggested for the undeniable and I think
generally conceded evils of the convention system, has been
bitterly opposed, not only by the politicians, whose nomina-
tion monopoly has been undermined and in many instances
destroyed, but by the theorist, who still regards the ideal of
the convention as feasible, by the natural opponents on
principle of the growth of democracy, and by some well-mean-
ing but momentarily blinded believers in the right of the
people to rule.
Nomination reform in the form of the direct primary is
objected to: because it does not put the "organization" or
the "machine" out of business; because it makes it virtually
impossible for any one "excepting moneyed men or demagogues
to be elected to office"; because it facilitates Democratic
voting to make Republican candidates and Republicans helping
to choose Democratic candidates; because it results in the
election of a Democratic United States senator in a Republican
state; because in nine times out of ten there is no issue, no
platform, "not one step forward is taken in educating the
people in the issues which confront them"; because it un-
necessarily imposes two elections and two campaigns upon
the taxpayers and upon the candidates or their friends; because
the party, as such, has no voice in selecting its candidates; be-
cause the ballot is so long; because it takes so long to vote the
ticket ; because certain candidates unfairly profit by the alphabeti-
cal arrangement ; because "it takes too blamed long to get returns"
— but as the one offering this last objection was frank enough to
say: "Under the old caucus one knew in a few minutes after it
was over just what had been done, and in most cases one was
able to tell with reasonable accuracy just what was going to
be done before the caucus was held,"
Practically all the objections that have beeti urged against
the direct primary are objections which can, with equal force
and effect, be urged against the convention system. The new
DIRECT PRIMARIES 49
system, when fairly tried, tends to diminish rather than in-
crease them. Those who speak of direct primaries
making two elections instead of one overlook the fact that
all delegates to conventions have heretofore been elected at
primaries in form at least, and that therefore there were
two elections under that system, as well as under the new one.
It is true that under the convention system the primary
elections were held under the auspices of the party and the
state was under no expense, but the argument in favor of
the state bearing the expense of and conducting the primary
election rests upon as solid ground as the contention that
the general election ballots should be prepared and distributed
under public supervision and at public expense rather than
by the parties.
The arguments advanced under this head are precisely the
same as were urged against the Australian ballot system
when it was introduced some years ago. It is now generally
conceded, I believe, except by a very small and diminishing
group of men, that the preparation and distribution of the
ballots at the general election is a proper function and expense
of the state. The fact that the old line politicians have fought
this particular provision so strongly is an indication that it
destroys a part of their privilege and monopoly. On principle
it seems to me that there ought to be no question that all
that relates to the making of nominations and the conduct of
elections (the nominations being a necessary precedent to the
election) should be carried on under state supervision and
the expense borne by the state.
As to the objection on the ground of the length of the
ballot, that is due to the great number of elective offices that
voters are called upon to fill. The trouble lies not with the
direct primary, but with the American custom of multiplying
the number of officers to be chosen by election. One of the
main arguments of Speaker ShurtlefT of Illinois in opposing
the Illinois direct primary law (recently declared by the
supreme court of the state to be unconstitutional) was
that "it would not be possible for intelligent men to vote
50 SELECTED ARTICLES
as they wished because the ballot would be three feet long";
but as a leading "down state" paper pointed out, the sample
ballots then being distributed showed the utter absurdity of
Shurtleflf's argument. "True the Republican primary ballot
is 'a yard lo.ng/ " if declared, "but it is by all odds the sim-
plest ballot that Aurora voters have ever been given. All one
has to do is to run his eye down the list and mark a cross
in the square in front of the name of the man for whom he
wishes to vote. The ballot given the voter at the general
election in November with its multitude of names of men in
every party is like a problem in quadratic equations as com-
pared to the primary ballot."
The Australian ballot, which for years has been in use in
Massachusetts, provides for the alphabetical arrangement of
names under the head of each office, and we know that that
ballot has not prevented the election of the candidates desired
by a majority of the voters of the state. ... In Phila-
delphia in February, 1907 at the time of the inauguration
of the new primary law, the successful Republican mayoralty
candidate's name began with an "R" and he was about two-
thirds the way down. The name of his nearest competitor
began with a "W." On the City Party and the Democratic
tickets, the names of the successful mayoralty nominees began
with 'T."
The objection that in the large precincts, on account of
the fact that it takes so long to vote, voters get tired of
waiting for their turn and go home without casting their
ballot is almost a trivial one. The remedy for this difficulty
is extremely simple. Make more booths and shorten the ballot.
So much for what may be termed the mechanical objec-
tions. As to the averment that the new system gives op-
portunity for all sorts of manipulation by members of one
party casting their votes for a nominee to be placed lipon the
ticket of the other, thus inviting the nomination of weak
candidates for the express purpose of overthrowing them, ex-
perience has not shown this to be well founded. There have
been instances where this has been done, but subsequent devel-
DIRECT PRIMARIES 51
opments showed that the people actually wanted the weaker
candidate.
One of the encouraging features of the discussion of the
Ames episode is to be found in the editorial of the St. Paul
Pioneer Press which said with great force and entire
truthfulness — ''There is no doubt that he (Ames) did receive
a large number of Democratic votes, but there is no reason
to believe he would not have received the Republican nomina-
tion. Furthermore what Democratic votes he received were
bona fide, the returns of the final election indicating that he
held all the Democratic votes he had received at the primaries.
Now, if this means anything, it means that the citizens of both
parties wanted him for mayor. It was an unwise choice, as
every well-posted voter knew at the time, but it was neverthe-
less the choice of the people of Minneapolis, and certainly that
can hardly be called popular government which would deny
to such an overwhelming majority as voted for Ames at the
primaries and at the election the right to have the candidate
and mayor it desired."
It is frequently asserted that where one party is in an
overwhelming majority it can dictate the minority nominations.
This is measurably true in some places, but it is not likely
to continue so, inasmuch as such a policy inevitably reacts
on those responsible for it. In Philadelphia in February, 1909,
the dominant party nominated one of its men on the in-
dependent party's ticket by a successful diversion of its vote
and invasion of the other party's camp. The Independents
changed their party name and nominated their men under
it, and they had a campaign issue ready made for them, and
at the succeeding primary election the Republicans had all
they could do to nominate their own candidates on their own
ticket to attempt any outside job.
The allegation that primary election contests engender so
much feeling within the party that it enters a campaign great-
ly handicapped merits careful consideration. The Nashville
American has put the case, so far as this point is concerned,
in this wise:
52 SELECTED ARTICLES
A few more state primaries, and Tennessee will land in the Re-
publican column. Nothing is more conducive to party dissension,
antagonism and disruption than primary elections. Tennessee has
had two state primaries, one for senator and one for governor, and
they were both fair in ascertaining the popular will. But each
left scars, and each weakened the party loyalty of many voters.
The primary plan, if persisted in, will destroy all effective party
organization. It means a campaign for the nomination and another
campaign for election, with increased opposition. County primaries
where one party is in an overwhelming majority may do well
enough, but even then they serve to reduce the vote in the regular
election, which is a bad result. The primary has been tried in
congressional districts in the state, and in every instance the party
has suffered. The convention plan is unpopular. There ought to
be some other method of making nominations. The American
has favored the election of delegates from districts to county con-
ventions, the counties to send delegates to the congressional and
state conventions, something after the plan of the primary for
governor, but even that primary seems to have been an injury to
the party, though it was as fair as could be. No matter what
anybody has advocated or opposed, the primary system is prolific
of trouble.
The editor frankly confesses that even the system he favors
is likely to be prolific of soreness and, therefore, an injury
to the party at the later election. Such a condition is likely
to occur under any system, and after all if the people of a
community do not want a man, he ought not to be forced
upon them nolens volens.
Shortly after the defeat of David P. Jones for re-election
as mayor of Minneapolis, in 1906, there was considerable hue
and cry against the system. The editor of a leading paper
wrote at the time that his paper had taken the position that
the primary law in its present form in Minnesota was not
satisfactory; that it had not produced as good results as
were anticipated and that, if possible, it ought to be revised.
"At the same time," he continued,
we have not settled upon any plan by which the defects of the
law may be corrected. We find by experience that the primary
campaign develops so much friction among members of the same
party that the hostility engendered toward the successful candi-
date among those of his own party is so intense, that it cannot be
allayed and the opposition mustered in support of the successful
candidate. Ordinarily party support for a candidate is not a mat-
ter which concerns us materially in municipal elections, but there
are times when party support is important. For instance, in our
late municipal campaign there were two candidates for the Re-
publican nomination — one of them Mayor Jones, who put on the
"lid," stood for Sunday closing in his campaign, for the abolition
of public gambling and other reforms for the promotion of the
public morals. He was opposed within his own party by a man
who declined to commit himself to anything in particular, but who
was understood to be the candidate of the brewing interest.
DIRECT PRIMARIES 53
Mayor Jones was successful in the primary by about 800 votes,
but when it came to the regular election it does not appear that
any of the Republicans who voted for the other Republican candi-
date in the primary voted for Jones. They were so thoroughly
committed against him in the primary campaign that it was im-
possible to get them into line again. They seemed to have gone
over bodily to the opposition, and Jones was defeated by 3,500 votes
in the regular election. The candidate opposed to him on the
Democratic ticket in the first campaign speech also declared for
the "lid" and his intention to keep the saloons closed on Sunday,
although his policy during a previous administration had been very
loose as to public vices. If we had had a convention, Jones would
have been nominated and nominated without the bitterness of feel-
ing which was aroused in a long primary campaign. The delegates
would have been pledged to his support by their participation in
the convention and practically a full party strength would have
been voted for him, and he would have been elected.
To this the reply was sent —
Of course one cannot judge of your local conditions at this dis-
tance, but it would seem as if the people of Minneapolis wanted
a wide-open town, and if they did I am enough of a Democrat to
believe that they should have what they want, even though they
may be mistaken in their desire and ambitions. You speak of the
Republicans who voted against Mayor Jones in the primary as
voting against him at the general election. It is to be presumed
from what you write that they did this because they disapproved
of his policy. If they sincerely disapproved of his policy, would
they not be stultifying themselves if they voted for him simply
because he bore a particular partisan badge?
You will understand, of course, that personally I am a great
friend and believer In Mayor Jones, but my point is that in the
last analysis the will of the people should prevail even though
temporary disappointment and embarrassment may result. In
short, I do not believe that there is any philosopher's stone of a
constitution or of a statute as Governor Russell put up some years
ago that will effectually save a people from themselves.
This editor's position, although honorably and honestly
taken, was a mistaken one. The cause of democratic govern-
ment suffered not at all, or at most only a temporary check,
through Jones's defeat, whereas it would be checked and
seriously hampered if the direct primary laws were curtailed.
The charge that the direct primary facilitates the election
of the rich man and "renders it impossible for any except
the rich man or the demagogue to be elected" cannot be
seriously taken even though urged by men of such high stand-
ing in party counsels as former Secretary Leslie M. Shaw.
The latter part of the objection contradicts the former. Under
the direct primary there has been sufficient experience to
furnish convincing replies to the contrary. Certainly neither
Chamberlain of Oregon, Gore of Oklahoma, Jones of Washing-
ton, or Bristow of Kansas, can be classified as rich men nor
54 SELECTED ARTICLES
as demagogues, even though one may not agree with their
views. Those who urge this objection cite the case of Senator
Stephenson of Wisconsin, but the point loses its force when
we recall the scandal in connection with the election of W. A.
Clark of Montana under the old plan. Any system will afford
opportunities for chicanery and corruption. The question is
which affords the most resistance to such practices, the old
indirect methods or the modern direct primary?
The claim that the direct primary eliminates the party
platform, and the education of the electorate in the political
issues of the day does not seem to be borne out by the facts.
So far as one's observation goes, the system provokes rather
more than less in the way of platforms and political discussion.
There has certainly been a great increase in the number of
organizations designed to assist in the promotion of such
discussions, and to guide voters aright through the tangled
mazes of the long ballot and the numerous issues involved.
As to the government by the mob, that is an argument
that will find little favor in American ears, for with all our
shortcomings in the matter of self-government, the charge
can hardly be laid at our doors that we act like a mob.
There is a considerable measure of emotionalism and no
little mistaken or irrational action, but manhood suffrage has
so far not been so conspicuous a failure as to lead to any
general demand for its abolition. The tendency is toward a
broader basis of suffrage rather than toward a more restricted
one. We are committed to a government of the people and for
the people, and above all by the people, and we might just
as well realize it.
Harper's Weekly. 55: 20. March 25, 1911.
Direct Primary in Action. L. J. Abbott.
The direct primary, like the initiative and referendum, the
recall, or any other step toward pure democracy, is no civic
cure-all. It works or fails to work, exactly as the convention
DIRECT PRIMARIES 55
works or fails to work, depending entirely upon the men
who work it.
So far as I know, it has been rejected by no state which
has once adopted it. So the judgment in the aggregate is de-
cidedly in its favor. Yet the direct primary, as it has come
under my observation for a series of years, has certain palpable
defects that can in a large measure be remedied.
The first question to be settled is whether you shall' have
an "open" or a "closed" primary law. The open primary has
the names of all the candidates arranged in parallel columns
upon a single ticket. This is the law that prevails in Wisconsin
and Nebraska, Under such a system the elector is given a
ballot with the candidates of every party upon it. In the
booth he is free to vote in any column, although in Nebraska
no one is permitted to cross over from one column to another.
In Wisconsin, I believe, there is no such limitation.
It is readily seen that by the open primary party distinctions
are quickly eradicated. This probably makes for good govern-
ment. There is no question that, had it not been for thou-
sands of Wisconsin Democrats forsaking their own candidate
and voting for La Follette, that bundle of fearless energy
would long ago have been relegated to private life. But on
the other hand the open primary in Nebraska, this very fall,
permitted thousands of "whiskey Republicans" to vote for
the "wide-open" Democratic Mayor of Omaha, and thus
nominate him for governor over a conservative and earnest
Democrat who had made a good record as governor, and was
undoubtedly the choice of a considerable majority of his
party.
Again, under the open primary it is possible for one party
to present but a single candidate for each office; then upon
primary day most of its electors can vote for the weak candi-
date of the opposition, and thus make him the choice of their
opponents. This is an expedient much discussed where the
open primary prevails, yet I must confess that I have never
known the trick to succeed, except possibly in the case of the
Omaha mayor mentioned above. It should be explained that
56 SELECTED ARTICLES
there were two Republican candidates in Nebraska last fall,
so this is not exactly a case in point.
The "closed" primary requires all electors to give their
party preference when they enter the election booth. A ticket
is then handed them in accordance with their previously de-
clared party affiliation. In this way the electors of one party
cannot dictate the nominees of another. But on the other hand
there are many citizens who do not affiliate with any political party,
who are thus disfranchised at the primary. These independent
citizens are often the best educated and most thoughtful men
in the community, yet under the closed primary they are
tabooed from selecting men for office because they refuse to
wear a party label. Again, many party men, for reasons of
their own, often prefer not to disclose their party preference.
They, too, are disfranchised by the closed primary, while the
Wisconsin plan allows every one a choice. In this respect,
as well as in the facility afforded men to shift from one party
to another, the open primary is far more democratic than the
closed primary that prevails throughout the South.
Having determined the kind of a primary to be adopted,
the next question to be considered, and by all odds the first
in importance, is the number of candidates to be subject to the
primary law. This is the chief defect of every primary enact-
ment with which I am familiar. To illustrate: In the Okla-
homa primary election of August 2, 1910, the Democrats were
compelled to make choice among ninety-five candidates who
were aspiring for no less than thirty-seven offices. The Re-
publicans had eighty-nine candidates seeking thirty-eight offices.
Out of this grand hodgepodge of good, bad, and indiffer-
ent, how could the elector make any intelligent choice? He
was assailed with countless letters, handbills, printed speeches,
newspaper articles and public addresses. In the hurlyburly of
the primary it was all but impossible to get the truth regarding
any aspirant for office one did not know personally.
One attending a "candidates' barbecue" just previously to
the primary cannot but be nauseated by the fulsome praise
candidate after candidate gives himself. A man of keen
DIRECT PRIMARIES 57
sensibilities revolts at the unseemly scramble, at the self-lauda-
tion, and the tacking up of his half-tone picture at every cross-
roads, like advertisements for patent nostrums. Men of high
ideals will not enter such a race, and the field is left clear to
the calloused and the demagogue. The man who wins is the
hand-shaker, the ''jollier," and the fellow with the Sunny Jim
smile.
Now this is not true of^the men at the head of the ticket.
In Oklahoma a blind man, not burdened with wealth, defeated
a millionaire banker for the United States Senate merely
because the people understood the issue and wanted the blind
man to represent them. There are five or six offices that every
elector is interested in. For these, men are put forward and
nominated that the people really want. But a large number
of very important administrative offices are almost totally over-
looked. It is true sometimes, for a particular reason, that
some minor contest is brought prominently to the front, and
then most of the voters will inform themselves regarding the
merits of the respective candidates for this office, but this is
the exception, not the rule.
I can vouch that I have heard a hundred men of intelli-
gence ask, just previously to voting, regarding the qualifica-
tions of certain candidates for offices of highest importance.
Quite as frequently the answer was, "I don't know any of
'em, I just voted for the first fellow on the list." And the first
fellow on the list got the nomination. This very year an
Hon. L. T. Burnes, regarding as hopeless his candidacy for
State Commissioner of Insurance of Oklahoma, gave up the
canvass, withdrew his name, and went off to Central America.
But the ticket had been certified up to the printer, his name
went on the ballot, and, beginning with "B," it happened to
come first in the list. So in spite of the fact that Mr. Burnes
was no longer a candidate and had left the country, he was
nominated by a handsome majority.
This same fall Wisconsin outdid even this. In that state
a candidate for Attorney-General was nominated who was
dead. The Oklahoma aspirant for civic honors was finally lo-
58 SELECTED ARTICLES
cated and brought back to run his race. Wisconsin could
resort to no such expedient.
The remedy is not difficult to suggest: Nominate but a
few of the most important officials. Let the executive appoint
his executive helpers. Then hold this executive to a strict
accountability for his appointees.
Has it not been shown that the direct primary, like every
measure requiring the action of large bodies of people, is in
theory useful and effective, but in action often crude and un-
satisfactory?
Primary Election Law. M. G. JeflFris.
Aside from the candidates for the office of governor, com-
paratively little will be known of the others beyond their own
immediate surroundings, and they must proceed to make them-
selves known if they desire to attain the first place in the wild
race for office. If this bill operates as claimed by its advocates
there will be many candidates. Men who are financially able
will run up their lightning rod in hopes that in the jumble to
follow — in this free-for-all — they will stand just a chance of
being struck. A candidate is selected who receives a small
plurality, but who, may be, receives less than a tenth of the
votes cast. A man who would have no chance whatever if
the party of the state through its representatives had selected
its candidates. Would it follow that he is the best man, the
most available candidate, or that he had any particular quali-
fication for the place — not at all. Who is he bound to be?
He will be the one who has best organized his forces — one
who has been spending his time in politics and has the most
grafters following in his train — one who can get the most
newspapers to blow his horn. Will it be said that this is all
true of the convention system? It is not true to any such extent
at least.
In convention we assemble from all over the state. There are
many men from whom to choose. We select the men whom
we believe will strengthen the ticket, men well enough thought
DIRECT PRIMARIES 59
of to draw votes, men whom the people can trust, men whose
records are clear and are not subject to attack from the op-
position on personal grounds. They are put in office by direct
act of the party and they feel that the honor of the party is in
their keeping. With a hundred and twenty years of American
history how comparatively rare are the betrayals of this trust.
What is going to be another inevitable result in a law such as
is proposed? A candidate will see that he can save money,
time, trouble, and be sure of success if he combines with other
candidates. A slate will be made up among the candidates,
and when you get that and it succeeds, what have you con-
structed? A machine. And such a machine as compared with
any thing we ever have had in that line as the billion dollar
steel trust compares with the country blacksmith.
Under this law great power is given to railroad corporations.
They can organize enough voters swiftly and secretly to con-
trol every nomination. An individual would be powerless as
against them. Under our present system they have never dared
to take hand in political matters. Where nominations are made
on bare pluralities their means of organization are so great
that they would be able to dictate. Corruption in one county
under this law would affect the entire state so far as nomina-
tion of state officers are concerned.
The last Republican state convention nominated all of the
candidates by acclamation. It was generally understood through-
out the state that it would be done. No contests were made.
The conditions were accepted by the Republicans. Yet had
this law been in force each officer would have had to have
gone through all the steps required in case of a vigorous con-
test— and probably everything would have been contested. Your
acceptable representative must fight for his seat every election.
But a claim will be made that with a man in office he will
be so much better known that he can easily defeat all comers.
If that is so it will apply to the good servant and the ringster
alike and will result in the formation of an office holder's
machine. Either one of these opposite results would condemn
this bill. What is going to be the situation when either party
is confronted with a condition such as that which confronted
6o SELECTED ARTICLES
the Democratic party of this state in the last campaign? Were
there good Democrats in this state who would have gone to the
trouble and expense of getting out nomination papers to be
nominated last fall? The party in convention had to use
its utmost diplomacy to prevail upon men to fill out the ticket.
If such a law as this had been in force who would have been
the candidates on that ticket? Would they have been desir-
able men to elect? Would they have been a credit to the party
they represent? There are scores of districts of political
divisions, which are strongly Democratic. Are you going to
get good citizens and leading Republicans to circulate nomination
papers to be put upon a ticket which is foredoomed to defeat?
The result would be that we would have to have caucuses and
conventions to prepare for primary elections just as we now
have caucuses and conventions to prepare for regular elections.
We can, by caucuses and conventions, obtain the consent of
men to run, although defeat is certain, men whose very pres-
ence upon the ticket strengthens every part thereof. In dis-
tricts where the opposition is overwhelming the ticket of the
weaker party would at least be of little credit to anyone.
I well remember an instance where the Republican party of
this state was confronted by a most serious situation. We
wanted a strong, vigorous, well-known man at the head of
the ticket that he might, if possible, bring victory out of de-
feat. Such a man as I have described was prevailed upon to
head the ticket upon the sole condition that he was the abso-
lute unanimous choice of the convention. Our situation was
so bad that even he could not save the day, but he reorgan-
ized the party, held us together, brought out the best elements
of the party and in the next campaign we were victorious.
He made that run in the interests of- Republicanism. I know
that the campaign was a direct personal sacrifice for John
C. Spooner. Where would we have been without a convention?
We would have drifted further and further from our moorings
and in my judgment continued to drift until we called a con-
vention.
This bill is contrary to the theory of American institutions.
We are a republic, not a democracy. Ours is a representative
DIRECT PRIMARIES 6i
form of government. You gentlemen were sent here, not to
represent yourselves, but to represent your constituents. Why
do they send you here, one hundred and thirty-three of you,
to represent two millions of people? There are two reasons.
One is that it is impossible for the two millions of people to
get together and agree upon what laws shall govern them.
But like the primary election, laws can be proposed and the
whole people vote on them. That is not a Republican form of
government. It is a democracy and has been tried and found
wanting because with widely scattered individuals, every man
acting for himself, it is impossible to carry on the business.
When a law is submitted to the people every man examines
it with reference to its immediate effect upon him, and he will
insist upon having a law that is perfect from his standpoint
before he will approve, and for that reason proper legislation
could not be obtained. In a Republican form of government
we must give and take. A law in some of its provisions may
not be quite satisfactory to me. In other of its provisions it
may not be quite satisfactory to you, but we must get to-
gether and agree upon something that will do substantial justice
to each of us. The way we do that is by having a committee,
or a legislature, or a convention to settle those questions for
us. We are represented and take a personal part in it just
as much as though we were personally present. There is another
reason why the submission of the laws to the people is not
satisfactory. A great mass of the people with their own af-
fairs to attend to, are not capable of selecting the best pro-
visions. They cannot hear the arguments for or against and
weigh the matter. Therefore we have a legislature, we have
a congress, we have a common council, we have a county
board. It is all representation. It is all Republican. It is
the theory upon which our government stands. The conven-
tion system is a part of that same machinery. We hold a
caucus, we send representatives to a convention, and they for-
mulate the principles upon which we, as a party, are going to
stand, and they select from a multitude of candidates the men
who are going to represent us at the coming election. Do they
say that these conventions are not perfect? That they don't
62 SELECTED ARTICLES
always give the people the best candidates? We answer that
legislatures do not always give the people the best laws. That
our congresses do not always legislate just as they should.
They sometimes appropriate too much money. They appro-
priate money to wrong uses. They adopt laws that are not
beneficial, but upon the whole they do for us much better than
could be done if every individual citizen should attempt to
take part in the proceeding. They give us on the whole better
results than could be obtained by a mass meeting of citizens,
or by citizens working through a primary election from widely
separated standpoints. This law is a step in the line of the
introduction of the initiative and the referendum. They both
follow as a logical sequence if this law is of value and is in
harmony with our institutions. It is an impeachment of a
Republican form of government which is guaranteed under the
constitution of the United States. It means that a representa-
tive form of government is a failure — that each citizen must
act upon all questions. Are the American people ready to ren-
der such a verdict? . . . The caucus system is valuable
because it brings people together to talk of their common in-
terests. Conventions are of great value in that they throw
people from all over the state together and matters of com-
mon interest are discussed. It is to the interest of professional
politicians that voters should be kept apart. The established
bureau will furnish all desired information. Tyranny prevents
the assemblage of the people. The people in making con-
stitutions have realized the value of the right to assemble and
have put that right beyond the power of abridgement by con-
stitutional enactments.
The caucus and convention system grew and are main-
tained not for the primary purpose of selecting men to fill
offices. They had their origin, and their maintenance is for
the primary purpose of selecting and promulgating principles
and of then selecting men to carry those principles into effect.
Under this bill principles are relegated to the rear. Principles
are of no importance. Under this bill the vital question be-
fore the people all the time is who shall fill the offices? Not
what shall a party stand for, not what are its ideals, but who
DIRECT PRIMARIES 63
shall draw the salary? And the bill is so constructed that the
men who hold hardest and fastest to the ideals, and the men
who believe in the establishment and maintenance of principles,
are sent to the background, while the hustling, pestiferous
demagogue who is brazen faced enough to chase up and down
the state for votes, is the one who shall administer our affairs.
The man whose sole motive is to get an office, declares for us
after he has got his nomination what we stand for. Are the
American people to cast down its ideals by specific acts of law?
This bill puts the cart before the horse. It makes men the
all important issue. It nominates men and then permits them to
say what are their principles. It makes no difference whether
we approve. It is too late to change. . . . This bill will turn
our so-called principles into a candidate's appeal for votes. The
true American way is for the people to declare what they want
and then select men who are willing and who have the capacity
to supply that want. This is the natural method — it is Repub-
lican in form — it is American. This system pervades every phase
of our national existence. Under it we have grown from a
handful to one of the mighty nations of the earth's history. We
have grown from poverty to be the bankers of the world. We
have grown from half -starved common laborers to a nation of
mechanics, well fed, well clothed, well housed, well educated.
We are an independent and self-respecting people — all can make
themselves felt in caucus and convention. The instances of our
representatives betraying our trust are rare. Why then this radi-
cal change — where the need of pulling out and rejecting one of
the foundation stones on which we have been building with suc-
cess for more than a hundred years?
Primary Elections for the Nomination of all Candidates by
Australian Ballot. Robert M. La FoUette.
The voter, and the candidate for nomination who desires
to represent the voter, must be brought within reaching dis-
tance of each other, must stand face to face.
To accomplish this we must abolish the caucus and con-
vention by law. place the nomination of all candidates in the
64 SELECTED ARTICLES
hands of the people, adopt the Australian ballot and make
all nominations by direct vote at a primary election.
Surely this plan is right in principle because it is repre-
sentative government pure, simple and direct. Is it prac-
ticable? Let us consider. Manifestly it cannot be claimed that
the plan proposed is unwieldy or cumbersome. Compared
with the existing method it is simplicity itself. At present
we have one set of caucuses to nominate candidates for the
assembly, another for the senate, another for county officers,
another for congressmen, another for state officers, each fol-
lowed by conventions, intermediate and nominating. For all
these it is proposed that we have one primary election for
nominations. But this will require us to hold two elections,
the primary election and the general election, says the object-
or. True, I answer, but the primary election takes, of the
voter's time only enough, to go quietly to the election booth,
mark and cast his ballot, in accordance with his previously
formed judgment upon the merits of the candidates. How
much more likely is he to do this than to attend upon a half
dozen different caucuses and twice as many conventions in a
vain effort to maintain his right to representation. Besides
in attending upon each of these caucuses he must take part
in a prolonged struggle over the election of a chairman, the
election of each delegate, and perhaps an attempt to make
the delegate reflect the will of the voters by resolutions of
instruction.
But says the advocate of political conventions, nomination
by primary election would not distribute the places on the
ticket geographically or according to nationality. I admit it.
But instead, men would be nominated, who are so strong as to
out-weigh all considerations of geography or nationality. Be-
sides this, the nomination of the candidates of all parties by
secret ballot upon the same day, would allow of no opportunity
for the slightest advantage to either in respect to locality or
nationality. More than this, all local interests are cared for by
apportioning the state- into senatorial and assembly districts.
But again it may be objected, that with a primary election.
DIRECT PRIMARIES 65
there would be a large* number of candidates for each office,
and less than a majority would nominate. Supposing this were
true, how is it in the convention? One of the common tricks
of the machine is to bring out as large a number of local
candidates as possible in every section of the state where the
candidate they most fear is especially strong, either for the
same or some other office, it matters not which, if the local
candidate has following enough to enable him to name the
delegates from his county, it serves the purpose. Each of
these candidates is used as a mere stalking horse to fool a
local constituency, and finally carry their delegation into the
camp of the machine. But the reasons are all against a large
number of candidates in a primary election. The temptation
of having his name presented in a glorifying speech of nom-
ination before a state convention would be wholly wanting to
the candidate in a primary election. He would be reluctant to
diminish his future chances by receiving only a meager local
vote in such an election, and being judged upon it in com-
parison with candidates of real merit, and greater popular
strength. Let it be admitted that a plurality might nominate,
what then? Election to office is determined by a plurality
vote. Is there any good reason to urge against nominations
being determined in like manner. An honest plurality in a
primary election would be more in harmony with the spirit of
republican institutions than a dishonest machine-made-majority
in a political convention. Aye, such a plurality would be
more in harmony with republican institutions, than the hasty
ill-considered majority-action, of a thousand excited delegates,
in a political convention, wholly free from machine influence —
if that were conceivable in these times.
Literary Digest. 39: 330-2. September 4, 1909.
Value of Direct Primaries in Doubt.
An original turn in the contest over direct primaries in
New York state has accentuated the fact that the subject is of
national interest. The great difficulty in judging results ap-
66 SELECTED ARTICLES
pears to be in determining whether seeming failures indicate
defects in individual laws or the impracticability of the sys-
tem in general.
Perhaps the most quoted utterance in derogation of the
plan is that of the Indianapolis News, which, as a former ad-
vocate, confesses its disappointment over the operation of
direct primaries in its home city. Says The News:
Here we brought about the nomination of some good men for
county offices a year ago, but we used occasionally to nominate
some good men by the old method. To-day we have five candi-
dates for mayor, not one of whom measures up to the standard
which it was supposed we should reach under the direct primary.
It is admitted on all hands that if the new machinery is retained we
shall have to do something to limit expenditures, or else throw
them on the public. For as things now are we have in effect two
elections, two campaigns, and as a consequence two large outpour-
ings of money. This of course would be a small price to pay if
the results were what it was supposed they would be. But they
are not, or at least they have not been so far. The good men who
it was predicted would "come out," do not do so. The necessity
of making two campaigns, of contributing to two campaign funds,
and of twice submitting to the importunities of the 'heelers,' un-
doubtedly increases the reluctance of representative citizens to
offer themselves. y
Similarly the Baltimore American testifies that in Balti-
more under a like system,
The election was a costly one to the city. It necessitated an
outlay of approximately $40,000. As about 14,000, or a little over
12 per cent, of the registered vote was polled every vote cast cost
the city about $2.85. . . .
The Democrats made the better showing for the reason that
they drummed out every office-holder comeatable. As there are
5,000 of these employed by the city alone and quite a number in the
state oflices, it is not suprizing that they should have given a
better account of themselves than the Republicans. The Demo-
cratic organization also put out a little money to stir up the work-
ers, $5 being alloted to each precinct.
Yet on the other hand, Governor Stubbs, of Kansas, is
quoted as informing the New York Commission that, while
before the primary election law of that state went into effect
the Republican party of Kansas was controlled by an oligarchy
of bosses in the interest of corporations, now, through the
operation of the law:
The power has been taken out of the hands of those few men
who formerly dictated the list of candidates and made the platform.
It is a requirement for success in seeking public office in Kansas
now for a man to prove himself honest and capable and to have
(Something of merit to offer to the people. A man to be nominated
now must be worth while and offer something for the good of the
state, instead of his chief qualification being whether or not he
can be handled.
DIRECT PRIMARIES 67
Also, the Chicago Post makes merry over the recollection
that the New York Commission "which is here looking for
weak spots in the direct primary system does not seem to have
received much aid and comfort from the Chicago men who
addrest it." As for these Chicago men, it appears:
They not only insisted that the system had worked out substan-
tially as its advocates thought, but their tart retorts to the some-
what adverse comments of the New Yorkers had the great merit of
being sound as well as witty. Here, for instance, was a fair tit-
f or- tat:
"In Wisconsin under the direct primary," said Judge Knapp, "the
people elected to the United States Senate, over younger, abler,
but poorer men, a millionaire eighty-two years of age. In New
York under the old system the legislature the same year elected to
the Senate Elihu Root."
"Well," said Professor Merriam, "the primary system in Wis-
consin gave that state Senator La Follette and the old system in
New York gave that state Senator Piatt."
In the recent primary elections of San Francisco, The
Chronicle of that city finds "much that is encouraging and
much that is unfortunate," but apparently the worst features
are partly due to the fact that "there is an uncomfortably large
element in the city which is reckless and shameless in casting
its vote," and this element can hardly be eliminated by the
primary law.
Michigan Political Science Association, Publications. 6:
31-54. March, 1905.
Forty Years of Direct Primaries. Ernest A. Hempstead.
It was in i860 that the Republican party of Crawford
county, less than six years after its organization, inaugurated
the plan known as the Crawford county direct primary sys-
tem. Although the party had twice carried the county, form-
merly Democratic, and was seemingly well entrenched in
power, its young, vigorous and, in the main, well-led organ-
ization had experienced the difficulties which beset all suc-
cessful political parties. What those difficulties were are clearly
set forth in the following brief resolution, offered by Dr. C. D.
Ashley in the Republican county convention of June 20. i860:
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
68 SELECTED ARTICLES
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 \ arious candidates for office, is
undemocratic, because the people have no voice in it, and objec-
tionable 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 di-
rectly to the people — the Republican voters — and that delegate con-
ventions 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.
This resolution was adopted with but two dissenting votes
in a convention of eighty-eight delegates representing forty-
four election districts. The system thus demanded was formu-
lated in 1861 by a sub-committee of the county committee, and
adopted by the full committee, of which the Hon. John W.
Howe, an ex-member of Congress, was chairman. By pop-
ular tradition he was its real author. The rules thus put into
practice, with a few amendments, have ever since been in use
by the Republican party of Crawford county, although they
were not formally passed upon by the voters of the party until
fifteen years later. It is rather odd that these rules, pro-
viding for a popular vote system of making nominations,
should have been ordered put in force by a delegate conven-
tion, and drawn and put in force by a county committee, with-
out being referred to the voters themselves.
The rules adopted at that time provided for the nomination
by popular vote of all candidates, duly announced for at least
three weeks in the newspapers, the voting to take place at
the regular polling place in each district between the hours
of 2 and 7 p. m. on the day selected by the county committee.
The voters of the party who have assembled in each district
at 2 o'clock choose one of their number for judge of the elec-
tion to be held, and two persons for clerks. When the polls
close at 7 o'clock the board counts the votes cast, and on the
following day one member, usually the judge, takes the return
to the convention at the Court House in Meadville. Here the
returns from the entire county are tabulated, and the result
announced by the president of the Board of Return Judges,
DIRECl^ PRIMARIES 69
the person receiving the highest number of votes for each office
being declared the nominee of the party for that office.
For many years each candidate furnished his own ballots.
About fourteen years ago the candidates for each office co-
operated, printing all their names on one ballot, with instruc-
tions to the voter concerning how many were to be voted for.
For the past twelve years the chairman of the county commit-
tee has printed ballots containing all the names of all the
candidates announced according to the rules, grouped accord-
ing to the offices, the voter erasing the names of all except
those for whom he wishes to vote. Thus, without either act
of the Legislature, or even a rule of the party, but by the
natural process of evolution, a satisfactory solution of the
ballot question was reached, and an Australian ballot adopted
before its general adoption for regular elections.
The rules now in use are but slightly changed and in minor
matters only from those originally adopted. Early in their
history it was found necessary to limit strictly participation at
the primaries to those either known to be Republcan voters,
or willing to pledge themselves thereafter to vote the Repub-
lican ticket; to require the use of ballot boxes (a hat or an
open table serving in some places for many years) ; and to
require lists of voters to be kept and brought to the con-
vention of return judges, in order that in case of dispute and
contest it might be possible to determine whether voters not
Republicans had participated, or whether there had been fraud.
To guard against fraud and the participation of other than the
Republican voters, an amendment was also adopted, later,
limiting the number of votes which might be lawfully cast in
any district at a primary to the number cast by the party at the
last preceding presidential election, making allowance for voters
who had come of age since that election, and providing for the
reduction of the vote pro rata among all candidates in case of
excess. To the credit of the party it has not once been found
necessary to enforce this amendment. The practice of "ring-
ing in" Democratic voters or voters of other parties, stopped
from the day it was made unlawful.
70 SELECTED ARTICLES
Two opportunties have been given the voters of Crawford
county to return to the delegate system. In 1876, after a very
full discussion by the press, the system was retained, receiving
1*585 votes; the Clarion county system (the Crawford county
system with slight modifications,) 696; the representative dele-
gate system, 533. The two popular vote systems received over
eighty per cent of the vote cast. Not satisfied with this result,
the friends of the delegate system asked for another test, and
in 1879 it was made. The verdict was still more emphatic,
1,945 votes being polled for the retention of the direct primary
system as against 416 for the delegate system. For the past
twenty-five years no attempt has been made to supplant it, and
it will doubtless endure until such time as Pennsylvania shall
by general law adopt the direct primary for all nominations for
all candidates of all parties.
So satisfactory has the system proven in Crawford county,
that in 1888 it was adopted by a nearly unanimous vote by the
Republican party of Meadville, the county seat, a city of 10,000
inhabitants, for all ward and city nominations, and has been
continuously and successfully in use since.
In 1887 the system was adopted by the Republicans of the
Twenty-sixth Pennsylvania congressional district, composed
of the counties of Crawford and Erie. It has given entire
satisfaction and is still in use, there having been no change
in the boundaries of the district since the direct primary was
adopted. It has resulted in an average attendance at the pri-
maries of seventy-seven per cent of the entire Republican vote
of the district as cast at the subsequent general election. Craw-
ford county had theretofore been part of a district using the con-
feree system, Erie county of a district using the representative
delegate system. The conferee system gave to each county
constituting a Congressional district three conferees or dele-
gates, who were generally the personal choice of the candidate
who carried each county. These conferees would meet, vote
for the candidates of their respective counties, fail to nominate,
adjourn again, and so on until perhaps some arrangement
was fixed up between the candidates themselves, the proper
DIRECT PRIMARIES 71
order given to the conferees who, like puppets, voted as order-
ed, and the nomination be made at last. Occasionally arbi-
trators would have to be called in or the decision would be
delegated to the State Committee of the party, and not infre-
quently no nomination wouW result, and two or more can-
didates would claim to be "it," with the result that the
opposition would win over the divided party at the general
election. I have personally attended many of these district
conferences, as a looker on, and never knew of one that was
not followed by crimination and recrimination, or charges of
barter or sale, and they became such a stench that their abol-
ition became necessary to party salvation.
Erie county, the other member of the present district which
has successfully employed the direct primary at eight con-
gressional elections, or for sixteen years, had been a portion
of a district in which the representative delegate system was
used. The district convention consisted of nearly 200 delegates,
and the cost of their railroad fares and entertainment had to
be borne by the successful candidate, with the result that only
men of considerable wealth could afford to enter the contest.
Occasionally these large conventions could or would make no
choice at the first meeting, and a second meeting would be
held, doubling the cost of the nomination to the successful
candidate. The expense of conducting a canvass first in one
or more counties to secure the election of delegates to the
district convention, and then of the meetings of the convention
itself, became a great burden to candidates.
The decision of the party leaders of the new district,
formed in 1888, to have all nominations decided by the voters
of the party themselves by ballot, came as a great relief to the
Republicans of Crawford county, who had become wearied by
the scandals and dangers to party success of the conferee sys-
tem, and to the Republicans of Erie county, who had thorough-
ly tried the representative delegate and district convention
system, and found it sadly wanting in many respects, and bur-
densome to people and to candidates. The Republican voters
of these two counties would feel disposed to ask for a com-
72 SELECTED ARTICLES
mission in lunacy for any man who would propose a return to
either of the old systems. The new system has been com-
pletely vindicated by its use. The office of representative has
come to be recognized as a district, not a county office. The
lists are open to any candidate, and the necessary expenses
of conducting a campaign for the nomination are within the
means of men of moderate wealth. There are no longer drawn
out contests — instead, on one day, within a few hours, the whole
question is settled by the great mass of voters interested —
what is left is the mere counting and tabulating of the vote and
declaration of the result. Every successful candidate has re-
ceived a clear majority of all the votes cast, not one having
been nominated by a plurality. The question of whether the
direct primary will successfully replace the" delegate system for
congressional districts can be answered most emphatically in
the affirmative, if our experience in this Pennsylvania district is
worth anything.
An objection urged against the direct primary is that it
gives the cities an advantage over the rural districts. The city
voter, it is claimed, being within easy walking distance of the
polling place, can vote at the primary without interfering with
his business or taking time from his work, while the rural
voter, living perhaps several miles from the polling place, must
lose half a day at least in order to exercise his right. The
result, it is urged, is to increase the power of the city voter
at the expense of the rural voter. If the primary election day
is accompanied with bad weather this advantage in favor of
the city is even greater. But this fault is not peculiar to the
direct primary system. The rural voter labors under the same
difficulty if he tries to exert his political power under the
delegate system. If he would attend the caucus called to
choose delegates to a convention he must go where the caucus
is held. And if he does not go, those who do go choose,
without his cooperation, delegates who represent him. In
our county the rural voters are thoroughly alive to their
privileges and attend the primaries in large numbers. The
most careful estimate I have been able to make indicates that
DIRECT PRIMARll-.S 72,
about 60 per cent of the voters in the townships, 70 per cent
in the cities, and 80 per cent in the boroughs (incorporated
villages) usually attend the primaries.
The gravest objection to the system is that only a plurality
is required to nominate, and that therefore a minority may
control the nominations. In answer to this objection it may
be said that in almost every state in the Union pluralities are
sufficient to elect officials, and if to elect, why not to nominate?
Hayes, Garfield, Cleveland and Harrison were chosen Presi-
dents of the United States by a plurality only of the popular
vote. In actual practice it has been found that at least 50
per cent of the nominations under the direct primary system
have been made by a majority of all the votes cast. Finally,
when compared with the other systems, the objection to plu-
ralities is found not to be peculiar to this system. Five or ten
out of 50 or 100 voters residing in a district may attend the
party caucus and elect. a delegate. When delegates are elected
there is absolutely no assurance that the result will be that
desired by a majority of the people. The delegates themselves
may be and generally are chosen by a plurality vote. If three
delegates, for instance, run in one district, each representing
a different candidate, and one receives 100 votes, another 80,
and another 70. the vote of the district in the convention on
the earlier ballots at least, will be given to a candidate who
received only 100 out of 250 votes cast. If this candidate is
dropped on later ballots, the whole strength of the district will
be thrown to the candidate who received either 80 or 70 votes
out of the 250 cast.
When there are only two candidates for any office, a clear
majority for one or the other is, of course, ensured, tie votes
being very rare. As I have said elsewhere, when there are
three or more candidates, the candidate with the largest vote
has, in our local experience of forty-four years, had a clear
majority in at least 50 per cent of the primaries. And con-
sidering only fair probabilities it is safe to say that in at least
30 per cent more, if not 40 per cent, the leading candidate.
74 SELECTED ARTICLES
although receiving less than a majority, is the choice of a
majority of those voting.
The delegate and convention system, by the process of
dropping lower candidates, finally accomplishes a nomination
by a majority — of what? Of delegates. But how has the re-
sult been accomplished? All who are familiar with the system
are only too well aware. Not a delegate is chosen with refer-
ence to his preference for more than one or two candidates
to be nominated. The voters of his district may especially de-
sire the selection of one candidate, Smith, for Sheriff, we will
say. They elect delegates, therefore, with special reference to
the contest for Sheriff. But the delegates may be for Brown
for Treasurer, and the voters, if they could express their views
on the Treasurership nomination also, would not be for
Brown, but for Jones. But Smith, for Sheriff, is from their
town or section. He has interviewed them and talked up his
merits and the lack of merit or the positive demerits of all the
others who would be Sheriff; the voters become enthusiastic
for Smith, and ignore all the other contests. Smith goes to
the convention with these delegates, and others from his sec-
tion, altogether forming quite a *'bunch." And he is for Smith,
first, last, and all the time. Brown and Jones and Robinson
and Johnson, candidates for Treasurer, Judge, Representative
in the Legislature, Congress, each has his "bunch" of dele-
gates also, each "bunch" elected with reference to one candidate
solely. The owners of the "bunches" spar for a while, search
out the fellows with the largest "bunches" of unpledged dele-
gates, then get busy, and by trades, dickers, promises of what
they will do for (or to) each other, promises for next year
and the year after, they finally figure out a majority of the
delegates for this man and that, and this is called making
nominations by "majority vote," and by the advocates of the
convention system is considered superior to the system which
enables every voter to make his own choice among the candi-
dates for every office to be filled, because the latter forsooth,
makes it possible for a candidate to receive the nomination
who lacks a clear majority of all the votes cast.
DIRECT PRIMARIES 75
I do not hesitate to assert that the direct primary is more
effective, nine times out of ten, in securing the real choice oi
the majority of voters, than the convention system, with its
bunches of delegates, controlled by the various candidates, and
chosen with reference to their preferences for one candidate
only.
No method of direct voting for candidates has yet been
devised which makes impossible the nomination of candidates
who might not be nominated if balloting could continue until
a majority result was at last obtained. This is manifestly im-
practicable. But one state in the Union, Rhode Island, now
requires a majority of the whole number of votes cast to elect.
Pluralities are recognized as sufficient to elect in every other
state. A majority of the Electoral College is required to
choose a President, or, if this fails, the election is by the House
of Representatives. But the Presidential Electors themselves
may be and often are chosen by pluralities. It is possible that a
system of primary voting may be devised which will include
the expression of a second, possibly of a third choice by each
voter, to be effective in the event that his first choice does not
receive a majority. In the meantime, the direct primary plan
need not be discarded because it does not always insure a
majority vote for the successful candidates, for no other system
comes any nearer accomplishing that end.
Primary Election Law. James G. Monahan.
I am opposed to this bill —
First. Because the provision which makes it necessary for
a candidate before he can get his name printed on the primary
ballot, to secure two per cent of the voters of his party to
sign a petition asking him to be a candidate and those voters
must reside in five precincts or townships in case of a county
office, and twelve counties if for a state office, imposes upon
a candidate an unnecessary expense, and will deter many mod-
est men, with but little money, from becoming candidates;
increases the activity of the boodler and professional politician,
7^ SELECTED ARTICLES
lengthens the arm of every boss and increases the strength of
every machine in the state.
Second. It will practically deprive the farmer vote from
any voice in either county or state afifairs. It is useless to
sneer at this proposition as some do. Sneering doesn't meet
the argument. When one class of voters reside within a few
minutes' walk of the polls, while the other must come by teams,
from one to eight miles, the handicap is too great, the con-
ditio.ns too unequal to contend that the farmer vote can protect
itself, or candidates for state offices residing in rural counties
could possibly have any show of success. Should this bilt_
become a law, Milwaukee and the other large cities would
dominate the state. In county affairs Madison and Stoughton
would control in Dane county; Janesville and Beloit in Rock;
Darlington and Shullsburg in Lafayette.
The date fixed for this primary election is the first Tues-
day in September, when the farmers are busily engaged in
threshing and cutting corn. These men must come from one
to eight miles to vote. What percentage of them would leave
their work to do so? The bill makes primary election day a
legal holiday; also registration day in the cities. This will
bring out a full vote in the cities, and as a result, candidates
from the country districts will invariably be defeated. This
argument is met by saying the country vote will combine
against the cities. This can't be done unless a combination
is made among the candidates and people outside the cities;
and when this is done, you have simply built up a machine and
installed some additional bosses.
Third. "Unnecessary taxation is unjust taxation." And
this bill will impose a tax approximating $150,000 upon the
people of this state. A general election costs even more than
this, and men who have examined this bill carefully say it will
prove even more expensive than a general election.
In presidential years we will have two primary elections,
one in April to nominate presidential electors and elect dele-
gates to the various national conventions; the other in Septem-
ber to nominate state and county officers. This will put the
DIRECT PRIMARIES 77
law in operation twice, for which the people will be taxed in a
sum approximating $300,000 for something which now does not
cost them a cent.
Fifth. This bill takes away from the people the right to
make the platform, and gives the power to the candidates for
state oiftcers, state senators and members of the assembly, and
the various parties will have a candidates' instead of a peoples'
platform. This is getting near to the people with a vengeance.
The bill provides that "The candidates for the various state
offices for senate and assembly nominated by each political
party shall meet in the assembly chamber at 12 o'clock noon
on the second Wednesday after the date of the primary elec-
tion, and formulate a platform for their party." To us it seems
that this provision is one of the lamest of this wholly
bad bill. The idea that the people are going to surrender a
declaration of their principles to a hundred and twenty-five
candidates whose sole object is to be elected, and who would
make a platform look like a crazy quilt if necessary to further
that end, is a proposition too ridiculous for serious consider-
ation.
Nation. 83: 48. July 19, 1906.
Primary Laws and Party Tactics.
Now that the politicians in so many northern states are
compelled to conduct campaigns under the new system, they
are already forced to considerable modifications of the old
strategy. Direct nominations obviously eliminate such devices
as stampeding a convention, trumping up contests for seats,
and the cruder dickering and trading of votes. According to
the experience of cities which have used it, the direct primary
also doubles, trebles, or quadruples the number of voters who
participate in the making of nominations, a result which alone
would offset most of the faults charged against the new system.
But besides these there are considerations of major tactics.
One of the commonest methods of defeating a strong candi-
date for nomination has always been to put up against him a
group of candidates, each drawing votes through his local
78 SELECTED ARTICLES
popularity, so that the first ballot in convention will fail of a
choice. Then the opponents of the leading candidate combine
on one man, and the thing is done. That was the scheme
employed in the effort to beat Folk in Missouri. The president
of the Jefferson Club in St. Louis, the popular Mayor of
Kansas City, and a Supreme Court judge with a war record
made their campaigns separately, expecting to find their ag-
gregate vote larger than Folk's; but they were disappointed.
In the same way the movement against Chairman Babcock
of the Republican Congressio,nal Committee employed a differ-
ent candidate against him from every county. This method
of fighting is now outlawed by a more effective decree than
any Hague conference would make. A faction is compelled to
votg in the primary for the man it wants to nominate and
elect. A candidate who has a third of the votes to start with
cannot be beaten by dividing the remainder among three rivals.
This makes for frankness and honesty; for ''piecemeal'' cam-
paigning is never inspiring.
Nation. 87: 131-2. August 13, 1908.
The Primary No Cure-All.
There is a mixture of ingenuousness and deceit in the com-,
plaints of the defects in the direct primary brought out in the
recent elections in Kansas. Oregon, Missouri, and Illinois.
There are those who really believed that the new institution
would be a panacea for all our political ills; that it would, like
a magnet, draw every recalcitrant voter to the polls, where he
would promptly put the rascals to flight and inaugurate an era
of political purity. These innocents are now voicing their dis-
appointment that the primary does not prevent fraud, and that
in many cases, the voter being as indifferent to his new op-
portunity as he was to his old. the noxious machines, party
and personal, are not yet completely smashed. On the other
hand, the politicians are only too happy to have their doubts
about the new law; they can see a hundred objections to it.
and are suddenly displaying an altogether amusing solicitude
DIRECT PRIMARIES 79
for the sanctity of the ballot and the free expression of the
party's will.
From all accounts the primary was seen at its best in
Kansas. There, as elsewhere, the candidates were compelled
to go before the people. They met, as did Lincoln and Doug-
las fifty years ago, in joint debates of great length, answering
questions freely and giving full accounts of themselves and
their political principles. The result was a vindication of our
democratic theory of government; the people chose as their
servants the men whom they believed to be freest from the
domination of corporations and politicians. Moreover, the
interest taken was so keen that from Kansas come no such
complaints of small attendance as are heard in Missouri and
Illinois. Either Kansans are more patriotic, of a better type
of citizenship, or their political grievances are more deeply felt.
Be that as it may, they showed their intelligence precisely as
did the Oregon voters who selected from a handbook of 125
pages the several dozen propositions that pleased them most
and gave the best exhibition of a discriminating electorate this
triumphant democracy has seen in many a year. These Ore-
gonians chose a Democrat to represent them in Washington
because they knew him as Governor and preferred him as
senator to any of the candidates of the ruling Republican
party. This is in itself an amazing achievement which the
primary alone made possible.
If the vote was small in Illinois, it was not because of any
lack of zeal on the part of the candidates. In that state, as
in Tennessee and Kansas, there was not a passage of their
records that was not published to the world. There was even
an attempt to hold Gov. Deneen responsible for the accidental
burning of a boy in a public institution. He was able to
defend himself, however, by proving that it was against a radi-
ator put in by his antagonist, ex-Gov. Yates, that the unfor-
tunate child fell. Had it been a Deneen radiator it would have
been properly safeguarded! Naturally, when the issues are so
trivial, there were many stay-at-homes. In Missouri, the com-
plaint of non-attendance and of other defects seems general.
8o SELECTED ARTICLES
It is thus voiced by the St. Louis Times, an excellent inde-
pendent newspaper:
The people, as usual, were in the hands of the machine as to
the cities. Later returns will be needed to show the relation of
the country vote to the popular idea. Altogether, the new primary
law is a disappointment and small credit to its framers. Its
complications are the least of the objections that may be charged
to it. There are no safeguards for the purpose of eliminating the
bosses and no element to attract the activity of the people. It is not
what it was meant to be — a party vote for nominees — but a scramble
in which Republicans may become Democrats for a day if they
have no business of their own on hand. In some places Democrats
voted Republican tickets for local reasons, and in others . . .
Republicans stepped in and helped the Democrats. ... In St.
Louis thousands were disfranchised yesterday because of their
inactivity. They failed to register; others who were registered
failed to reach the polls.
The Post-Dispatch and Republic take a similar view. But
the Times sees truly that, aside from certain obvious defects,
capable of remedy, the responsibility for the outcome rests
with the people:
Under the new order the people cannot resort to the old trick
of blaming the bosses. They will find the fault within their own
household.
The primary is thus at its worst a means of fixing more
clearly than ever upon the voter his responsibility for the wel-
fare of his government. In St. Louis, not less than 63,000 vot-
ers, more than 50 per cent of the city electorate, refused to go
to the polls. In Illinois the vote is reported to be so small
as to give no true indication of the real strength of the two
great parties; only one-third of the Chicago voters turned out.
The "advisory vote" for United States Senator aroused little
interest, and, as in Oregon, the defeated candidates are now
insisting that the legislature is in no way bound by the out-
come of the senatorial referendum. When we look . south,
however, to Georgia and Tennessee, it is undeniable that there
at least, in the defeat of Gov. Hoke Smith, and of ex-Senator
Carmack, the popular will was expressed beyond any doubt.
Serious defects the primary law has, chief among them
the ability of Democrats to vote in Republican primaries and
vice versa. A Republican may assert that he has experienced
a change of political faith and participate in a Democratic
primary, and yet there is nothing whatever, except his con-
science, to prevent his voting for Republicans when he takes
DIRECT PRIMARIES 8i
his secret ballot on election day. The state cannot make a
voter in a primary stick to that party in the election without
restricting him in his right to bolt the ticket if his own pri-
mary chooses a man he thinks unfit. But granting all this
and more besides, the primary remains, we believe, the best
weapon against the boss yet invented, and the desire for it
shows no signs of abatement. It must come in New York
before long; the bosses' opposition to it is its best recommenda-
tion. They are well aware that if New York had this institu-
tion to-day, they could not for a moment stand in the way
of the nomination of Gov. Hughes; that if they did so, they
would be snowed under at the polls. Because Gov. Hughes
favors direct nominations is one reason why he is hated by the
bosses. The Governor knows, of course, that the primary is
no cure-all; it is but another means of maintaining government
by the people. The voter may neglect it, if he is as indifferent
to his trust as heretofore; but if he is roused and in earnest,
he can destroy the politicians who attempt to undo him.
Nation. 92: 232. March 9, 191 1.
Cost of Direct Primaries.
The cost of the direct primary in Chicago does not appall
its champions in Baltimore, in which city the direct prrmary has
been an integral part of the reform that has raised political
conditions above those which prevailed in the old Gorman-
Rasin days. As the Baltimore Sun very sensibly points out,
that part of the Chicago expenditure which consisted in enor-
mous outlays by the candidates should be made impossible by
law, while as for the part that falls upon the city, which was
about the same per head of the population in Chicago as it
is in Baltimore, "the results attained are cheap at the price.
A good mayor is a splendid economy, and is cheap at almost
any price."
82 SELECTED ARTICLES
National Conference on Practical Reform of Primary
Elections. 1898: 86-92.
Regulation of Primaries. George L. Record.
We are told to-day that nobody takes any interest in pri-
maries. Did you ever consider why it was that a man sits
at home in his slippers by his fireside in the evening and will
not go around to a primary? Why is it? There must be some
reason for it. Everybody has his choice for a public official
and will go out at each election and you have an enormous
vote then; there is no lack of interest. Why is it there is no
interest in a primary? There is no interest in a primary be-
cause you do not do anything at a primary. As long as you
elect a delegate at a primary you perform no function what-
soever. Just stop and think about it. Supposing the plan
our fathers laid out for the choice of president was actually
carried out in practice as it was intended to be. Suppose
that every four years we elected so many members of the elec-
toral college, and those men were not pledged to anybody and
you did not know whether they would vote for McKinley on the
Republican side, or Bryan, or anybody else — had not the slight-
est idea; would you take the trouble to go to the polls?
Would ten per cent of the voters go to the polls to elect a
small body of people at Washington, to select a president, with-
out knowing whom they were going to vote for? No, sir.
And you must have just the same interest in the primary that
you have now, in the election. Have eight* or ten men coming
together around the corner and picking out somebody you
are to rely upon, and you would not get anybody to take
interest enough to leave the open fires and slippers to go
around the corner in the evening; and the reason is a good
one, because when you get around there you do not accom-
plish anything. You elect a man to go olT to a convention
for a Vv^eek or ten days, or two or three weeks, where he is sub-
jected to every kind of oppression, oftentimes to direct offers
of money, more frequently to the promise of office or patron-
age, and you do not know what he is going to do. and for
DIRECT PRIMARIES 83
whom or for what principle he is going to stand on the con-
vention floor. I say you perform no function when you go
to the primary under existing conditions, and people will
never go to primaries to elect delegates under these condi-
tions. I am satisfied of that. I have tried to get people to go
to primaries and I have studied the question of why they do
not go. and I am satisfied in my mind the reason they do
not go is because they do not do anything when they get there
which appeals to their interest. You take the average citizen
in any state, from the countryman who sits upon a keg of
nails in the country store to the busy lawyer in practice in the
great metropolis of the state, and every living one of them has
a direct positive choice for every candidate of his party and
for every office in the city and state; every one of them has
his choice. Ask them their choice for delegates and they would
stare at you in blank amazement; they have no interest in it;
it does not appeal to them. But ask them who is their choice
for governor of New York state on the Republican ticket
next fall and every maji of this state who is a member of that
party would have a direct opinion upon it; and, if you will
stop and think about it, he would be rejoiced down to the
bottom of his heart for the privilege of casting one vote at the
primary for the candidate of his party for governor of this
state. The minute you have accomplished that you have arous-
ed interest.
Now take the next question. Another reason why we do
not go to primaries is because we do not know where they
are. What busy man knows where a primary is? And the aver-
age busy man in the city knows that "if he goes around the
corner, and leaves his slippers and his fire, five or six hun-
dred men who run the district machine will run the thing and
put up their candidate and he will poll a tremendous vote,
and the other fellows will hustle around for what they can
get, and even stuff the boxes if they can't get enough votes
otherwise, and you have had all the labor for nothing, be-
cause the evil of every machine is not its numbers, but its
willingness to commit crime in the nomination of candidates.
When you have got around there you will find, as I have many
84 SELECTED ARTICLES
and many a time, that you cannot prevail, unless you are
willing to risk the frauds which dominate that primary year
after year. Then you can prevail just as well as they. Lput
in a year's time with what money I could get contributed,
trying to elect a respectable Democrat in Jersey City, and I
found the other day that provided I was willing to commit
crime, to cheat at the election, and to pay men to do my
will, it was perfectly easy to do it, and the reason why we
cannot do it and do not do it is because we draw the line
at the commission of an actual crime. That is the essence of it.
Now I would like to bring this point before you if I can,
without taking too much time: that under the direct voting
system — I do not say that a better class of men would be
nominated; I think that is very material — but the set of men
would be nominated under entirely different conditions. Just
listen and see if this is not true. The average set of politicians
who run a convention sit down in a room and they say
''Shall we nominate So and So?" "Oh, he has got too many
enemies." And one after another the names are checked
off because they have got some personality and individuality,
as a rule, and finally they elect some dummy who is not
known, who has created no antagonisms and is just a nega-
tive character. This is the rule. We have many exceptions,
but that is the rule — the average politician selects a man be-
cause he has oflfended nobody, and the man who has not
offended somebody is not worth having in a public office.
Now the people do not do that. The darlings of the people
are the bold, aggressive, daring men who have offended hosts
of men; and whenever the people of the United States for
the choice of President vote through the caucus and the coun-
ty convention and the national convention and manage to
make their will carried through all that cumbersome machin-
ery which is designed to stifle it, and nominate at a conven-
tion a man whom they choose, that man is always a positive
character who has won his spurs in the field of national
politics by national achievements and by the display of brains
and ability and statesmanship. You would have a different
DIRECT PRIMARIES 85
class of people; you would have a man run for ofifice who
was popular.
By the direct vote we nominate the man, and he is a man
of strength among the people and stands high. He is elected
by the voice of the people at a primary, by an enormous vote.
He is nominated on the Democratic ticket, say, and is elected.
In that case he owes nothing except to forty or fifty thousand
in my town — it was 160,000 in this town. He owes nothing
except to a vast number of voters, nine-tenths of whom must
have supported him directly from unselfish motive, because
there is no such number of offices to be given out. He wants
to run again, and how does his mind work? He says "to
run again I must please the people, and to please the people
I must do things in office in the popular interest"; and we
give him a renomination. I hope that argument will sink in-
to your minds, because to me it is the strongest argument
of this whole thing.
National Conference on Practical Reform of Primary
Elections. 1898: 96-8.
Convention Plan. Roy O. West.
The arguments offered in this paper in behalf of the con-
vention method of nominating candidates for public office
in the United States, rest upon the proposition that a political
party is entitled to the benefit of the best thought of its
best leadership. This truth is the more apparent now that can-
paigns are usually fought as contests between representatives
of ideas, not as struggles between individuals. It is also con-
ceded that, in governments like ours, public sentiment is
generally expressed and always enforced through political
parties. These parties must be free to govern themselves and
alert to avail themselves of every partisan advantage. If
parties have not the right to maneuver attacks and skillfully
repel onslaughts, this paper is without purpose. If talented
party leadership is not desirable, it were better that this paper
86 SELECTED ARTICLES
be not read. If parties are to flounder about, aiming at
nothing, they will surely achieve it.
The masses have little idea and less concern as to the
probable issues of a campaign. They are influenced by personal
considerations rather than by party welfare. If party leaders,
of undoubted integrity, sagacity, and loyalty desire a nomina-
tion to be made, they are powerless. Likewise they cannot
prevent bad and unwise nominations. They cannot reach the
ear of each voter, were it not ludicrous to confide political
secrets to the public. There could be no responsible head.
The party could not express and do its own will. It would
be limited in its choice of candidates.
It would be possible for voters who subscribed to other
political faiths to influence the actions of parties, of which
they were not members.
It is probably true that outside influences are equally
potent in the selection of delegates to conventions. But rational
primary laws, such as the Illinois General Assembly is now
considering, will reduce this danger to a minimum. Moreover
delegates are known, their names are published ; they are
responsible to their neighbors who elected them. Delegates
are often instructed for whom to vote. Seldom do they violate
those instructions. If they do, a new "machine" is apt to be
a feature of that particular district at the next convention.
The convention affords the greatest possible latitude for
choosing nominees. At the primaries, there is no limit as to
the number of different delegate tickets which can be voted.
If any citizen is dissatisfied with the list of delegates named
on any or all tickets, he has the right to print a ticket of
his own, vote it and get for it a majority of all the votes cast,
if he can; or he has the privilege of erasing names and in-
serting others. Manifestly, the successful delegate ticket will
be the one on which appear the names of the most representa-
tive, best known and most active members of the party. It
ought to be so. They do the work. They should have a voice
in the party councils. These men are invariably leaders of
thought and action in their immediate localities. Delegates
from diflferent sections differ as do their respective con-
DIRECT PRIMARIES 87
stitueneies. A delegate trom the tenement and lodging house
district could not secure credentials in the boulevard district
any easier than the so-called "silk stocking" could obtain a
majority in some of the down-town wards. People like to be
represented by officials who worship at the same altars, speak
the same language, live in the same community and in the
same manner. In a convention, these considerations receive
proper attention. The leaders of the party consult these con-
flicting interests and a ticket satisfactory to a majority is agreed
upon. The party can govern itself. It is a powerful, well con-
trolled engine. With a direct vote, one class, or one race or
one sect may prevail to the disadvantage of the party and the
injury of the people.
What is said- against nominating conventions? It is said
the great body of electors do not vote. They do when public
interests excite their attention ; otherwise they would fail to
vote under any system. "They do not know where the pri-
mary polling places are." Let them learn to read the English
language if they do not know it and then read the call for
the convention published in the newspapers. It is said that
ballot boxes are stuffed, returns falsified and voters slugged.
Let the criminal laws be enforced. They are sufficient. The
same crimes have been committed again and again under the
direct vote system. Another argument is that delegates are
bought. The classes of men who are delegates are less sub-
ject to financial inducements than thousands of illiterate and
degenerate voters, who control under the direct vote system
and who can be purchased for a "drink." Finally it is said
that on a delegate ticket, the voter is confronted with names,
with which he is not familiar. If citizens are so exclusive
and have so little patriotism that they do not know their
neighbors and the chief men in the few elecflon precincts
comprising their primary districts, they ought not to have
any voice in public affairs. Good citizens owe it to their
country to manifest some interest in the public and the public
needs.
During the years, our proud nation has grown and become
more powerful. Our cosmopolitan population has been happy
88 SELECTED ARTICLES
and prosperous. Conventions have nominated and the people
have elected wise and patriotic rulers. Some mistakes have
been made. They have always been corrected. In times of
•financial depression and unrest, conscientious and well mean-
ing gentlemen, reinforced by discredited politicians, who hoped
to ride again into power on a popular wave, have always seen
the dark side of the picture, have proposed impracticable
schemes to remedy evil, and, by inflaming the public mind,
have enlisted many followers. With returning prosperity, the
armies of unemployed being engaged again in the marts of
trade, these generals have found themselves deserted by their
soldiery. It will happen again. And, with the selection of
delegates to conventions guarded by careful laws, this republic
will continue to lead the way and our people will continue
to be secure in "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
National Conference on Practical Reform of Primary
Elections. 1898: gg-102.
Crawford County Plan in Cleveland. Thomas L. Johnson.
From our experience in Cleveland, it would seem that the
ordinary individual has little fitness to judge of the ability of
a candidate for office, or having the ability, little inclination
to use it. This, however, may be due in a measure, to lack
of information. In the practical workings of the system, the
nomination seeker, who can make the most noisy canvass,
who uses the largest amount of space for pictures of himself,
and wonderful stories of his great love for the common people,
inherited from obscure ancestors and acquired in the most
humble ways of life, is liable to get the most votes, especially
when he st^ts his convincing canvass if he has had some
notoriety, either savory or unsavory. It is a consummation de-
voutly to be wished by a candidate, under the Crawford county
plan, that the people know his name, that he be talked about, it
seeming to be of small importance whether the speech con-
cerning him be favorable or unfavorable.
In a county having something like four hundred and fifty
DIRECT PRIMARIES 89
thousand people, few persons are known to even a small
percentage of the whole population, and it seems that almost
any sort of publicity given a man, is sufficient to turn a large
number towards him when he becomes a candidate for office.
The voters have heard his name mentioned, they have seen it
in the newspapers, and knowing no other by name, and having
no immediate information as to his honesty or ability, or the
honesty or ability of any other candidate, they vote for the
person whose name they have seen mentioned the greater
number of times. The police bench is considered one of the
most advantageous places to start from in a race for any
office in Cuyahoga county, from the highest judicial position,
on down. And this applies to city offices, as well as county.
The police judge is known to many persons ; his name is
much in the newspapers; he has, if he needs, a great pull
with a large class of society, and when he becomes a candidate^
is usually invincible in the race. Experience seems to indicate
that the official who is well known can not easily be beaten
by a comparatively unknown man, though the unknown man
may have a fitness for the office far beyond that of the
present occupant. The mayor of the city, having held the
office and being known to occupy such a place seems to war-
rant the people in voting for such a one as a candidate, with-
out reference to his ability, or to the ability of his competitors.
This has often been observed in Cleveland campaigns. In the
country districts these criticisms do not apply.
One of the reasons given for adopting this plan, and the
potent one with the people, was the hope of withdrawing the
nomination of candidates from the political rings or cliques
which exist in every city. This purpose has failed, as this can
not be accomplished in a city like Cleveland by the Crawford
county plan, or at least it has not been done. In the nomina-
tion of candidates for any particular office, those who have
been in office, or have controlled it, and desire to maintain
their control, so direct their political energies that a few
candidates out of the many are chosen, and upon these few
the party workers and those interested in maintaining their
hold upon the offices concentrate their work, and a particular
90 SELECTED ARTICLES
effort is made in their behalf, seldom without success. No
proclamation is made to the people, and the desires on the
part of these political managers are kept in the background,
and the dear people wake up the day after the nomination
and find that the politician has served his own purpose as
completely as though he had controlled the delegates in a
convention. This applies as well, in a measure, to the smaller
counties, but in such it can not be so successfully worked.
The Crawford county plan, as already indicated, engenders
much harshness and bitterness among candidates. Those seek-
ing the nomination for the two or three principal offices
absorbing the attention of the voters, and the nominations
for the remaining offices are likely to, and often do go practical-
ly by default. The contest, for instance, over the nomination
for mayor or police judge, will absorb the attention so com-
pletely that little notice is taken of the minor candidates. The
same is true with regard to county offices.
The practice of newpaper advertising has grown to such
proportions that it is quite a source of profit to the press,
and considerations of added income from this source have
served to blunt the editorial conscience to the faults of the
system. The newspapers, I think, as a rule, favor the plan,
and it is openly claimed it is because much business comes
therefrom. Several efforts have been made to abandon this
system in Cleveland, but the Republican press strongly oppose
taking from the people their right to say who shall ask for
the sovereign suffrages of our only kings, the people.
The ideal of the Crawford county plan of getting near the
people, and having them freely and intelligently nominate
candidates, is one to be striven for, but that ideal cannot be
reached, in my judgment, by this plan, when practiced in a
city as large or larger than Cleveland.
DIRECT PRIMARIES 91
National Municipal League, Proceedings. 1904. pp. 321-7.
Method of Nomination to Public Office: An Historical Sketch.
Charles B. Spahr.
Our public affairs have come to be administered by politi-
cal parties, and yet our parties, until very recently, have been
without authorization or even recognition in our laws. The
central principle of democratic government is that the real
powers controlling the people shall be under the control of
the people, and therefore the popular recognition of the fact
that democratic government has come to mean party gov-
ernment has brought with it the popular determination that
party government shall be controlled by public law to serve
public ends.
In this country the center of party government and the
recognized sources of its authority is the primary system of
selecting party candidates and determining party policies. The
origin of this system is practically contemporaneous with the
origin of our national struggle for independence. It is true
that, according to the memoirs of Samuel Adams, as early as
1725 his father "and twenty others used to meet, make a cau-
cus, and lay their plans for introducing certain persons into
places of trust and power." But it was not until the years
just preceding the Declaration of Independence that the North
End Caucus and the South End Caucus and the Middle
District Caucus of Boston obtained a position of recognized
power in determining the leaders and measures of the radical
democracy of the New England metropolis. Samuel Adams
himself is the father of the American primary system, for
only in his day did the system become anything more than an
informal gathering of individuals interested i.n political affairs.
The part borne by Samuel Adams and the North End Caucus
in the Revolutionary war brought the institution to the at-
tention of sympathetic spirits all over the country. What the
part was is suf^ciently indicated by the following citation
from Frothingham's Life and Times of Josef^h Warren: ".As
the time approached when the tea-ships might be expected,
the subject was considered in the North End Caucus
92 SELECTED ARTICLES
This body voted that they would oppose with their lives and
fortunes the landing of any tea that might be sent to the
town for sale by the East India Company."
The caucus of Samuel Adams's day, though a much more
formal and formidable organization than that out of which
it had grown, was itself rather of the nature of a secret
meeting of men who by cooperation could obtain control of
the political situation. Its honorable history at the beginning
was due entirely to the public-spirited type of men who
organized it. Like Franklin's little "Junto," which exercised
an influence altogether out of proportion to the number or
prominence of its members, it was based upon an idea of
secret cooperation which can be used as eflfectively for bad
ends as for good ones. The caucus was irresponsible^ and in
later days irresponsible caucuses came to be the most ef-
fective means of corrupting public life.
In the rural districts, where all the voters know one
another, the evil side of the caucus has not developed so
markedly as in the local towns and cities. In nearly all such
districts, not only in New England, but throughout the country,
the local party caucus was at first practically a town meeting
of the members of the party. The next stage in the develop-
ment of the system came from the desire to enable members
of the party in different districts to confer together and act
as a unit. The first means through which such conferences
were obtained was by means of committees of correspondence;
but a little later the party members of the state legislatures
and of the national Congress took it upon themselves to
choose party candidates for state and national offices and
assumed the general direction of party affairs. During the
first two decades of the last century the legislative and con-
gressional caucuses were practically supreme, and it was felt
that only through them could all ' sections be represented in
party councils and all sections of the party act together in
the contests with party antagonists.
Gradually, however, this instrument for party unity came
to be regarded as a party tyrant Members of each party in
districts in which the opposition party was in the majority
DIRECT PRIMARIES 93
had, of course, no representatives in the state legislature or
in the national Congress, and, therefore, were without direct
representation in the party councils. Furthermore, it came to
be felt that the legislators and congressmen were not respon-
sive to popular feeling in the matter of nominations. In 1824
the popular sentiment aroused by the arbitrary rule of "King
Caucus" was one of the important contributing causes to the
defeat of the candidacy of William H. Crawford for the pres-
idency.
The substitute for the legislative and congressional caucus
which democratic sentiment then demanded was the conven-
tion— a system which preserved its commanding authority in
all sections for one generation, and in most sections for two.
The central idea of the convention system was that the
members of each party should meet locally and choose dele-
gates to county, or senatorial, or state, or national conven-
tions, instructing them, if thought necessary, just how they
should vote in these conventions. It was a further adaptation
of the representative system of government to the affairs
of the party; but this method of governing party affairs,
like its predecessor, became more and more unsatisfactory
as the years went on, as population increased and as the de-
sire of the people for direct control of public affairs grew
stronger. The mere growth of population formed an important
reason why the convention system ceased to meet the needs
of the people. When the population was small, the number of
delegates sent to county, district, or state conventions was,
relatively to the population large, and nearly every citizen
knew personally the delegate who was to represent him ; but
when the population increased, the number of the delegates
became relatively small, their personal relations to most of
their constituents were remote, and the delegates came to
be what the members of the legislative caucus had been before
them, a small ruling class. In order, therefore, for the general
electorate to regain as much control as it had formerly ex-
ercised over party affairs, it was necessary to do away with
the convention system and substitute one in which the people
voted directly for the men to be nominated and the measures
94 SELECTED ARTICLES
to be supported by their party. The popularity of this reform,
outside the ranks of political leaders, was, of course, in part
due to the further development of the democratic spirit, which
demanded that government should be directed, not by a
special class of citizens, but by the whole body of citizens
in order that the interests of all, poor as well as rich, might
obtain equal consideration in the party councils.
This new spirit was most marked in the rural districts, and
particularly among the substantial farmers in those districts.
In the Northwest, as well as the East, the great body of such
farmers, at least until the rise of the Populist party and the
political revolution of 1896, were identified with the Re-
publican, and therefore it was in the Republican party at the
North that the demand for a primary system, in which the
ordinary voters should select candidates instead of merely^
selecting delegates to select candidates, had its first and strong-
est development. In the South nearly all the farmers of this
independent class were identified with the Democratic party,
and therefore in the South it was in the Democratic party
that the demand for direct primaries had its first and strongest
development. In the South this demand was even stronger
than at the North, and for this there were several reasons,
the chief one being that in the South the choice of the
Democratic primary is, in most sections, sure of election, and
unless ordinary citizens are given a choice in the primary,
they have really no voice at all as to who shall govern them
and how they shall be governed. The regular election in most
parts of the South is merely a listless and perfunctory ratifi-
cation of what the Democratic primary has already decided
upon. It being clear, therefore, at the South, that the popular
control of the primary was essential to popular government,
the citizens of this section early began to abridge and to over-
throw the power of the delegate conventions, and to require
that the nominees to all responsible offices should be chosen
directly from and by the rank and file of the voters. It was in
South Carolina that this system first reached logical complete-
ness. The triumph of the reform faction of the South Caro-
lina Democracy in the election of 1891. was followed by the
DIRECT PRIMARIES 95
destruction of the convention system and the choice of all
public officials, including United States senators, was given
over to the voters at the primaries. To some extent this
system in South Carolina disappointed the radical Democrats
who introduced it; for it was found that the primaries were
more likely to select a moderate than a radical for the places
of great responsibility. But the new system, like every demo-
cratic advance, so thoroughly commended itself to the mass of
the people, that no one has dared to suggest a backward step.
From South Carolina the system of direct primaries has ex-
tended into Georgia, into Alabama, into Mississippi, into
Louisiana, into Texas and into Virginia, so that to-day nearly
all through the South conventions do little more than formulate
platforms; the real choice of Democratic party candidates is
lodged with the people of the party.
In the North the substitution of the direct primaries for
party conventions has developed somewhat slowly, but during
the last few years the advance has been nearly as marked as
at the South. Beginning perhaps with Crawford county in
western Pennsylvania, which established direct primaries in
i860, county after county throughout the Middle West adopt-
ed the plan of having the candidates for important party nomina-
tions submit themselves to the suffrage of the voters of their
party instead of being selected by conventions. This system
was slowly introduced into cities of considerable size; and
during the last decade, when the influence of the bosses
and professional politicians in nearly all the cities reached
a point no one concerned for popular self-government could
longer tolerate, there has come strong demand all over the
North that the selection of candidates by conventions must
end and their selection by ordinary citizens take its place.
In Minnesota the first important law providing for the in-
troduction of a new system in a large city was adopted in
1899. 'This law was confessedly experimental, and introduced
a direct primary system in the single county containing the
city of Minneapolis. Two years later the Minnesota legislature
extended the system so that it applied to all city, county and
congressional nominations throughout the commonwealth. In
96 SELECTED ARTICLES
the Minnesota legislation the use of the Australian ballot was
combined with the provision that tlje voters should vote
directly for candidates instead of delegates, and wherever a
reform primary system has been advocated in the North, the
employment of a secret ballot furnished by the public authori-
ties has been essentially a part of the system. After its tri-
umph in Minnesota the direct primary gathered equal popular-
ity in the neighboring state of Wisconsin, which a year ago,
despite the antagonism of the forces which supply and handle
political corporation funds, adopted the new system provided
the voters should give direct sanction to the new law at a
coming election. In Michigan a direct primary system has
been tried in the city of Grand Rapids, and both political par-
ties in most parts of the state have in their platforms called
for a general law establishing the system everywhere. Similar
gains have been made for direct primaries in Indiana and
Ohio, and even greater gains in the state of Massachusetts.
At first, in Massachusetts, the system of direct primaries was
only applied to the selection of minor officers, but under the
law enacted a year ago, all candidates for the present state
legislature were chosen directly by the, voters. The example
of Massachusetts and Minnesota bids fair to have a far-reach-
ing effect upon the people of other commonwealths, the de-
mand for the displacement of nominations by a class for a
system in which the whole electorate shall take direct part will
soon be next to universal. Each step in the development of
our nominating methods has been a step to make more real
the control of public aflfairs by the whole electorate. All those
who believe in this American ideal instinctively give their
support to every movement toward its attainment.
In England the primary system has had a similar develop-
ment, though a much later one. There, as well as here, the
primary has been the organ of democracy, and it has been pe-
culiarly the democratic elements in society which have, furth-
ered its development. The word "caucus" in England was not
generally used until the early seventies, and then it was ap-
plied by the Tories as a term of reproach to the methods by
which the Liberals of Birmingham organized their supporters
DIRECT PRIMARIES 97
in order to carry through the civic reforms which have given
that city its international reputation, and in order to secure
for the Liberal party that strong representation in Parliament
for which the city of Birmingham was so long famous. The
Liberals would have preferred to keep for their organization
the name they themselves had chosen, "The Birmingham
Liberal Association," for they felt keenly the discredit which
had been brought upon the primary system by the abuses of
this system which had been tolerated by the democracy of
America, but they accepted the bad name in order to secure
machinery by which common men could make their influence
effective in the political life of the nation. From the city of
Birmingham the plan of entrusting the management of the
Liberal party to delegates elected by the whole body of Lib-
eral voters was soon extended to other progressive centers,
and soon Mr. Gladstone formally endorsed the National Asso-
ciation of Liberal Qubs, which has come to be the controlling
power in all the affairs of the Liberal party. There, as here,
the control of the party by the members of Parliament elected
by it did not satisfy the needs of the new democracy; and a
primary system, similar to the convention system which we
are outgrowing, is now the means by which the party of prog-
ress in England agrees upon its program and selects its candi-
dates. Years after the Liberals had accepted this institution,
the Conservative party unwillingly followed in its footsteps.
National Municipal League, Proceedings. 1908. pp. 171-3.
American Municipal Tendencies. Clinton Rogers Woodruff.
It is averred by some that the new system of nomination
gives opportunity for all sorts of manipulation by members
of one party casting their vote for a nominee to be placed
upon the ticket of the other, thus leading to the nomination
of weak candidates for the express purpose of overthrowing
them. This was especially a weakness of the convention sys-
tem, and is likely to disappear very rapidly under the new
system as the people become accustomed to exercising their
9& SELECTED ARTICLES
rights and the privileges of discrimination under the new sys-
tem. While it must not be overlooked that the notorious Dr.
Ames of Minneapolis was nominated under a direct primary
and under just such manipulation as has been referred to,
yet the fact that he was subsequently elected by a very large
majority at the general election, indicated that the people
of Minneapolis then wanted him. I do not know of any law
by which a self-governing community can be saved from itself.
It must bear the brunt of the exercise of its judgment. If
it wants men of the Ames type, it must be permitted to have
them and learn, by bitter experience, how unwise its choice
is. There are people, and good people, too, who seem to
think that direct nominations mean inevitably good nomina-
tions. They mean nothing of the kind. They simply mean
that the people have a right to express their choice directly,
and without the intervention of unnecessary machinery. If
they don't know any better than to choose badly, the system
won't save them.
A stock objection to direct nominations has been that it
produces little men. The old system certainly produced its
quota of little men, or (what was equally bad) of big men
susceptible of manipulation and control. The line of progress
lies in simplifying the machinery of nomination and election,
and of protecting it against corruption and fraud, and then of
educating the people in the exercise of the franchise. So far
as I have been able to observe in the western cities and states
where direct nominations have been in operation for some
considerable time, the results have on the whole been very
satisfactory; and a very much higher grade of men, and men
much more responsive to public sentiment, have been chosen.
Another objection frequently urged against the new sys-
tem is, that it produces self-advertising cm the part of candi-
dates. It is difficult to consider this charge as a serious one;
because there has been self-advertising under both systems.
In the one case, however, it is a direct appeal. In the other,
it is an indirect appeal by a party committee or a group of
citizens. It would seem, however, that if there was any ad-
vantage in the one over the other, it was in favor of the direct
DIRECT PRIMARIES 99
appeal. Certainly there is much to be said in behalf of the
English system, in which the candidate makes his appeal
without equivocation to those whom he seeks to represent.
The system in vogue there seems to be much more truly
democratic; and while mistakes may be made, as we know they
have been in the past, in the long run it will work out best for
the community, for democracy, and for the highest welfare of
mankind.
We must realize that we are living in a democracy, and
that the election machinery must be democratic and must
record the wishes of the people and be responsive to their
desires. The whole trend of our government from the be-
ginning has been to strike off the fetters binding the people,
although the process has often been a slow one. Direct
nominations are a step in advance; because they enable the
people directly to express their wishes. No doubt they have
made their mistakes, and will continue to make them; but
they have had to bear the brunt of them in the past, and they
must continue to bear them in the future ; and this in the long
run will, prove to be the most effective way of building up an
enlightened and efficient democracy.
National Municipal League, Proceedings. 1910. pp. 328-39.
The Present Status of Direct Nominations. Louis M. Greeley.
The popular movement in favor of direct nominations con-
tinues in full force. Professor Merriam, in his book on
"Primary Elections" published in 1908, stated that fourteen
states, to wit, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi,
Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South
Dakota, Texas, Washington and Wisconsin had mandatory
direct primary election laws covering practically all offices; that
three other states, Minnesota, Ohio and Pennsylvania had man-
datory direct primary election laws covering all offices but
state offices, and that fourteen other states, Alabama, Delaware,
Florida, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Michigan, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Is-
loo SELECTED ARTICLES
land and Tennessee, had either optional direct primary elec-
tion laws covering practically all offices, or else optional or
mandatory direct primary election laws covering certain offices
or certain localities. Since that book was published, Arizona,
California, Idaho, Nevada, New Hampshire and Tennessee have
passed mandatory state-wide direct primary laws. Michigan,
which, when Prof. Merriam wrote, had an optional direct pri-
mary law, has replaced it by a mandatory state-wide direct
primary law, including practically all offices, the act being, how-
ever, optional as to county offices and as to city offices in
cities having under 70,000 population. Illinois, which Prof. Mer-
riam classed among the states having mandatory state-wide
direct primary laws, including practically all offices, still be-
longs in that class by virtue of two new direct primary laws,
one for legislative offices only, and the other for practically all
offices except legislative offices, these acts being passed by a
special session of the legislature in 1910, to replace the former
direct primary law of 1908, which had been declared unconstitu-
tional by the State Supreme Court.
South Dakota, pprtions of whose former mandatory direct
primary law had been overthrown by the State Supreme Court
as unconstitutional, has replaced her former statute by a new
full mandatory state-wide direct primary law. So that at the
present time twenty-one states and the territory of Arizona have
upon their statute books direct primary laws of the most com-
prehensive character.
Some states having direct primary laws of limited application
have brought new territory or new offices within the operation
of the direct primary. In no state where the direct primary
has ever gained a place on the statute book, has it lost ground.
In states where the direct primary does not exist or exists
in limited form, determined efforts are being put forth to in-
troduce it or to extend its scope or applicability, A striking
instance is the campaign for the direct primary conducted in
the state of New York by Governor Hughes, which, though
resulting in defeat in the legislature, may yet triumph through
the advocacy of the direct primary by the recent Republican
convention of that state.
DIRECT PRIMARIES' - ^> >;\ ' •' kSi'
The Governor of Colorado, in his recent message to the
special session of the legislature, calls upon that body to redeem
its pledges to the people by enacting a direct primary law. An
active movement is on foot in Wyoming for a direct primary law.
In Nebraska, North Dakota and Washington recent legis-
lation has excluded certain judicial offices from the direct pri-
mary and substituted therefore a non-partisan nomination. The
Tennessee Act of 1909 excludes most judicial offices from its
operation. On. the other hand, the direct primary laws of
Arizona, California, Idaho, and Nevada, all passed in 1909, in-
clude judicial offices in party primary elections. Montana has
provided that judges must be nominated by petition.
The non-partisan primary or double election for municipal
offices has gained considerable ground since Prof. Merriam
wrote. Under this system a non-partisan direct primary elec-
tion is held. At the ensuing final election all candidates, except
the two highest for each office, are excluded from the ballot.
The net result of the two elections seems to be the election of
officers by a majority rather than a plurality vote. The system
was first introduced by act of legislature of the state of Iowa,
applying to cities having a commission form of government.
It has since been established for commission-governed cities in
Illinois, Kansas and Wisconsin. Wisconsin has also a local-option
law for non-partisan direct primaries for all cities. The non-
partisan direct primary is permitted by a recent amendment to
the Minnesota statute for home rule charters. It has been pro-
vided for by charter amendment in the case of Haverhill,
Massachusetts, a commission-governed city. Berkeley, California,
Grand Rapids, Michigan, and doubtless other cities have also
adopted it.
Several of the more recent direct primary acts exclude some
or all city or village offices. The Idaho act does not apply to
cities, villages or towns. The Michigan act is mandatory as to
city offices in cities having over 70,000 population, and is
optional as to such offices with cities of smaller size. The
Nebraska act applies only to cities having over 25,000 population
and excludes village and township offices. The New Hampshire
act excludes cities and towns.
^'fa2?'^'5'.'^''^n "' ^'SEMCT'ED ARTICLES
Most or all direct primary acts exclude some or all school
oflfices from the operation of the act.
Of the direct primary laws passed within the last two years
Arizona requires the voter on challenge to make affidavit that he
is affiliated with the party, and has not signed a nomination
petition for candidates at the primary, of other political i^arties,
or a nomination paper for an independent candidate. There is
no registration of party affiliation. California provides for reg-
istration of party affiliation, with provisons for change of reg-
istered affiliation. The Idaho law has no requirement as to
party affiliation. The voter is given the separate primary bal-
lots of all the parties, pinned together. He votes one ballot
only and returns the others to the judges of the primary who
deposit them in a box provided for the purpose. The Illinois
law requires the voter, on challenge, to make affidavit that he
has not voted at the primary of another political party (other
than a party local to a city, village or town) within two years,
that he has not signed a nomination petition for a candidate
at the primary of other political parties, or a nomination paper
for an independent candidate, and that he is affiliated with the
party. There is no express provision for registration of party
affiliation. The Michigan law provides for a registration of
party affiliation (in connection with registration for final elec-
tions), with provision for change of registered affiliation. The
Nevada law makes no provision for registration of party affilia-
tion, but the voter, on challenge, must make affidavit that he in-
tends to support the party nominees. The New Hampshire law
provides for registration of party affiliation and for a change
of registered party affiliation not less than ninety days prior to
the primary. The Tennessee statute requires the voter, if any
judge of the primary entertains a doubt as to his party affilia-
tion, to make affidavit that he is a member of and belongs
to the party (or in case the voter desires to change his party
affiliation) that he now intends, in good faith, to affiliate with
and become a member of the party. Wisconsin, which per-
mits the voter to vote the ballot of any political party without
regard to his party affiliation, passed, in 1909, a law provid-
ing that if all candidates for any given office on any primary
DIRECT PRIMARIES 103
ballot shall receive in the aggregate less than twenty per cent
of the vote cast for the party nominee for governor at the
last general election, no nominee of that party shall be placed on
the ballot for the final election, but the name of the person
receiving the highest vote shall be placed on that ballot as an
independent candidate. The object of this law was, of course,
to keep party voters from invading the primaries of other
political parties. The provisions of direct primary laws passed
prior to 1908 with regard to party affiliation of voters are sum-
marized in the "Wisconsin Bulletin on Party Affiliations," by
Miss Margaret A. Schaffner.
There has been a strong tendency towards limiting by law
the expenses of candidates at the primary election. The most
elaborate law of the kind is that of Oregon, patterned after
the British laws of 1883 and 1895, adopted in 1908 by initiative.
The act provides for the publication and mailing by the public
authorities of campaign statements in favor of and against the
primary candidate and his opponents, the candidates to pay cer-
tain fees toward defraying the cost. The act limits strictly the
total amount that may be expended on behalf of candidates.
Candidates and political committees and agents are required to
file itemized detailed statements in prescribed form, with vouch-
ers of campaign receipts and disbursements, failure to file
which prevents the candidate's name from being placed on the
final election ballot. Corporate campaign contributions are pro-
hibited. The California direct primary law has corrupt practic-
es provisions defining permissible campaign expenses and pro-
hibiting all others, also fixing the total permissible maximum
total amount of permissible expenditures and requiring state-
ments to be filed.
The Idaho direct primary law has corrupt practices provisions
defining legitimate campaign expenses and requiring the filing
of a detailed statement of receipts and expenditures. Arkansas,
Connecticut, Florida and Georgia have also recently passed cor-
rupt practices acts applicable to primary elections. Several
states have recently passed acts prohibiting campaign sub-
scriptions by corporations. Congress has passed such a law
applicable to federal corporations and to congressional elections.
I04 SELECTED ARTICLES
Iowa, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nebraska, New York, Oklaho-
ma, and many other states have on their statute books cor-
rupt practices acts applicable to primary elections.
The decisions down to 1909 are summarized by Prof. Mer-
riam. They unanimously sustain the general power of the legis-
lature to enact primary laws. The cases disagree upon the
question whether a primary election is an election in the strict
constitutional sense, or whether it is a method of selecting
party nominees rather than an election properly so called.
The greater number of cases and the better reason support
the latter view. The more recent cases generally adopt this
view.
Since Professor Merriam wrote, the direct primary laws of
the following states have been upheld by the courts: South
Dakota (except certain provisions), Oregon, Ohio, North Da-
kota, Wisconsin, Nevada and Idaho.
The direct primary laws of Illinois and Tennessee have
been overthrown by the courts. Primary legislation has been
particularly unfortunate in Illinois. The courts have over-
thrown no fewer than three successive primary acts, and it is
not certain that the present (the fourth) act will not meet a like
fate, though a recent decision (without opinion) of the State
Supreme Court gives some ground for hope that the present
law (or laws — for there are two) will be sustained.
The general result of recent experience with the actual
working of the direct primary seems to show that where the
voters are alert and interested, the direct primary will ac-
complish the purpose for which it was intended — the de-
mocratization of nominations, the wresting of control of party
nominations from the party boss or machine. The results of
the recent primaries in New Hampshire, California, Kansas
and Minnesota seem to show this. In all of those states
the popular will of the party voters prevailed in spite of the
efforts of the office-holding machine. No doubt the sharp
issue between the stand-pat and insurgent elements of the
Republican party drew- out an exceptionally large vote at the
Republican primaries.
In California the vote for governor at the Republican pri-
DIRECT PRIMARIES 105
mary (the only primary where there was a contest as to that
office) the total vote exceeded that cast for President in 1908,
and the total vote for governor at all the primaries was
only 40,000 less than the total vote at the state election in
1906. The normal primary vote seems to be about fifty per
cent of the normal vote at general elections in Kansas. The
percentages in Nebraska, Wisconsin and Michigan are a little
lower. In Minnesota the percentage varies between 25 per
cent and 60 per cent.
As to the expenses of primary candidates, while exact figures
seem not to be available, it is clear that they are heavy where
there is a contest. Whether they are heavier than under the
convention system can not be absolutely determined. There
seems little reason to doubt that the legitimate expenses of
candidacy are, in general, heavier under the direct primary
system than under the convention system, especially in the
case of offices filled by the vote of an entire state or other
large constituency. This is no doubt an objection to the direct
primary system. As I have shown, efforts are being put forth
to meet it by corrupt practices acts defining the legitimate ex-
penses of candidates, limiting the total amount that may be ex-
pended, and requiring the filing of itemized statements by candi-
dates and political parties. But while corrupt practices acts
may lessen, they cannot wholly remove the difficulty. For the
legitimate expense of canvassing a large constituency is neces-
sarily considerable, and a corrupt practices act limiting expenses
below the necessary cost of a thorough canvass would seepi
to be unreasonable and undesirable. Sometimes, no doubt,
the main contest is at the primary and little further in the way
of canvass for the general election is necessary. But in general
the primary must necessarily involve the expense to the public
of an extra election and to the candidate the expense of an
extra canvass.
The Oregon Corrupt Practices Act provides for the pub-
lication and mailing to the voter by the state or city of a
pamphlet containing campaign arguments for an4 against the
candidates furnished by the candidates and by their opponents.
For this the candidates pay a certain price per page. The
io6 SELECTED ARTICLES
amount so paid is not sufficient to defray the entire cost, so
that a large part of the expense of the canvass is in effect
thrown on the public.
If the direct primary necessarily involves added expense
to public and candidates, it at any rate gives the candidate
an opportunity to discuss and place before the voters real,
vital issues. The added expense goes toward the enlighten-
ment of the voter.
It seems not possible to determine accurately whether or
not voters of other parties vote to any considerable extent at
the primaries of parties to which they do not belong. The
impression prevails that this is done to a very considerable
extent. The laws of the various states vary very much as
to requirements and tests with respect to party affiliation.
Some states like Michigan and California have so-called close
primaries, where by law the party affiliation of the voter is
entered upon the register of voters, with provision for change
of party affiliations upon the register at stated times. Every
voter must, in general, be registered with the party at the
primary of which he seeks to vote. The Illinois law provides
that a voter having voted at a party primary, cannot vote at
the primary of any other party for two years. On the other
hand, by the laws of some states the party affiliation of the
voter is not registered, and the voter is simply required,
in case of challenge, to make affidavit as to his having
affiliated in the past with the party, or of his intention
to support a majority of the party candidates at the final
election. The laws of Idaho and Wisconsin permit the voter
to select whichever party primary he chooses, regardless of his
party affiliation. It seems to me that the Idaho and Wisconsin
laws are wrong in principle, that the right to vote at the
primary election should be by law strictly limited to adherents
of the party, so far as this is practicable. The primary elec-
tion is intended as a means of selecting party candidates. For
that reason only those belonging to the party should participate.
If outsiders are allowed to participate at the party primary
elections, the primary elections lose all reason for being. If
they are not expressions of the will of the party voters in the
DIRECT PRIMARIES 107
choice of candidates, they are nothing. I believe that tests of
party affiliations should be made as rigid as practicable and
inasmuch as they must necessarily be somewhat vague, I be-
lieve that a declaration of party affiliation once made should
confine the voter to the primaries of that party for a con-
siderable period.
Experience seems to show that the party convention system
of nominations, except in small communities, has broken down in
practice. It has everywhere come under the control of party
machine.- It has become merely a means of registering the
will of the party bosses. It has ceased to be democratic in
any sense. Efforts to improve matters by statutory regulation
of the conduct of the election of delegates and of the conven-
tion itself have proved unsuccessful. It would seem that we
must substitute some other system of nominations in place of
the convention system, if we are to have a democratic form
of government in fact as well as in name.
Of the substitutes now in sight it would seem that for general
use the partisan direct primary is the most promising. The other
substitutes are the non-partisan direct primary above referred
to, which is in use in Des Moines and other commission-gov-
erned cities. This system no doubt works well for small cities
under commission form of government. It is questionable, how-
ever, whether it would prove satisfactory for cities of metro-
politan size, where the city constituencies are large and the
number of offices to be filled by election large. It would
seem that some form of partisan primary would prove prefer-
able. This system of nominations has never, so far as I know,
been proposed for state or congressionable offices. Boston is
experimenting with the non-partisan nomination by petition.
It is understood the actual result of the first election was not
entirely satisfactory to those who proposed the plan. This does
not prove that the plan is not a good one. The experiment
is a most important and interesting one, and will be closely
watched. The experiment is favored by the comparatively small
number of offices to be filled by election. This system has
the advantage over the partisan direct primary of obviating
the necessity of a nominating election. It has the advantage
io8 SELECTED ARTICLES
(in common with the non-partisan direct primary) of tending
to exclude from municipal elections questions of national party
politics. Whether it will prove popular for large cities with
numerous elective offices is perhaps doubtful. That the system
would ever be extended to state or congressional elections,
seems most unlikely.
Whatever may be the respective merits of non-partisan
nominations and the direct party primary so far as municipal
nominations are concerned, it seems to me reasonably clear that
the partisan direct primary is the system that has the balance of
advantages in its favor so far as state offices and members of
Congress are concerned. In these matters our practice of party
nominations and party designations upon the ballot is too
firmly fixed to be uprooted without causing dissatisfaction and
confusion. So long as elective offices are so numerous and vote-
ing constituencies so large, the party nominations and the
party designations on the ballot seem necessary, or at least
desirable.
No doubt the success of the partisan direct primary depends
on the extent to which the party voters perform their duty
of going to the polls and voting. But this is true of any system
of nominations. It will not alone put an end to machine politics,
so long as the multitude of minor elective offices and the
lack of adequate, or of adequately enforced, civil service laws,
corrupt practices laws and laws for the punishment of bribery
and corruption of voters and public officials make machine
politics profitable and safe. No doubt if the voters arc to
exercise the discriminating choice which the act of voting
should imply, the number of elective offices must be greatly
decreased. It is practically impossible for the voter to ascer-
tain for himself the qualifications and respective merits of the
large number of persons whose names appear on our election
ballots. Real choice becomes impossible. The average voter
must and does rely largely on the party name. This is an
evil which the direct primary cannot cure. It is perhaps the
fundamental evil of our electoral system. It is said to have
given rise (together with the practice of rotation in office)
to our entire nominating problem. So the lack of adequate
DIRECT PRIMARIES icg
civil service reform laws or the adequate enforcement of them
has left the jobs as spoils in the hands of those who controlled
the elections. Corruption in politics and in office has been safe
and enormously profitable because of the insufficiency of our
criminal laws and the lax enforcement of them. Our politics
will not cease to be venial and corrupt until thorough-going
reform is accomplished in all of these directions. It is the
opportunity for spoils and corruption money that gives rise
to the political machine, and it will continue to exist as long
as that opportunity exists.
But admitting all this — admitting that the direct primary
will go only a short way towards the reform necessary to
purify our electoral system, admitting that the short ballot, the
civil service reform, corrupt practices laws, and the overhauling of
our criminal laws and procedure are reforms even more funda-
mental and important, it still remains true, as it seems to me,
that direct primary is the initial reform, the logical first step in
the path of reform. For to accomplish any of these other re-
forms we must first elect to our congress, and our legisla-
tures, men free from boss control. The democratization of
nominations is the only or the speediest way to accomplish this
result. Furthermore, of all nominating systems proposed as
substitutes for the convention system, the partisan direct pri-
mary, cumbersome as it is, expensive as it is, seems on the
whole the most promising for political offices.
National Municipal League, Proceedings, igio. pp. 533-44,
Minneapolis' Experience. Stiles P. Jones.
The effect of the direct primary in Minneapolis has been
to bring practically all the people of the city into participation
in the nomination of officers. From 75 to 95 per cent, according
to the wards of the city, or according to different conditions in
different campaigns, participate in the direct primary, as against
15 to 20 per cent under the old system. That is the first result.
It has absolutely eliminated the intolerable evils of the old
convention system which are many and serious. It has practical-
no SELECTED ARTICLES
ly eliminated the influence of the partisan political bosses.
Then, best of all, perhaps, it has broken down partisan lines in
the community almost to the vanishing point. We have got
to the point now where strong Republican wards are electing
Democratic aldermen, and a strong Republican city, of say 12,000
majority for the Re'publican party, elected for a fourth term,
on November 8th, a Democrat for mayor. Then, finally, it
has been a tremendous educational influence on the voters. It
has given them an interest in their community, in their city
and in politics which they never had before, and has brought
to them an appreciation of their responsibilities as citizens,
which they never assumed before. The educational value of
the system, I believe,^ is its greatest asset. There are many
politicians, who would put us back into the groove of the old
days, but there are none who will dare run the risk of
political annihilation by suggesting it in the legislature. The
probability is that at the coming session of the legislature there
will be a tremendous agitation, and I think it will result in
extending the primary system to state officers and to United
States senators. I think that the direct primary movement
is almost irresistible in the state of Minnesota.
North American. 190: 1-14. July, 1909.
The Direct Primary. Henry Jones Ford.
The master force which impels the direct primary movement
now sweeping over the country is desire for popular control of
government. Only partisans and reformers would be interested
in it if it were offered simply as a means by which a public man,
enjoying popular favor, could beat down his party opponents.
The idea which commends the direct primary to the masses, and
which rallies them to the support of its advocates, is that it is a
means of giving power to the people. I purpose in this article
to analyze this proposition, which presents the aspect of the case
that concerns political science.
One continually hears the declaration that the direct primary
will take power from the politicians and give it to the people.
DIRECT PRIMARIES iii
This is pure nonsense. Politics has been, is and always will be
carried on by politicians, just as art is carried on by artists,
engineering by engineers, business by business men. All that
the direct primary, or any other political reform, can do is
to affect the character of the politicians by altering the con-
ditions that govern political activity, thus determining its ex-
tent and quality. The direct primary may take advantage and
opportunity from one set of politicians and confer them upon
another set, but politicians there will always be so long as
there is politics. The only thing that is open to control is the
sort of politicians we shall have. ... If graft flourishes in
American politics, it is due to the existence of ample provision
for that institution in our political arrangements. Therefore,
'when any reform is proposed, we should form our judgment
of its merits not by the pretences accompanying it, but by
scrutiny of the conditions it will establish and by consideration
of the sort of men it will tend to bring into power — that is
to say, the kind of politicians it will breed.
When the direct primary is thus tested, its true character is
revealed. Its pretence of giving power to the people is a mockery.
The reality is that it scrambles power among faction chiefs and
their bands, while the people are despoiled and oppressed. The
fact that the thing is done in the name of the people, and with
the pretence that it is done for the people, ought not to obscure
the patent facts of the situation. It is clear that if diamonds
were handed out one mile up in the air only those having air-
ships could actually be on hand to get them. If they were handed
out to first comers at a distant point in the public highway those
having automobiles would practically monopolize the gift-taking.
If they were regularly handed out to first comers at designated
times and places in the city only those having time, means and
opportunity of being first in line would actually get them, no
matter how emphatically it might be announced that they should
be free to all. Precisely the same holds good when offices o£
valuable emolument and lucrative opportunity are periodically
scrambled. The hand-out may be nominally free to all, but in
practice it goes to those able to obtain positions of advantage,
■whether by force, fraud, cajolery or favor. The existence of
112 SELECTED ARTICLES
such methods inevitably develops systematic and organized
means of controlling the distribution and appropriating its ben-
efits. Hence we have the boss and the machine, as regular in-
stitutions of American politics, permanent in their nature, how-
ever the personnel of their official staff may change from time
to time under stress of competition. We are always pulling
down bosses, because transient combinations of would-be bosses
and reformers may develop strength enough to overthrow a
particular boss or a particular machine. But while bosses and
machines come and go, the boss and the machine are always
with us. From the standpoint of the public welfare, it is the
system that is important and not the individuals who act in it.
The direct primary does not remove any of the condi-
tions that have produced the system, but it intensifies their
pressure by making politics still more confused, irresponsible
and costly. In its full application it is the most noxious of the
reforms by which spoilsmen are generated, for it parallels the
long series of regular elections with a corresponding series of
elections in every regular party organization. The more elec-
tions there are, the larger becomes the class of professional
politicians to be supported by the community. Hamilton's law
is as constant as any law of physics, and is indeed a corollary
of the axioms of physics. The evil consequences are abundantly
exemplified by current political phenomena. Many are so subtle
and so diffused that it is impossible to catalogue them, but some
salient features of the situation may be noted, with specific in-
stances. The following are among the effects of the direct
primary :
J. Graft. — Nothing is more common than to hear it spoken of
as an adventitious blemish upon American politics, whereas it
is innate. It is an inevitable outcome of the system ; and so
long as the system endures, it will flourish in accordance with
Hamilton's law. Take the case of the people of New York City,
for instance. The law puts upon the community the task of
filling the following administrative and judical positions under
the forms of popular election : State : Governor, Lieutenant-Gov-
ernor. Secretary of State, Controller, Treasurer, Attorney-Gen-
eral, Engineer and various judicial offices; County: Clerk, Sher-
DIRECT PRIMARIES 113
iff, Register, District Attorney, Surrogate, Justices ; City : Mayor.
Controller, President of the Board of Aldermen. The New
York City budget for 1909 contains an item of $1,035,130 mere-
ly for the annual expense of holding these elections, and this
is but a small part of the aggregate expense. Every candidate
for a nomination must spend money. Campaign work costs
heavily. Then on the eve of the election comes "dough day,"
when the party captain in each district receives money for ex-
penditures in getting out the vote. Altogether the expense runs
into many millions of dollars every year.
Now, there is no source of wealth but the industry and re-
sources of the community, and hence, in one way or another, the
community must bear the expense of filling the offices. So when
the system is such as to entail great expenditures, it falls heavily
upon the community. And that is not all. In addition to sup-
plying the funds for electioneering outlay, the community must
support a vast staff of professional politicans. This is an in-
fliction under which the people continually groan, but the matter
is settled not by their likes or dislikes, but by the conditions, and
the conditions are such as to afford vast employment for en-
gineers and stokers in running political machines, the most mon-
strous and complicated that the world has ever seen. So long
as the system is tolerated, its incidents will have to be endured.
In the popular magazines of late there has been much about
the superior economy and efficiency of democratic rule in Switz-
erland, New Zealand and some other countries. Well, there is a
reason. And the biggest reason is that their institutions are
not subjected to the graft pressure to which American institutions
are subject. Not one of the offices mentioned in the foregoing
schedule of New York elections is filled by popular election in
Canada, England, Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand or in any
other country where democratic government is genuine and not
counterfeit: nor. indeed, in any other civilized country in the
world. Their system of responsible appointment saves the people
the many millions of dollars imposed by our system of irrespon-
sible elections, and the advantage thus obtained in the way of
public economy is immense.
The direct primary necessarily intensifies graft pressure by
ii4 SELECTED ARTICLES
multiplying elections. It proposes to parallel regular elections
by an antecedent series of party elections to nominate candidates.
The typical effect of the system is accurately set forth in the
following extract from a Texas paper, the "Krebs Banner":
It costs a big pile of money to run for office in the new state of
Oklahoma. This is to a very large extent blamed on the primary
election system. The results show, it is claimed, that only wealthy
men had any chance in the race for governor or United States sen-
ator. One candidate for governor is reported to have spent approx-
imately $75,000 and another $50,000 in the primary election cam-
paign. Dr. of Enid, and of Guthrie, men of moderate
means, got out of the race because they could not keep the financial
pace set by the other candidates. Two or three of the leading
candidates in the senatorial race, it is said, spent from $30,000 to
$100,000 in the campaign for the primary nomination. When it is
borne in mind that the nominees of the Democratic primaries will
have to make another thorough and expensive campaign to win in
the "sure enough" election over the Republicans, it becomes evi-
dent that, if the Democrats are to win, it will be at a terrible
cost to the leading officers. To win the governorship will, it is
estimated, cost the successful candidates $75,000 more or less, to
secure a job paying $4,500 a year, hardly as much as the "Krebs
Banner" makes for its publisher, and much smaller honors. And
in the case of the United States senator, it is but little better
than the governorship, though with vastly superior opportunities
for getting ahead of the game by grafting.
There are all sorts of ways "for getting ahead of the game."
Public men are frequently subject to attack upon charges of this
character. Even the Governor of Oklahoma, a product of the
direct primary, has not been exempt. Opinions will differ, of
course, as to the merits of any particular case. But it is clear
that, when conditions are such that administrative positions can
be obtained only by large expenditure, there will be a strong in-
ducement to find ways and means of reimbursement and com-
pensation. The system necessarily means graft, and in all ages
graft has been associated with it.
2. Irresponsibility. — The whole system of filling adminis-
trative and judicial positions under the forms of popular election
is a violation of the constitutional principles upon which our
government was founded. The fundamental principle of con-
stitutional government is that responsibility shall attach to every
act of power. Hence the Fathers attached paramount impor-
tance to the principle of executive unity, which provides a
definite location of power. The Fathers were in the habit of
citing as a maxim of constitutional government that "the
executive is most easily confined when it is one." In pursuance
DIRECT PRIMARIES 115
of this principle, the constitution of the United States provides
that "the executive power shall be vested in a President of the
United States of America." The power which any federal at-
torney, marshal, commissioner, collector, postmaster or other
federal agent exercises is delegated by the President, and
may be revoked by the President in his discretion, so that when
public opinion acts upon the Presidential office it acts upon the
whole administration. Political force flows full and strong in
one effective channel. Under the system existing in our states,
this force is dissipated among many channels, producing the
morass in which we continually flounder in our state politics.
Responsibility is too vague, diffused and uncertain to be ef-
fectual. Power is not definitely located anywhere. Just such
consequences of the violation of the principle of executive
unity were predicted by the Fathers. In "The Federalist,"
No. 63, written either by Hamilton or Madison, it is pointed
out that, paradoxical as it may seem, there may be a want of
"due responsibility in the government to the people arising
from that frequency of elections which in other cases produces
this responsibility."
If we turn to private business for an illustration this para-
dox will become easily intelligible. Suppose the shareholders
of a bank should themselves elect its president, its cashier,
its secretary, its auditor, its head bookkeeper, its janitor, and
in addition a board of directors to pass its by-laws. Suppose
that then, in addition, the shareholders in each district of its
business field should elect its principal agents likewise as
independent authorities. Would any responsibility for busi-
ness results be left anywhere by this multiplicity of elections?
Well, that is the kind of situation which is produced in the
public business by the electoral arrangements peculiar to the
American state. Responsible government is destroyed.
In this situation, by a prodigy of political talent, a sys-
tem of party responsibility has been evolved. It is a poor
substitute for representative government, for it is unconsti-
tutional in its structure and . oligarchic in its authority. It
secures its revenues by processes of extortion, justified by
custom in consideration of its necessities. Corporations serve
ii6 SELECTED ARTICLES
as its toll-takers, turning over to it large sums and receiving
legislative favor and official protection in return. They act in
this capacity willy-nilly, for the conditions are such that they
must feed the brute or his teeth and clawS will be on them.
Notice what a ferocious onslaught was made on the railroad
corporations all over the country when they cut off the supply
of free passes to the politicians under the compulsion of the
Federal law! So those charged with large trusteeship, having
interests closely intermingled with public interests, find it
necessary to spend mo.ney for political power and influence.
A president of the American Sugar Refining Company, in tes-
tifying before a Committee of the United States Senate, blurted
out the naked truth about the system. He said: "It is my im-
pression that wherever there is a dominant party, wherever the
majority is large, that is the party that gets the contribution,
because that is the party which controls the local matters."
He explained that such contribution was made because the
company had large interests to protect, and he added: "Every
individual and corporation and firm, trust, or whatever you
call it, does these things and we do them" (Senate Report,
No. 606, Fifty-third Congress, second session, pp. 351, 352).
This virtual taxing power, conceded by custom to party
organization, rests upon an unconstitutional control which ia
a product of conditions imposed upon the community by re-
formers. Those conditions have determined the character-
istics and shaped the activities of the politicians. The class
interests of the politicians are ordered and graduated in a way
that suggests the feudal system and, indeed, is its homologue
both in its origin and in its nature. It is a system of personal
connection founded on reciprocal duty and service, with its
own peculiar code of ethics, stringently enforced. It intro-
duces a principle of responsibility that is gross and imperfect,
but is nevertheless genuine. Party organization has a corpor-
ate interest that may be reached and acted upon by public
opinion, and be held tO' some responsibility for results. Party
government in America is, in fact, a broad-bottomed oligarchy
whose administration is costly, negligent and incapable, but
which at least sets up barriers against the anarchy and terror-
DIRECT PRIMARIES 117
ism that always in the past have been the outcome of ochlo-
cratic methods. In Greece, Rome and mediaeval Italy the
distribution of authority among independent authorities, by
means of popular elections, made the state the scene of fre-
quent civil wars. Apart from the United States, the only
modern country which tried that system was revolutionary
France. The scheme of local government devised by the
Constituent Assembly and promulgated by the decree of De-
cember 14th, 1789, was based upon the principles of the direct
primary and the recall asserted with logical completeness. All
administrative officials were chosen by the citizens meeting
in primary assemblies, and these might reassemble to recall
and replace obnoxious officials. Special precautions were tak-
en, so far as statute law can go, to make these provisions prac-
tically effective. The faction fighting that ensued soon
brought about the state of things known in history as The
Terror. In the present French Republic, elections are abso-
lutely confined to the choice of representatives. America is
the only country that has even been able to maintain tolerable
conditions of public order when authority is split up and scat-
tered among factions. This unique achievement stands to the
credit of American politicians, and the fact is recognized by
philosophical observers. Bagehot in his classic treatise on
the English Constitution says that, if Americans "had not a
genius for politics, if they had not a moderation in action
singularly curious where a superficial speech is so violent,
if they had not a regard for laws such as no great people have
yet evinced and infinitely surpassing ours — the multiplicity of
authorities in the American constitution would long ago have
brought it to a bad end."
Our political class is inordinately numerous and inordinately
expensive; but the only effectual way of curtailing their num-
ber and diminishing the burden of their support is to have less
for them to do. Elections should be reduced in number. The
direct primary proposes to give the politicians more to do.
It provides for a series of elections in advance of the present
series. And, at the same time, it strikes down party responsi-
bility by providing that party agents shall no longer hold
ii8 SELECTED ARTICLES
their posts by efficiency, as now, but by faction favor. The
practical effect will be to substitute for existing boss rule a far
more corrupt, degraded and impervious sort of boss rule.
The change will be analogous to that which took place in the
mediaeval Italian republics, when local oligarchies were suc-
ceeded by professional condottieri, heedless of aught save their
own gains.
A transformation of this order through the direct primary
is .noted by the Commission that recently reported a new
charter for Boston, The Commission in its report on exist-
ing conditions says:
The direct primary system was no doubt intended to abolish
partisanship in municipal government, but in its practical working-
there is no longer the partisanship of a great organization bound
theoretically by party principles and having some regard for its
political responsibility in the state at large. It is a partisanship
of ward organizations, calling themselves Republican or Demo-
cratic, as the case may be, but representing no municipal policies
capable of formulation. ... It has made it artificially difficult to
secure good nominations; it has debarred the best and most repre-
sentative citizens from participation in the government; it has
increased the power of money in elections; it has practically handed
the city over to the ward politicians. It tends to create bad
government, no matter how strongly the people may desire good
government, and to discredit the capacity of the people when con-
gregated together in great cities to administer their municipal
affairs.
That is the characteristic tendency of the direct primary
everywhere. If the people do everything themselves, then they
have only themselves to blame when things go wrong. In
practice, government constituted on such principles means
the irresponsible rule of faction. Outrages may be perpetrated
for which no party organization would dare to assume re-
sponsibility. The case is illustrated by certain facts given by
Judge Ben B. Lindsay, of Denver, in a pamphlet entitled
'The Rule of Plutocracy in Colorado." On the principle that
the people should do everything themselves, the grant of a
franchise to a street railway company was submitted to the
direct vote of the people. Judge Lindsay charges that the
proposition as submitted was shaped in the interest of the
railway company, and he says that "no more arrogant and
outrageous lawlessness in stealing the property of others was
ever enacted." Influential politicians of all parties and public
officials were employed by the corporation to carry the prop-
DIRECT PRIMARIES 119
osition at the polls. Judge Lindsay says that the market value
of the company's securities was increased $5,000,000 as the
result of- the election, so that as a business proposition the
company stood to win largely even if it took millions to carry
the election. Indeed, he estimates that the perpetual franchise
the company aimed to secure "would be cheap at $500,000,000."
He denounces the behavior of the politicians and public offi-
cials who took fees from the company to work in its interest
as treachery to the people. But what legal offence did they
commit, so long as they did not practise bribery? The re-
sponsibility did not rest with them, but with the people. They
were employed as advocates — an entirely legitimate occupa-
tion. That the transaction was one of public debauchery, as
he claims, may be admitted, but the debauchery inheres in
the system. The hired advocates did what, on the principle
of the direct primary, they had a perfect right to do. Judge
Lindsay makes a detailed contrast between the terms obtained
under this system and the terms obtained by Toronto in pro-
viding street railway service. There the public treasury re-
ceives a percentage of the gross income of the railway company,
on a rising scale from eight per cent up to twenty per cent
when the income reaches three million dollars. In addition,
the stipulations of the contract require the company to sell
tickets at the rate of eight tickets for twenty-five cents during
morning and evening hours and twelve for twenty-five cents
for school children. Judge Lindsay points to this as an, ex-
ample of what might and should be done, but he fails to draw
the moral that to get Toronto results American cities should
resort to Toronto means. Well, in Toronto there is no direct
primary, no initiative and referendum, and no elections to
fill administrative or judicial posts; but there is responsible
government. Nothing is further from the truth than to describe
the direct primary as a democratic institution. It is the nega-
tion of democratic rule, and nothing of the sort is found where
democratic government really exists.
Plutocracy — The rule of bosses and party machines, while
a poor substitute for democratic government, is better than any
other substitute available in the conditions to which American
120 SELECTED ARTICLES
politics has been subjected. It is at least an integrating force
and makes towards responsible government. The bosses corre-
spond to "the undertakers," who are described by Lecky in his
"History of England in the Eighteenth Century" as an oli-
garchy founded upon personal connection and 'dexterity in
party management." He observes that "this oligarchical con-
nection was unpopular with the people on account of its nar-
rowness and corruption," but he remarks that its overthrow
resulted in more corruption than its ascendancy, and he holds
that its influence in "binding many isolated and individual
interests into a coherent and powerful organization was a real
step towards parliamentary government." Since boss rule rep-
resents power founded on organized personal connection, it
may admit poor men to its sphere and may select poor men
for its candidates. Thus it has frequently occurred that poor
men of. ability have been raised to high office by dint of per-
sonal ability, and party interest is thus made subservient to
public interests. The case of Abraham Lincoln is typical.
But when power is conditioned upon ability to finance costly
electioneering campaigns, plutocratic rule is established. One
of the maxims of the Fathers was that power must exist and
be trusted somewhere. Responsible government exactly defines
the somewhere, but that crown of representative institutions
has yet to be attained in the United States. As the late Speak-
er Reed frankly declared: "We have at present irresponsible
government, so divided that nobody can tell who is to blame."
In this situation party organization performs a great service,
because it roughly locates power somewhere, thus assuming
a vague but real responsibility for the behavior of government.
The direct primary impairs this responsibility by making power
the football of faction. Power will rest somewhere just the
same, but few will know where, so that it will be released from
any responsibility for results. The behavior of legislative
bodies will be peculiarly exposed to irresponsible influence. It
is already plain that the direct primary affords means of
setting up secret control. The investigation of the last sena-
torial election in Wisconsin showed that various members of
the legislature were employed as electioneerincr agents. A
DIRECT PRIMARIES i2l
wealthy candidate, as an incident of his canvass, could get a
legislature deeply under his influence by pecuniary favors.
This would be a development quite in accord with historical
precedent. The magnate and his clients were a familiar politi-
cal factor in the government of the Roman commonwealth
when it was conducted on the lines that are now imitated in
the American state.
Ochlocracy. — Historically, plutocracy and ochlocracy — thfe
money power and the government of the mob — always appear
together. It is a favorite theory of reformers that, if there
were no organized control, the people would select their wisest
and best for public office. This is mere sentimental cant. Fav-
or decides choice when selection is not accompanied by direct
and immediate risk of consequences. On May 7th, 1903,
Governor Pennypacker vetoed a bill for popular election of mine
inspectors. He said:
Their selection is to be made by the people at an election. The
majority of the people, however, have no technical Icnowledge of
mines and are engaged to other pursuits. The selection would be
likely to be made upon other considerations than those of the
technical capacity of the miners. They would in all probability
be determined by association, by political relations and by all those
influences which affect the ordinary voter. To state the proposi-
tion is enough in itself to show that this would not be likely to
result in securing competent mine inspectors. No one would think
of determining the selection of a physicfan or an engineer to run
a railroad train, or the occupant of any other station requiring
technical information by a popular vote at an election. In fact
the selection of mine inspectors would seem properly to belong to
the Executive Department of the government.
In the last New York state campaign. Governor Hughes,
on similar grounds, opposed the appointment of members of
the Public Service Commission by popular election. He said:
*Tn theory commissioners might be elected, but in practice they
would really be appointed by irresponsible men." These sensi-
ble comments are just as applicable to any other administra-
tive function.
At the direct primary in Atlanta, Georgia, in June, 1908,
the contest for the nomination to the office of coroner was
between a blind musician and a one-armed Confederate veter-
an. The issue seemed to be whether blindness or lameness
established the stronger claim to popular favor. The blind
man won. In an interview published in the "Atlanta Journal.'"
122 SELECTED ARTICLES
he explained that he sought the office because he needed the
money. "It has always been my ambition," he said, "to go
to Munich and complete my studies in music. That, of course,
takes money, and the surest and fastest way of making the
necessary money, as I see it, is through the coroner's job."
The system, of course, means that if the public business is
attended to, the people have to support one class of officials to
do the work and still another class to attend to the election-
eering. Some queer mix-ups occur in the differentiation of
these functions. The "Memphis Commercial Appeal," on
November i8th, 1908, reports an instructive development. A
Grand Jury of Shelby county, Tennessee, complained to the
court that no indictments were forthcoming on presentments
made. The following facts were disclosed: It had been the
practice for a deputy sheriflf to frame the indictments. During
the campaign the candidate for sheriff was so aggrieved by
remarks made by the successful candidate for attorney-general
that he would not allow the deputy sheriff to prepare indict-
ments until an acceptable apology was made. The "Commer-
cial Appeal's" account of the affair concludes as follows:
Sheriff said that he was perfectly willing for Mr. to
write indictments, and that at any time the demand he had made
was complied with by Gen. , the grand jury work would be re-
stored to its former status.
Gen. says that he and his assistants will write the indict-
ments, and that arrangements will soon be made by which the
grand jurors will have all the work they can attend to on each
meeting-day. The work is yet new to the attorney-general and both
assistants, but they declare that they will master it in a short
while.
The sort of influence, which the direct primary exerts on
the administration of justice is illustrated by this extract from
the "Kansas City Times" of August 5th. 1908:
Carthage, Missouri, August 4. — Carthage is at a standstill in
the murder mystery. Although at least two plausible theories
of the affair have been entertained by the authorities, there has
not been an arrest yet. The primary elections have diverted the
attention of the officers from murder to politics. While the mur-
derer of Dr. goes unapprehended, Carthage plays politics.
Sheriff and , the constable, who have been work-
ing on the case, have suspended operations until after the
primaries.
Space will not admit of further details, of which I have a
copious supply drawn from actual experience. Mention, how-
ever, should not be omitted of one feature of the system, and
DIRECT PRIAIARIES 123
that is the way in which it oppresses the poor. The recent in-
vestigation of social conditions known as "The Pittsburgh
Survey" directs attention to the large sums obtained by elec-
tive justices and constables by petty prosecution. The men
who secure these offices are usually chiefs of local political
gangs, whose influence is aggrandized by the direct-primary
system. Candidates for high office solicit their support and
pool interests with them. The poor are helpless against such
combinations, and their only chance of tolerable security is to
commend themselves to boss protection by political service as
in the feudal period. In the sequence of cause and effect there
may be at one end the well-meaning reformer and at the other
end the poor ground down by a system they can neither
comprehend nor withstand. T have yet to find an instance in
which the direct primary has actually tended to promote good
government, and it is only by some dire confusion of thought
that good men can advocate such a pernicious nostrum.
North American. 190: 222-30. August, 1909.
Representative Government versus the Initiative and Primary
Nominations. Henry M. Campbell.
The system of direct or primary nomination of candidates
for office involves substantially the same principles as the
"Initiative," and is open to the same objections. Its purpose,
like that of the "Initiative," is to eliminate the feature of selec-
tion by a representative body, and to permit individuals to vote
directly for candidates for office — the idea being that every
one can have a voice in the selection, and thus the machinations
of party politicians be defeated. This system has been adopted
in many of the states : and in practice has led to some results
quite different from what its advocates claim for it. It has
become apparent that only seekers after office become candi-
dates for nomination — the office no longer seeks the man.
The system destroys all party organization. Political policies
and principles are entirely lost sight of in the confusion of
individual ideas. It affords no opportunity for consideration
124 SELECTED ARTICLES
of the fitness of candidates. Each candidate, whether quahfied
or not, determines that question for himself.
Voters are limited in their choice to such persons as present
themselves. If there are but two candidates, the one selected
may be considered the choice of a majority of the people, as
between the two; but it by no means follows that some one
else would not have been more satisfactory than either if some
better method of ascertaining the real wishes of the people
were provided. If there are more than two candidates, as is
usually the case, the almost inevitable result is that the candi-
date selected is the choice of but a minority of the party, and
as candidates multiply, and the range of selection increases, a
correspondingly reduced minority may foist upon the party a
candidate who may be altogether objectionable to a large major-
ity.
When the system is extended over a large territory and is
used for the selection of candidates for the higher ofifices, it
becomes practically impossible for the mass of voters to make
any intelligent selection, while the opportunities for improper
control of elections are far greater than under the convention
system.
The cost of conducting a campaign for the higher offices,
even if the expenses are confined to legitimate purposes, has
proved to be so great that all but very wealthy men and those
with powerful machines behind them are practically excluded.
The influence of the newspapers is also enormously in
creased, as they afford the only practical means of information
respecting the qualifications of candidates for nomination.
Possibly it is because of this fact that so few adverse criticisms
of the system have appeared in the public press.
These defects and weaknesses are gradually becoming ap-
parent as the system is put into actual operation, and after a
time it will inevitably be condemned as heartily as it is now
being commended,
No person should be nominated as a candidate of a party
unless he is the choice of a majority of such party, and no
method of nomination is sound which does not provide some
means by which consideration of the merits of the different
DIRECT PRIMARIES 125
candidates can be had, so as to permit an intelligent selection
to be made. Opportunity for comparison of the merits of
candidates and for a choice by a majority is as vital in the
selection of nominees to olTfice as discussion, deliberation and,
determination by a majority are in the enacting of laws. This
is possible only under the representative system.
The remedy for the evils attending the operation of the
representative system is, not to destroy it, but to select better
representatives. Under our present system, delegates to nom-
inating conventions are selected at caucuses, more or less
informally called. It frequently happens that vicious and
corrupt elements secure control of them, and decent citizens
are reluctant to take part in what sometimes prove to be un-
seemly contests. The great majority of the people, however,
are decent, law-abiding citizens; and if they would bestir them-
selves and perform their civic duties there would be little
cause for complaint. A small part of the vigilance and at-
tention on their part which would be required to give any
efficiency whatsoever to a system of "direct" legislation or
nomination would insure the election of delegates who would
truly represent them; but no system will protect the people
against their own indifference.
Outlook. 60: 146. September 10, 1898.
Direct Primaries in South Carolina.
While this method prevents the "machine" from running
the state, and allows the dweller in the remotest community
to register his preference, it makes a long and acrimonious
campaign for the higher and more dignified offices, and the
successful candidate always suffers from the spirit of disrespect
engendered during the campaign. As to the minor offices
the plan is not so objectionable, as the campaign is shorter
and the popular feelings have less time to ferment. The ob-
jections to the plan are : That in time it will lower the dignity
of the higher offices, and the ablest men will not aspire to
those positions which will turn them into office-beggars com-
126 SELECTED ARTICLES
pelled to go whining about the state, suffering from, if not
bestowing, abuse. In order to preserve white supremacy, the
Democrats bow to the edict of the primary, however blast-
ing it may be to individual hopes ; but under other conditions
the primary would wreck any party which attempted to employ
it to that wide extent prevailing here. Then, too, it prevents
the formulation of any definite party policy, as each candidate
makes his own platform and there are as many platforms as
there are candidates.
Outlook. 83: 821-2. August II, 1906.
Direct Primary in the South.
The southern states have found a way by which they can
successfully outwit the constitutional provision which prohibits
denial of suffrage to the negroes on account of their race or
color. Curiously enough, the direct primary, which is ad-
vocated as a method of political reform, effectually accomp-
lishes by indirection the practical exclusion of the negro vote.
The constitutional provision does not prevent the state from
determining the method in which nominations shall be made.
The nominations are made, we believe, in eleven southern
states by popular primaries, and in these eleven states the
Democratic party is in an overwhelming majority; and as
negroes are rarely Democrats, the result is that the real elec-
tion of the state officials is determined by the primary election
for the candidates, at which election few or no negroes vote.
Outlook. 90: 383-9. October 24, 1908.
Direct Primary on Trial. William B. Shaw.
When the new primary laws were enacted by the several
state legislatures, more than one party boss of the only too
well known type staked his reputation as a politician on the
assertion that the primary could be "worked," that it would
only make "the organization" invincible. Never was a pre-
DIRECT PRIMARIES 127
diction more completely discredited. Whatever else may be
said of the direct primary as it exists to-day in New Jersey,
Wisconsin, Kansas, Oregon, and a dozen other states, it can-
not be alleged that anybody has yet been able to manipulate
»it in the interest of a party machine. In the fight to defeat
Colby for the New Jersey Senate the "regulars" had not only
a well-disciplined, seasoned, resourceful organization, but re-
inforcements from the public service, insurance, and brewery
corporations more formidable, perhaps, than ever before en-
tered a like contest. Yet this combination was beaten at the
polls by a candidate who asked only the privilege of stating his
case to the voters. You will probably not find to-day in New
Jersey either boss or "bosslet" who is friendly to the direct
primary or who believes that it can be "worked."
Outlook. 91: 91-2. January 16, 1909. .
Governor Hughes on Party Nominations.
The most serious evil of the convention system is the con-
sequence to the people at large. To the extent that party ma-
chinery can be dominated by the few, the opportunity for
special interests which desire to control the administration of
government, to shape the laws, to prevent the passage of laws,
or to break the laws with impunity, is increased. These in-
terests are ever at work, stealthily and persistently endeavor-
ing to pervert the government to the service of their own
ends. All that is worst in our public life finds its readiest
means of access to power through the control of the nominat-
ing machinery of parties.
Outlook. 95: 507-8. July 9, 1910.
Governor Hughes, the Legislature, and Primary Reform.
Theodore Roosevelt.
We hold that the right of popular self-government is in-
complete unless it includes the right of the voters not merely
to choose between candidates when they have been nominated.
128 SELECTED ARTICLES
but also the right to determine who these candidates shall be.
Under our system of party government, therefore, the voters
should be guaranteed the right to determine within the ranks
of their respective organizations who the candidates of the
parties will be, no less than the right to choose between.
the candidates when the candidates are presented them. There
is no desire to break down the responsibility of party organ-
ization under duly constituted party leadership, but there is
a desire to make this responsibility real and to give the mem-
bers of the party the right to say whom they desire to execute
this leadership.
Outlook. 97: 426-33. February 25, 191 1.
Every Man His Own Campaign Manager. Emily Newell Blair.
In Missouri, where we have a primary election law, primary
elections are held at the regular polling-places in each precinct
on the first Tuesday in August for the nomination of all candi-
dates to be voted for at the next November election. At
least sixty days before the primary each candidate for a county
office files a declaration of such candidacy with the County
Clerk and pays to the Chairman oi his County Conimittee $5.
Candidates for state offices, Congress, and Circuit Judge file
such declaration with the Secretary of State, paying respec-
tively $100, $50, and $25 to the chairman of their respective
state committees. This money is paid as an evidence of good
faith, and goes to the party campaign fund, the expenses of
the primary election (judges, clerks, etc.) being paid by the
state and county as at general elections. For three weeks
preceding the primary the names of the candidates on each
ticket are printed in two newspapers in the county, one Re-
publican, the other Democratic.
There are as many separate tickets as there are parties
entitled to participate in the primary, the names of the candi-
dates being in alphabetical order under the appropriate title
of the respective offices and under proper party designation
upon the party ticket. In cities of over one hundred thousand
inhabitants the names of candidates are alternated on the bal-
DIRECT PRIMARIES 129
lots, so that each name appears thereon substantially an equal
number of times at the top, at the bottom, and at each inter-
mediate place. Each voter receives only the ticket of the party
to which he declares himself to belong. The law requires
that each voter must be known to affiliate with the party
named at the head of the ticket he calls for, or must obligate
himself to support the nominees of that party at the following
camfiaign. This provision presents difficulties of practical
enforcement which are obvious, the ballot being secret. No
person who is a candidate upon one ticket can be voted for as
a candidate for such office upon any other party ticket. Such,
in brief, is the law.
The primary system was tried out in Missouri for the first
time over two years ago. In 1908 it was so new that office-
seekers had not discovered its possibilities or how to utilize
them, confining their efforts at publicity to a modest card or
portrait. Then one candidate scornfully refused the suggestion
that he take a small space in the country newspapers setting
forth his qualifications; last year all the available advertising
space (several newspapers issuing supplements) was taken by
AVould Be's, the advertisements ranging from a whole page
of double capitals reciting the merits of a Congressional candi-
date, auction-wise, to a small two-line "local" of an impecu-
nious aspirant for the office of Justice of the Peace.
But cards and newspapers are not the only means used by
candidates to introduce their abilities, advantages and "avail-
ability." Between changes of films at the numerous moving
picture shows likenesses of various candidates are thrown upon
the screen. Letters of all kinds, from the purely personal to
the circular, are sent to the voters, while handbills and posters
and portraits are posted at every cross-roads.
The county in which I have studied the phenomena is in
the rich mining region of the state, and contains about eighteen
thousand voters. Of these less than half are farmers, the re-
mainder miners, merchants, clerks, etc., except for the six or
eight hundred negroes whose purchasable vote notoriously
controls results in certain precincts. There are three large
towns, one of twelve thousand, one of fifteen thousand, and
130 SELECTED ARTICLES
one of thirty-five thousand, and fifteen small mining camps
and farming villages. The would-be-nominee must make him-
self, his ambitions and abilities, known to all these voters dur-
ing the two months between the filing of intention (June 2)
and the date of the primaries (August 2). According to the
old convention system, he had at the utmost six hundred dele-
gates to see or convince; now he must win the support of from
four thousand to five thousand, the two parties, Demo<;ratic
and Republican, being nearly evenly divided in number in the
county's eighteen thousand votes. This means expense, work,
and time. The first thing sought is publicity. This is secured
by cards, placards, posters, lithographs, and newspapers; then
personal appeal is tried. The first is easy compared to the
second. Naturally, the candidate begins with his' friends; he
approaches in person all he can, and writes to those in outlying
districts, soliciting their support, and asking them to say a
word to their friends in his behalf. That much accomplished,
he commences a man-to-man canvass, day and night, in street
cars, on street corners, in offices, lodge meetings, public pic-
nics, churches, along country roads, in factories, mills and mines
— wherever one or two are gathered together.
An auto, a box of cigars, a winning smile, and a pack of
cards — candidate cards — are his paraphernalia, and the number
of these required for eighteen thousand voters demands a
rather large bank account, as do his stamps, printing, stenog-
rapher, and the workers who circulate through the county ad-
vocating his candidacy and reporting daily the public pulse.
This county offers two varieties of candidates: well-to-do
men who "like politics" and are willing to invest one to three
thousand dollars to secure an eight-thousand-dollar office and
the prestige that goes with it; and those with enough gambling
spirit to risk what they. can scrape up or borrow on the chance
of winning.
This year a new kind entered the race. These were the
faithful clerks who, with no political pull, have been doing the
actual work of the county offices for ten or twelve years at
salaries ranging from eighty to one hundred dollars per month,
while the elected official worked at politics or had a good
DIRECT PRIMARIES 131
time generally. In five offices such candidates announced
themselves as entitled to the office and the whole salary. Yet
they must win^ — if win they should — by the same system the
others use : that of appeal, begging, and money-spending.
The majority of the candidates might be termed profes-
sional office-seekers. Rarely an election passes by that these
men do not aspire to some one or other of the county offices.
It seems a chance to get something for nothing (a big mis-
take, they find later); the salary sounds large for this locality;
the work when elected is nil. "Spoiled by office" has become
a proverb, for, having once held public office and enjoyed a
lucrative salary for no labor rendered, an occupation requiring
real mental or physical effort becomes abhorrent.
One man on last year's primary ticket had been a suc-
cessful traveling man, with some money laid by. Once he
was elected to a county office, and since that time he has been
a perennial candidate. Another was a prosperous farmer;
after serving one term in a county office he tried the mercan-
tile business and failed, then a brokerage business and failed;
last year he was a candidate for another office. Another —
But why multiply illustrations? Of the sixty-seven candidates
asking nomination at the primaries, forty-seven had held
office or been candidates before. Whether the fascination of
the game lures them on, or the ingratiating, harmless manner
they assume will not wear off, and hence unfits them for the
aggressive walks of trade, is an open question. The fact re-
mains that holding county office so affects previously success-
ful men.
So much for the effect on the candidates. How does this
"solicitation of your support," "desire your kind efforts in my
behalf," "hope you can do something for me," affect the voter?
There were eleven county offices for which candidates were
to be nominated at last year's primaries, and there were forty-
two Republican candidates and twenty-one Democratic candi-
dates. This means that each individual voter was solicited
from thirty to fifty times by letter, word of mouth (more fre-
quently by both), and by friends and hired workers of the
various candidates, as well. A busy merchant intent on selling
132 SELECTED ARTICLES
to a customer, a doctor engaged in his practice, a farmer get-
ting in his crops," is stopped on the street, detained in his
store or office, or waylaid in his field to discuss a mans — a
stranger's — private ambition to increase his income at the tax-
payer's expense.
My neighbor, a deaf old man, sat on my neighbor's porch
the other night.
"Ain't you sick of these office-seekers?'' I heard the deaf
man say.
*'Sick? I'm clean disgusted," the railway conductor ans-
swered. "I ain't had any peace this summer."
At our boarding-house table the men were discussing the
same subject the morning of the primary.
"What do you say when a candidate asks you to support
him?" a young voter queried. "You can't say, 'No, I'm for
the other fellow, because I like him better.' If he lives next
door, or has married your sister, you have some excuse, but
I'll be darned if I know what to say."
'T tell them," spoke up a genial man, " 'Oh, I'm for you.'
It pleases them and don't mean anything — I'm for them, but
I vote where I please."
"Well," said a serious man, "I'm getting to the point where
I don't vote for any man who asks me to. It's an insult to his
manhood to come begging for my vote, and it's an insult to
the privacy of my opinion to be asked my personal choice.
I'll proclaim my principles, but not always my taste."
"Yet," replied the genial man, "I've heard men say that
they would not vote for a certain candidate because he hadn't
asked them. They wanted him to beg. It made them feel
important."
"I think it is ruination to a man's self-respect to run for
an office that does not involve a principle. There isn't a can-
didate running that hasn't a Uriah Heep manner that turns
my stomach, I've more respect for a downright thief any day
than a beggar, and what's the difference between begging for
an office and for money?"
There you have the voter's attitude. He resents the attack
on the privacy of his opinion; he resents having to be rude
DIRECT PRIMARIES 133
or teH a lie; but he will tell a lie if he has to. An old lady of
my acquaintance used to say: "When people ask me an im-
pertinent question, I say, 1 don't know.' It is either say that
or 'None of your business,' and I prefer to lie rather than be
rude. I'd rather be damned hereafter than now."
Frequently voters at a primary, in their anxiety to see
some friend of the other party get a nomination, vote the
other party ticket. Sometimes this is done to nominate the
weaker man on the opposing ticket, so that he may be more
easily beaten at the ensuing election by a favorite on the
voter's party ticket. While, as has been said, the law prohib-
its this, there is no way of enforcing it without swearing every
elector as he comes to the polls. This the judges of election
seem not to care to do.
Last year the ticket called for by the Republican voter had
two candidates for Congress one a "stand-patter" and the
other an Insurgent, so a principle was there involved; but,
passing on to the judgeship, the voter again found two candi-
dates. He wished to vote for the more capable and honest
man. Perhaps he asked some other lawyer, or perhaps he
knew the two candidates personally. At any rate, the cards
handed to him read just as if his choice should be a matter of
political precedent or of the candidate's personal needs — not
a matter of public benefit. One candidate asked the nomin-
ation because "Republican precedent demands that a short
term be followed by a second," and the other because he
'wants the of!ice and his children want the salary."
The voter goes on down his ticket: State Senator and
Representative involve a principle, as there is a United States
Senator to be elected; Presiding Judge of County Court, As-
sociate Judge, Probate Judge. Clerk of Coimty Court, County
Collector, Recorder of Deeds, Prosecuting Attorney, Justice
of the Peace, Constable. Many of these are clerkships, pure
and simple. If the voter has taken the time, he may be able
to pick out the three or four really competent clerks who are
candidates; if not, he makes a choice in accordance with the
recommendation of some friend, and helps his friend's friend
134 SELECTED ARTICLES
to make a lucky grab at the public purse. Has he served his
country or the public interests by his vote?
Against the primary system, then, it is urged:
1. Out of the eleven contested nominations, not one but went
to the man spending the most money. The amount spent varies.
A Congressional nominee in Pennsylvania published his expense
account as $41,000, the larger part of which went for "educational"
purposes. In the county I have described it is estimated that the
candidates spent from $500 to 3,000; and a nomination here on
either ticket is far from equivalent to an election.
2. The long-continued compaigning and soliciting of voters —
from June 1 to election day in November.
3. The large majority of candidates nominated are machine
men. As less than fifty per cent of those entitled to do so voted,
the Boss's henchmen, as under the convention system, controlled
matters, though a few free-lances slid in.
4. The bitter contests for nomination result too frequently in
the defeated candidate for nomination and his friends bolting the
party nominee.
5. The geographical location of candidates is important in mak-
ing up a county ticket. This cannot be provided for under the
primary system, hence all the candidates may come from one town
or vicinity, at the cost of enthusiasm for a local candidate in other
precincts.
6. The nominees, when selected, are not better qualified or bet-
ter citizens than those selected under the convention system. Al-
most of necessity they are under more obligations to a greater
number of people.
Is the primary system, so far as county offices are con-
cerned, a failure?
I asked one candidate his experience and opinion of the
system. He said : 'T thought I took an interest in politics
because I always voted and read what the newspapers said;
but that's a small part of being interested, I've found. I am
opposed to bosses, and always have been, and I concluded to
run for Treasurer. It pays, I find, about eight thousand dollars
a years. I thought that under the primary system I would
have as good a chance as any one to get the nomination, as I
have lived in the county twenty years and knew so many
people, and it wouldn't cost niuch, anyway. I certainly would
be considered qualified [he is an expert accountant]. I an-
nounced my candidacy and had several thousands cards and
placards printed, and interviewed the newspapers and got a
Svrite-up' in each one, at cost of from ten to twenty-five dol-
lars per write-up. My opponent did the same, and began a
very active campaign over the county in an automobile. I
was started then, and didn't like to quit, so T rented an
DIRECT PRIMARIES ' 135
automobile and went out campaigning. I saw ninety per cent
of the voters — less than fifty per cent voted at the primaries.
I found there was no party organization to help a candidate
for nomination, though the Boss's opinion as to who should
be nominated cut a large figure — I didn't understand exactly
why. I found I had to have a personal representative in each
voting precinct — two or three in some — and set about securing,
them. I was greatly surprised to find that practically every
one of the men who know the voters individually, have some
influence with them, and are at the polls each election day
whooping it up for some particular persons, are not only
machine men, but expect and receive pay for their services..
And they are absolutely necessary to success; they shape the
sentiment of their community towards a candidate, and the
voters of the precinct know them as active party men and look
to them for information. I was in the race, and meant to
win; so I got two men in each of the seventy-two precincts
to work for me. So each precinct cost me from ten to twenty-
five dollars for election day work alone. Now that I've got
the nomination I find our Coimty Committee is hopelessly
split and wholly useless because of so much 'soreness' over
candidates defeated for nomination, so I've got to continue
my personal machine until election — three months — and in-
crease it by adding the workers that were for my opponent.
I've got a month's work to do to get my own party in line
for me, and I ought to have that time to work on Republicans,
for I've got to have a lot of Republican votes and all my own
party's votes in order to win. It looks like I'll have to join
forces with C — [the Boss], who controls a number of the
other candidates, and try to get some sort of a working or-
ganization outside the County Committee; otherwise there's
no chance for any of us. I'm out about three thousand dol-
lars now, and the real fight hasn't commenced. This primary
business sounds nice, but the old convention system beats it.
There we'd have had the nominations over in a day, and no
time for the voters to get worked up in favor of some certain:
candidate and sore at his defeat."
136 SELECTED ARTICLES
"But," I said, "you acknowledge you have become a
machine politician, so perhaps you are prejudiced."
"Every one in this county v^^ill tell you the same thing."
he retorted.
"Perhaps so," I answered; "but there aren't any reformers
in this county — ^just office-seekers."
"I guess you're right there," he agreed; "we're not re-
formers."
"If a born leader Hke Roosevelt or Garfield or La FoUette
wanted to fight a machine for a principle, he could succeed
easier than under the convention system, couldn't he ?'' I asked.
"Sure thing. The primary would render a boss helpless
against a Roosevelt."
That, of course, is the prime point in favor of the primary.
But must we have this advantage at the expense of county
politics? For the primary has debauched county politics into
personal politics. It simply has turned the political machine,
which had some use as a preserver of party organization, into a
personal machine to graft off the county and the boss into a
disburser of offices, without regard to party.
If the primary makes plain to thinking people the character
of county politics, if it discloses what county office-seeking
really is — an effort to work the public for a living — and points
the way to correct the situation; if it does all this, in addi-
tion to offering an opportunity for real leaders to come be-
fore the people when there is a real issue,, we will call it a
success. But certainly office-seekers with no issue and machine
bosses will never approve it.
Outlook. 97: 945. April 29, 191 1.
Public Control of Elections [in New Jersey].
By the passage of the Geran Bill, New Jersey, under the
vigorous and effective lead of Governor Wilson, has not only
extended the application of the direct primary, which was al-
ready 1.1 practice, under a limited form, in that State, but has
put the whole machinery of nominations and elections under
strong public control. The view that a political party is a volun-
DIRECT PRIMARIES 137
tary and private association of citizens, whose organization and
methods and purposes are of no concern to any but themselves,
is still held, or at least professed, by some Americans ; but it
is fast giving way to the view that a political party is a part of
the machinery of government and should be kept under the con-
trol of the whole people. This new election measure in New
Jersey is a clear instance of the way in which the broader and
more intelligent view is finding expression in statutory law. The
Geran Act provides that the members of the Election Boards,
who have charge in each district of the registering and polling
of voters, must be selected from such party members as' have
passed a civil service examination ; that their selection shall be
under the supervision of the judges of the Courts of Common
Pleas, and that it shall be by lot; that in case of vacancies in
these boards, or removals for non-compliance with the law, the
places shall be filled through appointment by the judges ; that in
Presidential elections there shall be an approach to the direct pri-
mary through a provision for the election of delegates committed
to specific candidates for the presidency; that there shall be an
approach to the direct election of United States senators by re-
quiring each candidate for the legislature to say whether he will
or will not vote for the man who is nominated for the United
States Senatorship at his party's primaries ; that all state officials,
including the Governor, shall be nominated by direct primaries;
that the state committees of the parties shall be chosen by the
members of the parties at the primaries ; that the party convention
shall consist of the party's principal candidates, and, in a year
when a Governor or when Senators are not to be elected, that
the then incumbents shall be members of the convention of their
own party ; that voters may be enrolled as members of one party
or the other (provision apparently being made only for Republi-
can or Democratic enrollment) ; that no voter can change from
one party to another without the intervention of a general election ;
that the ballot in use in the primaries shall accord with certain
specified provisions, and that in elections the ballot shall be a
blanket ballot containing the names of the candidates in alpha-
betical order, each name being printed but once, but being ac-
companied with party designations. The Geran Act is one of
138 SELECTED ARTICLES
the notable achievements of Governor Wilson, for its passage
is due to his leadership. It is a v^holesome sign that the people
are not content with merely the name of self-government, but
are determined to use means to secure to themselves its sub-
stance.
Review of Reviews. 41: 597-9. May, 1910.
Doom of the Old "Machine" Convention. Robert S. Binkerd.
For two years Governor Hughes has made the question of
the direct nomination of candidates for public office a lead-
ing issue in the state of New York. In theory both direct
and indirect nominations rest upon the will of the voters of
a party expressed at a "primary." In the indirect system the
voters elect delegates to various conventions (state, county,
city, Congressional, senatorial, etc.), which nominate the candi-
dates. In the direct system they vote directly for the men
whom; they wish their party to nominate.
In 1909 the New York legislature appointed a commission
cf its members to investigate direct primary laws in various
states. This commission, with perhaps two exceptions, was
composed of men whose minds were already made up; who
had already defeated Governor Hughes' direct primary bill
of that year; and who are generally believed to have been
interested mainly in securing testimony hostile to the direct
primary system.
Nevertheless, in February, 1910, the commission reported
to the New York legislature: "That there is widespread and
real demand for primary reform cannot be denied." Still, the
commission was not for direct primaries. One of its reasons
was: "Many eminent men have represented the people of this
state in prominent positions, all of whom have been selected
by the representative (convention) system."
Passing over the failure of the commission to comment
on the general character of candidates selected by the "re-
presentative system" for positions not so prominent, the com-
mission could have explained the "widespread and real demand
for primary reform" had it amended the above sentence to
DIRECT PRIMARIES 139
read: "Many corrupt and unfit men have represented the people
of this state in prominent and other positions, all of whom
have been selected by the representative system."
For this so-called "representative system" has not been
representative in New York state. For instance, in 1908 the
Syracuse delegation to the Republican state convention was
solidly opposed to the renomination of Governor Hughes. A
postal-card canvass conducted indiscriminately ampng enrolled
Syracuse Republicans revealed the fact that nine-tenths of
them wished the Governor renominated.
Democratic conventions have been even more unrepresen-
tative. No impartial observer of the Democratic state conven-
tion at Buffalo in 1906 would demand affidavits in support
of the following statement by the late Senator Patrick H.
McCarren, — hardly a radical reformer! — to the Kings County
Democratic Committee on October 16, 1906:
There were men (delegates) thrown out of the convention who
had been for years leaders of the party in their respective counties.
It was necessary to unseat a certain number of delegates, and
they were unseated.
Not only have nominating conventions not been represen-
tative, but they cannot be made so. Public opinion, even among
the enrolled members of a party, cannot express itself ex-
cept where the issue is defined. Party organizations can sel-
dom, if ever, be compelled to take a stand before the pri-
maries to elect delegates to conventions.
The boss or organization having taken no stand prior to the
primary, and having announced no policy there is no specific
issue which can be made against the delegates proposed for
election. The party membership is in the position of an in-
dividual compelled to give a power of attorney without know-
ing what will be done, and powerless to withdraw that power
of attorney if its use is abused. At every step in the process
of constituting nominating conventions machine leaders con-
ceal their hand and thrive upon the consequent inability of the
decent electorate to make any effective opposition. For this
reason, however they may bow at times to overpowering
public sentiment, nominating conventions are representative
I40 SELECTED ARTICLES
of the mass of the voters only by chance. Such is now the situa-
tion in New York and other states.
So generally has this been true that in the past ten years
the direct primary has become the more usual system of mak-
ing nominations in the United States, and in only one case has
a city, a county, or a state turned back from direct nominations
to the convention system.
Of the thirty-one United States senators elected in 1908,
seventeen were nominated at direct primaries. Fifteen out
of thirty-two governors of states elected in 1908 were so
nominated, as were a majority of the "insurgent" Republican
Congressmen, To speak of direct nominations as a "dangerous
experiment," as has been done in New York, is only to reveal
our provincialism.
World To-Day. 19: 940-4. September, 1910.
Illinois Primary Election Law.
The history of primary legislation in Illinois begins with the
year 1904. In that year there was a notable and historic contest
for the Republican nomination for governor. In that campaign
Charles S. Deneen, then state's attorney of Cook county, be-
came the leading exponent of a reform in the old system of
nominating candidates for office, under which there had been
many flagrant abuses that were well recognized. There was
an insistent demand on the part of certain Chicago news-
papers, which had vehemently denounced the so-called party
bosses for their supposed power in dictating the selection of
delegates to conventions and the .nominationi of candidates
for various offices. Mr. Deneen went into the campaign as
the leading champion of primary-election reform. It was still
the over-shadowing issue in his mind when he was inaugurated
as governor, in January, 1905; for a discussion of a proposed
compulsory primary law occupied first place in his inaugural
message. Through the influence of the governor and in re-
sponse to a supposed popular demand, the legislature in that
year enacted a primary law; but before there was an op-
DIRECT PRIMARIES 141
portunity to put its operation to a practical test it was in-
validated by the Supreme Court. So important did a primary-
election law appear to the governor that he immediately con-
vened the general assembly in special session in April, 1906,
for the purpose of passing another law. The response of the
legislature was prompt. Another primary law was hurriedly
put through, becoming effective July i, 1906. Now came a great
surprise to the people of the state at large. The surprise came
in the extraordinary course of Governor Deneen. Scarcely had
the ink dried on his signature approving the new law, when the
governor boarded a train for Chicago to join a number of the
old-time party bosses, who proposed that their time-honored
avocation of slate-making should not be interfered with by so
slight a circumstance as a primary-election law. This was some
weeks before the law was to go into operation. It had been
supposed that the new law would enable the people to decide for
themselves upon party nominations ; and that, possibly, was wTiat
the governor and his allies feared would happen unless they
should make an organized effort to put through a slate of their
own selection. For some weeks the governor spent a good part
of his time in Chicago, helping in the slate-making. A county
ticket was finally agreed upon, and it was agreed further that the
governor's friend, Smulski, should have the support of the slate-
maker for state treasurer.
The primary law of 1906 was not a direct plurality primary
law, but divided the state into so-called delegate districts and
provided for the election at the primaries of delegates to
county, senatorial, congressional and state conventions. Pro-
vision was made for the instruction of these delegates for can-
didates for various offices, by a plurality vote. Thus, if a
candidate for state office secured a majority of instructed
delegates, his nomination on the first ballot was a foregone
conclusion. But, after the first ballot, if no candidate received
a majority vote in the convention, the delegates were released
from their instructions and thereafter could vote as they
pleased. In this situation came the opportunity of the polit-
ical boss — an opportunity that Governor Deneen, the great
champion of the popular voice in party nominations, was
12
142 SELECTED ARTICLES
quick to seize upon and use to his advantage. In the state-
primary campaign Andrew Russell, o£ Jacksonville, had se-
cured a plurality of the popular vote, but he lacked about
one hundred votes of a majority of instructed delegates in the
state convention. It is a matter of well-known political history
in Illinois that Governor Deneen, foreseeing that Mr, Russell
could not be nominated on the first ballot, called in his office-
holders from all parts of the state on the day and evening
before the convention, and through them forced into line a
sufficient number of delegates to assure the nomination of his
friend Smulski, who was practically without support in the con-
vention on the first ballot outside of the Cook county delega-
tion. Thus the governor was completely victorious as the boss
of the state convention under the new primary law, which had
been heralded as the death-knell of the party boss.
The primary law of 1906, like its predecessor, was short-
lived. As soon as a test case reached the Supreme Court,
the law was declared invalid. This was in October, 1907. The
legislature had taken a recess in May and was just on the
eve of reconvening. The governor at once sent a ringing
message to the assembly urging the enactment of a third
primary law. In the legislative fight which followed, the gov-
ernor exerted all the influence of his powerful office to force
through a primary law to his own personal liking. He freely
threatened to wage a warfare upon any member who stood
in the way of primary reform. After some months of dis-
cussion, the assembly finally enacted a direct plurality primary
law. This was a far more radical measure than its immediate
predecessor, for it robbed all conventions of nominating power
and provided for nominations for practically every elective
office by a plurality vote at the primary election. The power
of the slatemakers was again in evidence, and Governor Deneen
was again a conspicuous party in the constructive work of
the bosses in Cook county, though his own fight for renomina-
tion, involving his very political existence, kept him so
thoroughly occupied that he refrained from attempting to dictate
the make-up of the state ticket. The primary law of 1908 became
null and void as soon as the Supreme Court got a chance to pass
DIRECT PRIMARIES 143
upon it. The governor, still the great champion of the people,
once more called the members of the legislature together in ex-
tra session. The legislature convened in December, 1909, and,
after several months of strenuous effort, enacted another direct
plurality primary law, almost identical in its general provision
with its immediate predecessor. Again the governor had used
his influence to force the legislature into line for this law. While
the bill was pending, and at a time when its enactment ap-
peared doubtful, he had announced his purpose to make a
speaking tour of the state, in order to arouse the people and
defeat any legislator who had the temerity to stand out against
his primary program. In fact, the governor did make several
speeches in various parts of the state, but for some reason —
possibly because the popular response was not what he had
anticipated — he abandoned his oratorical program. But he
persisted in his threat to go into the district of any member
of either house who might stand in the way of primary re-
form.
Thus we have among the statutes of Illinois, Primary Elec-
tion Law No. 4; and again we have the spectacle of Gov-
ernor Deneen becoming the central figure in a party of slate-
makers in Cook county, who have essayed the task of per-
forming the important function which the primary law was
supposed to have delegated to the people themselves. We
witness the interesting spectacle of Charles S, Deneen, the
governor of Illinois, and four other widely advertised political
bosses, meeting together in secret conference and agreeing
upon a county ticket for the Republican party from top to
bottom. On September 15, when the primary election is
to be held under the new law, the voters of the Republican
party will be asked to go to the polls and ratify the slate
ma<ie up by these eminent gentlemen. It is almost super-
fluous to point out the tremendous advantages possessed by
any candidate fortunate enough to get on the slate. In this
instance the slatemakers represent whatever of party organiza-
tion there is in Cook county. The selections of the slate-
makers are the selections of the so-called bosses. For a half
dozen years we have been told in the columns of reform
144 SELECTED ARTICLES
newspapers— we have heard it proclaimed hundreds of times
from the stump by Governor Deneen— that the way to destroy
the power of the boss in politics is to make party nominations
under the beneficent provisions of a primary law. Yet within
a few hours after the new law goes into effect we find the
biggest bosses in Cook county politics in a formidable com-
bination to dictate the make-up of the party ticket, thus in
effect nullifying completely the very purpose for which the
primary law was enacted. More than that we find Governor
Deneen, the man chiefly responsible for primary legislation,
the most conspicuous figure among all the bosses who have
been engaged openly in the work of slatemaking. * It is clear
to any novice in politics that the candidate who attempts to
secure a nomination against the combined influence of- these
powerful slatemakers must meet obstacles which few will be
istrong enough to overcome. Among the Democrats prac-
tically the same procedure has been followed. The old-time
bosses have gotten together and made up their slate, which
the rank and file are to be called upon to endorse. But candor
compels us to note an essential difference between these two
bands of slatemakers — that the Democratic bosses never have
pretended to be the champions of primary reform and so can
not be accused of the offense of hypocrisy.
Even before the passage of the present primary law, Gov-
ernor Deneen was planning to thwart the will of the people
and deprive them of their right to rule. Early in the special
session, in January, 1910, he framed up a bipartisan plan for
the express purpose of getting through some sort of a direct
plurality primary law for political capital, and of putting
through such a law as would prevent the people from regu-
lating the number of nominations in each senatorial district.
Sincere advocates of direct pluralities and many good lawyers
held that the only proper and the only constitutional manner
of drawing a bill governing nominations for the lower house
was to permit each voter to indicate on his ballot whether he
favored the nomination of one, of two or of three candidates
by his party in his particular senatorial district. This method
was known commonly as the "McGoorty Amendment," but
DIRECT PRIMARIES 145
the governor would have none of it. He insisted that the
senatorial committees of each party should determine the num-
ber of nominations in a district and thus retain control. Gov-
ernor Deneen's finest stroke, however, was in the defeat of the
amendment to give every candidate an even chance with every
other candidate and nullify the advantages of slatemaking.
This amendment provided for the rotation of candidates'
names, so that John Smith's name might -be at the top for
the first ten ballots, second for the next ten, third for the next
ten and so on, each candidate having his name appear first in
the list for a given office an equal number of times. "Circular
insanity" was the name given by Governor Deneen to this
practical amendment, which among other things would have
rendered impossible the disgraceful scene now attendant on the
filing of nominating petitions.
ADDITIONAL ARTICLES
Academy of Political Science, Proceedings. 1913. pp. 210-ig.
Direct Primary versus the Convention,
Albert Bushnell Hart.
Another difficulty with the convention is the feudal side
of it. The truth is we are always illustrating what the
eugenic people call the reversion to an original type, always
going back to the middle ages in our politics. We have sub-
stantially a series of feudal systems, in which you, the voter,
put your hands between the hands of the district captain;
the captain pledges allegiance to the county chairman; the
county chairman ac-cepts the suzerainty of the state boss.
There is a lordship and an over-lordship all the way up; you
perform military service — that is, you vote — and your over-
lord protects you. There was in Europe a century ago, a
breaking-up process called immediatization, by which a man
jumped over the lord and went straight to the king, and the
primary is a system by which the candidate may come into
direct communication with the men who are to elect him.
Election expenses have seemed to increase, but it is pub-
licity of accounts that makes it seem so. The investigation
at Washington shows how much smaller are the outlays this
year than in any campaign for twenty years. The primary
system almost prevents carrying contests to a convention.
If more states had adopted the primary system, there would
have been no row at Chicago, for if the delegates had all
brought certificates of election from their state officials,
there could not have been any difficulty in their taking their
seats.
148 SELECTED ARTICLES
Academy of Political Science, Proceedings. 1913.
pp. 220-8.
Advantages of the Convention. Edgar T. Brackett.
I want to stand for the proposition that never yet has
the wisdom of man devised a scheme for ascertaining the
will of a free people so good as that of caucus and conven-
tion. The opportunity to come together, whether in the
little caucus in the barn back in the alley, or in the large
convention, to look each other level in the eyes, to tell, each
to the other, the reasons actuating one, and to press one's
views upon his fellow citizens, this is a privilege which, if
awake to their true interests, the people will never consent
to surrender. It is a method ingrained and bound up in the
conduct of every other business involving the concurrence of
different individuals. No board of directors of any corpora-
tion can legally act without a majority coming together.
Separate concurrence by each director individually sending
in his vote in writing reaches no legal action. And why?
Because each member has the right to try to impress his
views upon his fellows, and unless and until he has the oppor-
tunity to exercise that right, no result may be reached.
Suppose that a jury, after hearing the evidence and the argu-
ments of counsel, should separate, each man going to his
own room and sending in his vote to the clerk — what sort
of verdict would they reach in that way?
The overruling power has constructed us on certain lines.
One characteristic of humanity is that the attrition of mind
with mind will promote harmony and reach a satisfactory
result. It is so in matters political as in any other activity.
And while it is so, you can never get a better system than
one that lets this attrition have its full course and result.
Given a convention of a hundred members, no boss on
earth can carry it against fifty-one of such members, if they
have serious wishes on the subject. If an elector has no
serious notions on the subject, nothing will protect him..
And, after all, I am not sure but that it all comes down to
DIRECT PRIMARIES 149
liaving serious notions and being willing to fight for them.
There is no method of procedure that will make a lion into a
sheep, or a sheep into a lion. And I want to lay it down as a
postulate, that nobody is ever really bossed politically, who,
way down in his heart (whatever he may say about it) is not
^willing to be bossed.
American Political Science Association, Proceedings.
1910: 138-62.
Direct Primary in Illinois. Walter Clyde Jones.
When the party organization presents a unified slate, it has
"been found difficult to prevent the success of the organization
-slate at the primary. The direct primary, however, requires the
political leaders to show their hands prior to the primary elec-
tion, and in this respect the primary law has been advantageous.
Under the old delegate convention system the people went to the
polls at the primary election and selected delegates and subse-
quently the delegates named in the convention the candidates
upon whom the party leaders had agreed. The electors thus had
practically no choice in the matter. Under the direct primary
the party leaders must act first. They must present their slate
for the approval of the electors and the electors are free to ac-
cept or reject the recommendations. The leaders are confronted
with the importance of presenting the best possible timber avail-
able, from a vote-getting standpoint, otherwise their recommen-
dations are in danger of being rejected wholly or in part by the
electors.
If the slating of candidates is to become the accepted practice
certain collateral improvements should be made in our primary
system to insure the slating of ideal candidates and the defeat-
ing of objectional candidates when slated by the organization.
Inherently there is no reason why a direct primary should be
any more expensive than a primary held under the old delegate
convention system; in fact, statistics would probably show that
as much or more money has been spent by candidates under the
ISO SELECTED ARTICLES
old system when compared with the expenditures under the new
system.
In order to equalize candidates from the standpoint of wealth
the publicity pamphlet feature which, has been adopted with suc-
cess in Oregon, is receiving consideration. The publicity pam-
phlet does away with the necessity of mailing campaign liter-
ature and expenses due to other forms of publicity.
The experience with the direct primary in Illinois has shown.
it to be a marked improvement over the delegate-convention sys-
tem. No human institution is perfect, and defects have de-
veloped in connection with the direct primary, particularly as.
applied to a populous center like Chicago. Substantial amend-
ments to the primary law and to collateral statutes are necessary^
to improve the working of the primary principle. It would seem
probable, in view of the experience to date, that the great mass:
of the voters prefer the direct primary to the former system of
delegate nominations. In this former system the voter had little
or no influence upon nominations. In a direct primary he has,
if he will avail himself of the opportunity, a forum wherein he
may exercise his influence. Before the direct primary is fully
effective the voters must avail themselves of the opportunity to
participate in the primary election. This is a matter which can-
not be corrected by statute but only by personal reformation, I
believe that if a vote of the electors of the state were taken they
would overwhelmingly vote that the direct primary system in
Illinois has been a marked success.
American Political Science Review. 11:494-518. August, 1917..
The Direct Primary in New York State. H. Feldman.
A study of the detailed figures of the last few years shows,
conclusively that at its introduction in 1914 the direct primary
was accompanied by a great increase in the amount of participa-
tion by the people, as, for example, in New York City. A sec-
ond fact is that although this increase has been sustained in the
Republican Party, there has been a considerable decrease in thei
Democratic Party, resulting in a percentage which is actually
DIRECT PRIMARIES 151
lower than that before the direct primary was introduced. It
is too early to make deductions, but it is a subject worthy of
speculation as to the probable future of the primary from this
point of view. Every new broom sweeps clean. Whether the
people will get tired of bothering with elections, whether it will
always be necessary to "get out the vote" by partisan exertion,
and whether there is any virtue in holding a primary in which
party workers and club members chiefly find interest are ques-
tions which will be asked more and more as the novelty of hav-
ing nominations "by the people" wears off.
The percentage of voters participating in the primaries must
be accorded its proper significance, in spite of the difficulty of
judging the effectiveness of government by numerical records.
The smaller the number of voters participating, the greater the
power of the "inner circle." The larger the number, the smaller
becomes the percentage of political cogs and machine men and
the more formidable becomes the influence of party sentiment.
In the latter case the machine must put forth a candidate who
can get greater support from the people as a whole, and this is
apt to produce better candidates.
It is evident that under the present system of direct primaries
a machine only needs harmony to win. It is apparent, even
from a cursory glance at the membership list of the numerous
political clubs that the political powers can easily nominate
their candidate, although their actual following may be a small
percentage of the actual party membership or of the population
at large.
Expense of the Primary
There are many reasons why a man may not wish to become
a candidate. The following quotation from a letter by a well-
known member of the New York State Assembly gives the point
of view of the candidate in homely terms and indicates another
disadvantage of the anti-machine man:
The direct primary system has given the knock-out blow to
the poor man. It has duplicated the election process. It would
not be nearly as bad if public offices were long in tenure and
liberal in remuneration, but take my job, as an example. As
assemblyman, my term is only one year, and my salary only
152 SELECTED ARTICLES
$1500. It costs me money to get the nomination — straight money,
I mean, for the state does not give us any publicity, as in other
states, and it costs me much more for election. I get elected.
But I have hardly warmed my seat before another primary starts
and then another election. Again I have to dig down, and my
salary, small enough as it is, dwindles down to a negligible sum.
To a man who wants to stay in politics, this is an endless process.
This kind of thing takes the fun out of the work. It drains
your desire for service becavise you have got to do too much cam-
paigning and grand- stand play. It takes away your independence
and increases the temptation to join the insiders — for the smile
of the boss who can deliver the nomination to you cut and dried
without trouble assumes an ineffable halo.
In your letter you quoted some primary expense accounts filed
by candidates. I don't doubt you copied them correctly, but par-
don me if I call these figures bunk. Everybody knows that the
law is a dead letter, and that not one candidate out of ten fills
out his expense accounts correctly.
In an effort to get at the facts, the writer examined the re-
ports filed by the candidates of New York City for the 1916
election, and it was these figures of which the assemblyman
made light. In an amazing number of cases the candidates
entirely ignored the stern-looking corrupt practices law and had
filed no account of their primary campaign expenses ; and there
does not seem to have been any effort whatever by the officials
to secure compliance with the law. In other cases the amounts
reported as spent were so much at variance with common opinion
on this point that the figures seem valueless. Still it may be
of interest to present a summary. Fifty candidates for the
assembly reported that they had no expense — eight Republicans,
four Democrats, one Progressive, twenty-seven Socialists, one
Independence Leaguer and nine who sought nomination in more
than one party. Of the candidates for state senator, twelve
reported in like fashion, as did also twenty-one candidates for
Congress in the various parties. Of those whose reports did
show expenses, nine candidates for Congress spent $30 or less,
three from $30 to $100, three between $100 and $200, four be-
tween $200 and $300, five between $300 and $400, one over
$500, and one spent $1519, of which $1137 came as contributions.
Eight candidates for the state senate reported having spent less
than $40, one $60, two some $250 odd, and one candidate $517.
Fourteen candidates for assemblymen reported having spent
less than $30, six between $30 and $65, one $145, two between
$200 and $300, two between $300 and $400, one over $500, and
DIRECT PRIMARIES 153
one over $600. As an indication of the expenses of other can-
didates may be quoted that of $3000 reported by a contestant
for district attorney of Kings County (Borough of Brooklyn,
New York City), and $1200 by an aspirant for the supreme
court from a judicial district including Kings County.
In rural districts the candidates frequently reported high
expenditures. One candidate claimed that his opponent for
the nomination for state senator had probably spent over $10,000.
The unsuccessful candidate for the nomination for Congress
in the Republican party of one rural district regrets the expendi-
ture of $3000, and a candidate for state senator in the same party
claims an expenditure of $1395.
The striking features of the primary campaign expenses
appear in the more important state offices. This is shown for
1914 and 1916 in a table [not reprinted.] A few main offices have
been selected, and only the expense accounts of those candidates
in the major parties who had opposition are noted.
It must be borne in mind that these are personal expense
accounts. They show that primaries are not for the man with-
out means. In addition, much money was spent by political
committees. Governor Whitman's nomination presents an ex-
cellent example. On paper it looks very neat — naught spent.
As a matter of fact, a White Book, reviewing his accomplish-
ments, was issued early in the fall before the primaries. This
was used as a campaign document with which to impress all the
voters and especially the Progressive Party whose endorsement
Whitman finally received. It was sent broadcast to about a
million people, and the postage alone is said to have cost $25,000.
Mr. George W. Perkins spent $45,542 on Whitman's election.
And Mr. Perkins was only one contributor, and Mr. Whitman
was only one candidate. One legislator characterizes the pri-
mary campaign as a "scramble between those whose friends can
put up most money," with the richest in the lead.
In December the New York Evening Post began a series
of articles on the 1916 election. The writer of these articles,
who had been about the state investigating conditions,
charged that in one small county alone (Herkimer) the pur-
chasable vote on primary day was conservatively estimated
154 SELECTED ARTICLES
by politicians as 2500; that one political party spent $25,000
in the Saratoga County primary in direct violation of the
law; that fifteen or more county boards, not to say innumer-
able candidates, had failed to file expense accounts; and that
"The New York Corrupt Practices Act is a work of art as
far as it goes — but its enforcement is quite another matter."
It is not charged, however, that actual violence or ballot
stuffing occurred. Except for an occasional instance of
favoritism, the New York law is now being properly ad-
ministered by the poll clerks on primary day.
One of the hardships that works most severely on the in-
dependent candidate is the filing of petitions. One may know
a good many men in a district, but where two or three
hundred signatures are needed, all of these by duly enrolled
voters of one party, it provides business for the professional
hawker. Expenditures of from $50 to $200 for this purpose
are not unusual. One candidate for Congress reported an
expendture of $79 for notarial services alone, as these are
necessary to authenticate the signatures. Occasionally a
charge of fraud is heard, clairAs being made that names are
forged or copied from the graveyard; but such an evil must
be regarded as slight and easily remediable by efficient ad-
ministration of the law. What has added to the difficulty is
the tendency of candidates from the major parties to invade
the minor parties, except the Socialist. One candidate for
Congress spent $75, $213, and $346 in the respective primaries
of the Independence League, the Republican and the Pro-
gressive parties. One candidate presented himself for nom-
ination in five parties and received five endorsements.
Usually, though, the petitions of the minor parties are a
farce and their nominees a joke. Under the provisions of
the law requiring 3 per cent of the enrolled voters of a sub-
division to nominate a candidate for that subdivision, any
member of the "American" party who had one friend in this
organization could have had his name on the primary ballot.
There is no minimum. Mr. Whitman became the official
candidate for governor of the American party because he had'
38 votes on primary day, while Mr. Seabury had one less —
DIRECT PRIMARIES 155
this for a state office. In this same party there was for some
time a doubt as to the candidate for senator because the nom-
ination hinged for a few days on one up-state vote which
might have "turned the tide." In the eleventh congressional
district, a total primary vote of two made one Socialist the
-official candidate for Congress.
All this costs money. It raises tax rates. No figures as
to the cost of direct primaries to the state as a whole are ob-
tainable, because the 62 counties do not report to any state
<iuthority, and many county boards do not themselves know
what the primaries cost. A number of counties which re-
ported their expenses differed so widely in the items included
as to make the data of little value. Fortunately, however,
the New York City board of elections, in its annual report
for 1916; gives some valuable facts as to expenses:
In 1902 the primary election cost $94,150, while in 1916 the
primaries (spring- and fall) cost $448,325. The ballots at primaries
. . . alone add nearly $100,000 to the cost of a primary elec-
tion. . . . Desigrnations of candidates to be placed upon the
primary ballot in the fall were made by petitions bearing- 147,025
signatures. . . . Nearly 2,000,000 ballots were printed for 2,079
election districts, and these, together with 6,000 election booths,
16,000 ballot boxes, and about 50 tons of stationery, were delivered
to the polling places; 16,632 election officers were employed. The
cost of the fall primaries of 1916 was $215,325.
The best opinion from unofficial sources, although very gen-
eral in its terms, may be worth taking into account, viz.: that
the cost of elections up-state aggregate about twice as much as
the cost in this city.
Some of the reasons for opposition to any change in the
primary law are not hard to perceive. On the one hand, the
faults of the direct primary are not sensational in nature.
The general citizenry shows no sentiment for a change.
Moreover the alternative presented of having party can-
ventions does not capture popular imagination.
Another reason, advanced in a letter from an opponent of
the direct primary, is of significance:
The present direct primary law will have almost the unani-
mous support of the press, for it has provided such a vast amount
of extra and useless printing that every little two-column weekly
throughout the state, to say nothing of the large dailies, will
strenuously object to losing their share of the pap, and all of the
old theoretical and far-fetched arguments in favor of the mon-
strosity will be resurrected and printed broadcast in aid of it.
That New York's direct primary law has not proved a
success is a general opinion among those who understand
156 SELECTED ARTICLES
it. The question to be answered, therefore, is why it has-
worked so poorly. And the answer to this, apart from more
general considerations as to the propriety of having primaries-
at all, is not a difficult matter.
One reason is that the governmental organization of New^
York State was not ripe for any such measure of popular
control. The passage of the direct primary law in 1913 was
equivalent to the proverbial process of putting the cart be-
fore the horse. As a result, the law has become so en-
tangled with a complicated set of governmental defects that
it is hard to see how, under the circumstances, any such
measure could be what its enthusiasts hope. As long as the
attention of the people is distributed by a long ballot over a
host of unimportant, nonpolitical offices, primaries are bound
to involve decisions which the majority of citizens are in-
capable of making. As long as elections come frequently,
and at set periods that are not at all correlated with im-
portant issues or political crises, the manifestation of little
interest in the process of nominating candidates is bound to
be the usual thing. So long as assemblymen are elected for
a term of only one year and are given a stipend of $1500-
annually, the direct primary will be another stumbling block
and a deterrent to possible candidates for nomination. It is
only after such defects have been remedied that some form of
direct primaries will, perhaps, be made to operate successfully.
Apart from these general considerations concerning the
condition of New York's government, the form of the direct
primary bill itself was ill-adapted .to its effective operation.
It provided no privileges to the candidates, such as free pub-
licity, which would have relieved some of the hardships of
the primary campaign. By forbidding designations of can-
didates by party organizations, it relieved the latter of air
responsibility for poor nominations although it stripped them
of little real power. It has thus become doubly difficult to
distinguish the "independent" from the "regular." Perhaps,
too, the corrupt practices act could have been more tightly
drawn so that so many of its provisions would not have be-
come dead letters.
DIRECT PRIMARIES I57
If at some future date the New York direct primary law-
is amended, it will probably be of the mixed type advocated
by Governor Hughes. As such, the direct primary will be-
come merely an emergency measure, — a weapon for popular
defense against a very corrupt machine. It will be used
mainly in those cases where popular sentiment is strong
against a party group or candidate, or when the bosses
wrangle among themselves. Occasionally, of course, some
man will put up an independent fight. But in the main it
will be a latent power to be exercised only in protest.
Albert S. Bard. The Primary and Election Laws of the
State of New York.
No distinction is made in the New York law between
judicial and other candidates, either at the primary or at the
general election. With governors, mayors, legislative repre-
sentatives, state and municipal fiscal officers, state engineers,
and coroners, the judges — and the state — take their chances
with the electorate's somewhat undisciplined instinct for
natural selection.
The weakest point in the New York system for electing
judicial candidates has seemed to be, not the undiscriminating
ballot, serious as that defect has been, but the original selection
of the group from among whom the ultimately successful can-
didates must almost inevitably come. And the present handicap
of a double election, operating inevitably, in the case of an office
in which there is strong political, but slight popular, interest, in
favor of the political machines, would seem to intensify the
weakness at this critical point. One need not go back to the
time when Chief Justice Bosworth was denied a renomination
because he had rendered judicial decisions unsatisfactory to
Tweed, or to the time when Judge Daly was denied renomination
because he had refused to take orders from Croker as to the
referees he should appoint. Judicial nominations and renomina-
tions have been and are being made and denied in our own day
for considerations having only slightly greater weight when
judged by the public and professional standards that ought to
18
158 SELECTED ARTICLES
prevail. That the bench or bar has played and still plays so often
the role of suppliant at the feet of a party dictator or ring re-
mains an extraordinary and sinister page in our judicial history.
Gov. Emmet D, Boyle of Nevada. Address to Legislature,
January 15, 1917.
The Legislature, in 1909, in recognition of a popular demand
for the abolition of the convention system for the nomination of
party candidates, went to the direct primary and, during the
six years following, tried three direct primary laws, none of
which proved entirely satisfactory. The last of these laws,
enacted in 1913, met with very general criticism on the grounds
that: (i) the expense to the taxpayers and the candidate was
excessive ; (2) that candidates of a party seeking nomination by
that party were committed to no set of principles excepting such
a platform as they themselves might adopt after their nomina-
tion; (3) that the plan lent itself admirably to political machi-
nations designed to permit an improper interference with the
selection of the candidates of a particular political party by
persons not affiliated with such party ; (4) that no provision was
made for the bringing out of candidates who might be reluctant
to enter the public service without urging, thus leaving the
electorate a choice between only such rpen as, because of political
ambition, saw fit to enter the primary contest, and (5) that, in
such a free field as the system offered, primary candidates who
were not the choice of a majority of the party might still re-
ceive the party nomination. Some of the defects complained oi
are perhaps inherent to any primary law, while others are sub'
ject to correction.
The Legislature, in 191 5, passed an indirect primary law
by which delegates to a convention were selected at a primary
election, and it was hoped that the plan would put into effect
the good, while eliminating the bad, features of both systems.
A single trial of this compromise measure has indicated that
it is neither practical nor popular. Serious study of the con-
vention and primary systems of other States and of the defects
DIRECT PRIMARIES 159
which resulted in the repeal of our own experimental laws here
have been made by a number of public-spirited citizens at a ser-
ies of conferences initiated and conducted by members of your
own body. It is hoped that from these conferences will grow
the draft of a law which will eliminate the features not found
satisfactory in the earlier Nevada statutes. In the belief that
our people demand a return to the primary system, you are re-
spectfully urged to provide again for direct nominations on the
ballot.
Gov. Frank W. Byrne of South Dakota. Address to
Legislature, January 2, 1917.
People are going to insist on choosing by primary vote the
candidates for the important offices. While they justly find •
fault with many features of the primary law, this is one of the
matters on which they are going to insist. I think the people
would accept a change, providing for the minor and less im-
portant officers to be chosen by the convention system, provid-
ing it was done under a system similar to our former "Honest
caucus law" and providing further that there was no opportunity
to "job" the selection of delegates in the county convention.
One of the worst weaknesses of the primary law is that it
sometimes results in a minority choice of some candidate very
objectionable to the majority of the voters of the party, where
there are a large number of candidates in the field. Experience
has shown that this can be avoided by first and second choice
voting, in which case no man could be nominated that was not
the first or the second choice of a majority of the voters.
Gov. Arthur Capper of Ksmsas. Address to Legislature,
January 13, 1915.
Several amendments should be made to the primary and
general election laws to improve them, but such changes must
in no way interfere with a full and free expression of the
people's choice in naming the candidates to be voted on at gen-
l6o SELECTED ARTICLES
eral elections. The direct primary law of Kansas has become a
part of our political system and our efforts should be to simplify
it, to render it more direct, rather than to weaken or discredit
it.
Gov. Arthur Capper of Kansas. Message to Legislature,
January lo, 191 7.
The people of Kansas look with favor upon the Kansas pri-
mary election law. Some minor changes doubtless are needed,
but any effort to repeal it will meet with general disapproval.
The popular primary election has come to stay.
Case and Comment. 23:396-9. October, 1916.
Primary Elections as an Instrument of Popular Government.
William H. Wilson.
I now desire to direct your attention to the most prominent
defects of the primary election system of nominations, except in
purely local and nonpolitical elections.
1. The primary election system prevents the people from
selecting the ablest men and the men of highest character as
candidates for ojffice, and restricts the choice of the people to
those who are willing to rush forward and inject themselves into
what is frequently a vicious election in order to obtain nomina-
tion. This defect of the primary election nominating system
is particularly unfortunate in the selection of candidates for the
higher judicial offices, since it is well known that the men who
are best fitted to perform the duties of judge of the courts of
civil appeals or of the Supreme Court are men who are willing
enough to accept the office if tendered them, but entirely un-
willing to engage in a political contest to secure the office.
2. Another defect in this primary election system is that
there is no deliberation or weighing of the merits of the various
candidates combined with the discussion of their merits with
people who possess first-hand information respecting them.
DIRECT PRIMARIES i6i
3. Another defect of the primary election system for nomi-
nations is that there is no referring of the candidate, of the
candidate's history and political beliefs and opinions to the fixed
standards and policies and principles of the organized political
party in which he offers as a candidate.
4. Another objection to the primary election system of nom-
inating candidates, and really one of the greatest and most fun-
damental, is that where the population is large or the territory
widely extended the voters in the primary do not know the can-
didates or their qualifications for office, nor have they any means
of finding out what the character of the candidates or these
qualifications are.
5. Another defect in this primary election system for nomi-
nating party candidates is the tremendous expense of the thing.
How can a citizen who wants to run for governor or member of
the Supreme Court get himself before the public throughout the
whole state? If he wants to interest the newspapers through-
out the state, and if he wants to interest the minor political
leaders throughout the state, he has got to turn loose the cash.
His postage bill and bill for stationery is something enormous.
6. Another most serious objection to the primary election
system is that it absolutely destroys party organization and party
principles, owing to the fact that men of opposite political views
not only vote in the primary elections of other parties, but run
for office in them and are elected.
7. In principle it seems to me that the primary election sys-
tem for nomination of political parties dethrones the natural
leadership of men, which always asserts itself unless interfered
with by arbitrary regulations, and substitutes for it the stupid,
unintelligent, uninformed action of the masses. It is utterly in
contradiction to the American principle of representative re-
publican government. Most people will admit that the mass of
people know very little of governmental affairs, especially of the
somewhat complex system of national and state governments,
and the proper limits in principle and practice of each. What
most people do not know, and what no politician will admit,
is that a very large percentage of the voters not only do not
know, but do not care. The convention system is a system by
i62 SELECTED ARTICLES
which the final poHtical power is located in that number of the
voters who care enough about public affairs to be to some extent
informed on the subject. The convention system, therefore, as
opposed to the primary election system, has the advantage that
the action taken is more intelligent, and in the true sense of the
word more honest, since men are not undertaking to act on
serious matters in which they take too' little interest to be in-
formed.
In a sentence, the system of primary conventions is a part
of the system of representative republican government, and the
system of primary elections is a part of the system of direct
democratic government. As before stated, this thing will not
work, and if we desire to maintain in the United States the local
popular governments in their integrity, we must get them in
workable shape. If we do not, all real authority will ultimately
fall into the already powerful central government, which neither
is nor ever has been democratic in the slightest degree, and
which is only republican to a limited extent.
Gov. George W. Clarke of Iowa. Message to the
Legislature, January 9, 1917.
The nomination of candidates for public office in this
State by a primary election has been in vogue for a period of
ten years — a long enough time to give its efficiency and
adaptability to the purposes designed by its advocates a rea-
sonable test. Results from the beginning have not been en-
tirely satisfactory. Changes from time to time have been
made in the hope of making it an approved instrument of
popular government. No improvement has been perceived.
It seems to have been continually losing ground in the
minds of thoughtful men sincerely interested in good govern-
ment. To test the public mind of the state on the subject I
some weeks ago sent out quite a large number of letters to
men of all parties and former factions asking whether they
were satisfied with the law, not simply in theory, but in its
practical application, and if not, why, and whether they
DIRECT PRIMARIES 163
would recommend a change, and if so in what particulars.
Almost all responded and not one said he was entirely satis-
fied. All but two or three expressed thorough dissatisfaction
and disappointment. Nearly all recommended very radical
changes, many denounced it as subversive of representative
government and favored its repeal. Many of those who
were its staunchest advocates in the beginning and who were
in considerable measure responsible for its enactment were
as severe in their criticism of results as many of those who
never regarded it with favor.
As to the further practical operation of the primary laws
it may be said that nobody is responsible for results. No-
body nominates candidates for public office. They select
themselves. The question of fitness is not discussed and
passed upon by anybody. They are found in the field.
Multiplied thousands of voters know nothing about their
qualifications and do not and cannot take the time to in-
vestigate. If they could, to whom could they go? To every-
body only. And everybody is nobody. The voter simply
ratifies the candidate's selection of himself. He has nothing
to do with selecting the agents of his government. The most
intelligent voter does not know how to mark his ballot below
the head of the ticket. It is manifest that it would be better
if candidates were selected by representatives chosen by the
people in small units of government. Then there could be
some canvass as to fitness. Then responsibility could be
located. Then the people would indeed select their candi-
dates. That would be democratic. It is not democratic
where the voter expresses no opinion as to nearly the whole
of the ticket he casts. He makes no selection. He votes
blindly. He simply makes a thrust in the dark. Wiiy insist
that he wait until he is twenty-one years of age before he
does this? He could do it as well at fourteen. Or why insist
that the voter be a male? A sixteen-year-old girl could make
a stab at the field with just as much certainty of impaling the
best man. That it is mostly a chance, a lottery, was humil-
iatingly admitted when the legislature ordered a rotation of
the names on the ballot. That it could be nothing else was
i64 SELECTED ARTICLES
conclusively demonstrated when no better results followed.
There could not possibly be a greater delusion than that a
repeal of the primary laws would deprive the people of their
power of direct participation in their government. The fact
is that the primary prevents that very thing. The people
cannot proceed with the greatest efficiency, precision and in-
telligence by multitudes. All experience establishes with un-
shakable certainty this fact, not only in government but in
business and every other department of life where large
issues are involved. This principle is recognized and acted
upon everywhere else but in government where it oi^ght to
obtain with greatest force.
The primary tends to exclude the best, most unselfish
and capable men. The rule is that they will not undergo
the methods which seem necessary to success. The mean-
ingless circulation of petitions, the harassing and long-drawn
out primary campaign within the party, tending to disrupt
and weaken the party, a great evil where government must
proceed by parties, the enormous and disgraceful expenditure
of money, all tending to corrupt public morals, lower and
contaminate the political and public ideals of youth — all this
with reference to the questions that must touch every citizen,
really the most momentous questions with which he has to
do. Then must follow the campaign for the general election
with all of the convulsions and disappointment and bitter-
ness of the primary campaign carried over into it. The
tendency of it all is to develop the demagogue, lower to de-
basement the tone of our political life, deprive the country
of great leadership, inspired only by a desire for the common
good, for a commonwealth that shall be an example and
attract the admiration of the whole country — a leadership
that is not based upon and which would scorn to appeal to
the prejudices and want of vision of men, but which is on
fire, with the great things of life which develop great citizen-
ship and build states upon enduring foundations.
The tendency of our present system is to grow worse.
Such has been the result, A new movement having the ap-
proval of great numbers brings with it a pride in its success
DIRECT PRIMARIES 165
which seems to start it well, but its inherent weakness is
sure to develop. Hence it has come about that in more
States than one, dead men have been voted for as candidates.
In other instances men of notorious weakness in character
and mind have polled thousands of votes for important State
offices, putting the public service in actual peril — indeed
there is a constant peril. Besides, it has been demonstrated
that the less intelligent voters, those whose personal
prejudices are most easily aroused, vote with the greatest
unanimity. Thus an analysis of a primary vote in Michigan
reveals the fact that "in the seven counties containing the
most foreign-born and illiterate voters the Republican vote
has been far above the percentage for the State, in the last
three primaries exceeding the party membership; while in
the seven counties containing the least such vote the per-
centage has been considerably below that for the State. In
Detroit the vote in the four wards conceded to be the
'worst' has always been markedly heavier than in the best
wards and in 1914 the Republican vote in the worst wards
was over twice the party membership. The voting is quantita-
tively best where the electorate appears to be qualitatively
worst." I think this would be found to be generally true
under the primary system.
The non-partisan judiciary law, as it stands, has also
demonstrated its utter futility to effect its purpose. It has
moved the judiciary into politics. It invites into a political
game that has not one thing to commend it, but everything
to condemn it. It starts the candidate for the office of judge
out as a suppliant. He must appeal to people whom he may
soon have before him as litigants and who have extended the
helpful influence. If he rises into the region where the
recollection of favors do not abide, those before him may
be on a lower level where the memory Is ever alert and
suggestive. So far as it is humanly possible the judge should
be placed beyond every suggestion or suspicion of bias. If
he were nominated by a convention he would be very much
farther, although not altogether, removed from this; but
selecting himself as a candidate and appealing to the people,
i66 SELECTED ARTICLES
he is subjected to every sort of obligation and entanglement
in the primary. The field is open for every mediocre to be-
come a candidate. It invites to the arts of the demagogue to
gain a judgeship. It may easily lead eventually to the loss
of fitness, ability and courage on the bench.
It has been said of this matter by a great lawyer of na-
tion-wide renown: "Those ripest in wisdom are not willing
to engage in a campaign where the arts of the demagogue
and the use of money are such potential factors; and we must
make up our minds that unless we withdraw our judicial nom-
inations from these strenuous primaries, our judges, in time,
will be our most skillful politicians rather than our most
learned lawyers." This law ought to be repealed. The
presidential preference law should be repealed. The office
of judge should be appointive. It is so in every country on
earth but Switzerland and the United States and is so in
eight of our states.
Niels Henriksen Debel. The Direct Primary in Nebraska.
The state-wide direct primary law has now been in opera-
tion long enough to enable one to form a fairly definite
opinion as to its merits or demerits. On the whole the peo-
ple of Nebraska believe in the direct primary. There are
many who believe that it is the instrumentality through
which the people have come into possession of their own
government. The system has had its violent critics, however.
The purpose of the direct primary is not easily defeated
through "slates" or lists. This is the testimony — three to
one — of sixty-eight prominent political leaders, legislators,
and newspaper men, in reply to a circular letter sent out for
information. The secret caucus, so powerful under the old
system, has been very generally put out of business. No
doubt an endorsement of this sort is often more of a detri-
ment than an aid to the candidate whom it is designed to
benefit. The voters are suspicious of any attempt to in-
fluence the free choice of the primary.
DIRECT PRIMARIES 167
One of the many objections urged frequently before the
adoption of the direct primary was that it would greatly in-
crease the number of candidates. They would become a drug
on the market so to speak. While this has often been true
at the first trial of the direct system it is by no means com-
mon. During the years under investigation little danger of
either extreme has been found. Only once has it happened
that there has been no candidate for the nomination for a
state office. In the year 1907 — the first year of the state-
wide primary — ho Democratic candidate sought the nomina-
tion for the office of railway commissioner. The other ex-
treme occurred in the year 1908 when the Republican nom-
ination for state auditor was sought by eight candidates.
The successful candidate, Silas Barton, received 12,527 votes,
or 25 per cent of the total vote cast for that office.
During the six years, 1907-1912 inclusive, the average num-
ber of candidates for state offices in the Republican and
Democratic parties varied from an average of 1.83 for each
office in 1909 to 3 in 191 1. The total average for these same
years was 2.75. These figures show that the charge that there
would be too many candidates is groundless. It also shows
that there is little ground for that other charge that the "ex-
pense of the double election" deters candidates from running
for office.
From the point of view of the vote it gets out, the direct
primary in Nebraska is a success. To say that 79,273 votes
were cast in 1907 and that it had risen in 1912 to 133,603 may
not mean much. The size of anything is a relative matter.
The relation that the primary vote bears to the election vote
is the real test. In 1907 the percentage of the primary vote
calculated on the basis of the election vote was 38.8 per cent.
In 1908 it fell to 36.2 per cent in spite of the fact that the
total primary vote itself rose from 79,000 to 98,000. From 36.2
per cent in 1908 it rises to 45 per cent in 1909, falls to 44.4
per cent in 1910, rises to 57 per cent in 191 1, and falls again
to 51.5 per cent in 1912. It will probably reach 60 per cent
in 1914. The total average is 45.5 per cent. But if the last
four years are taken the average is all but 50 per cent."
i68 SELECTED ARTICLES
The fluctuations of the percentages of the primary vote
would be misleading, however, if not subjected to closer
study. The primary vote does not fluctuate much. Only
once has there been a falling off from the preceding year.
The vote shows a constant tendency to rise, indicating that
the direct primary has an educative value. More and more
voters get out to take part in the nomination of candidates.
On the other hand, the election vote fluctuates violently.
It reaches its highest points in presidential years and falls to
its lowest depths in odd years, when judges and regents were
elected. Under the new biennial election law of 1913 the
fluctuations will not be so great. Furthermore, the fluctua-
tions were largely caused by the herd of voters who do not
go to the polls except when there is some excitement. They
vote at these few elections but are undoubtedly largely ab-
sent from the primaries. Nor is this a valid objection to the
primary. The door is open. The right to exercise their vote
is there if they choose to do so. In the meantime no one can
object if they permit the more intelligent to nominate their
candidates.
The cost of the primary election is heavy. The cost in
Lancaster [County] is 32 cents per vote; in Douglas, 48; in
Washington and Howard, 63; in Dawson and Custer, 71; in
Lincoln and Brown, 90; and in Thomas and Hooker, $1.81.
As would naturally be expected, the cost rises with the
sparsity of population. There is one exception, however, in
the cases of Douglas and Lancaster counties. In Douglas
county, where the population runs from forty-five to ninety
per square mile, the average cost is 48 cents per vote. In
Lancaster county, on the other hand, where the density is
from eighteen to forty-five, it is only $2 cents. That is, cal-
culated on the basis of the cost in Lancaster, the Douglas
vote costs 50 per cent more. At the other extreme it is in-
teresting to note the example of the Hooker county primaries
in 1907. Forty-one voters turned out. The total cost to
the county was $123 — an average of $3 per vote.
There has been a great deal of criticism of the heavy expense
of the primaries. Objectors are prone to forget that "under any
DIRECT PRIMARIES 169
system of selecting candidates certain expenses must be borne
and that the present law merely transfers the burden from the
few to the many." Under the old system corporations and
individuals furnished the money. This gave them a great deal
of control, not only over the choice of candidates but also over
their conduct after election. The expense should be borne by
the public. If it is too great at present, the machinery should be
simplified or its operation should be made efficient.
The indivdual campaign expenses are limited by the corrupt
practices act. The limit varies* from $100 for 5,000 voters or less
to $650 for 50,000 or more. It must be remembered that the
double campaign may cause the expenditure of double this
amount. However, in the second campaign the candidate is
relieved of a great deal of the burden by the party.
The effect of the direct primary upon the party system is an-
other question which is largely a matter of opinion. It will be
recalled that the party machinery is chosen under the old caucus
and convention system. To get the opinion of party leaders on
this point the following question was submitted: "Does the pri-
mary destroy or impair the efficiency of political parties in pro-
moting the public welfare?" Sixty-five replies were received.
Five were doubtful, twenty-eight held that it does, while thirty-
two held that it does not impair the efficiency of parties. It is
well to note that parties still exist, that they still perform their
functions, and that there has been no talk of disbanding.
The reasons given are many and various. Some of those
criticising the system feel that the party organization has been
devitalized. There is little real responsible work for it to do,
hence a lack of interest. It has taken "all the ginger out of
politics." There is "little chance for the boys to get together and
get acquainted."
However, the better reasoning appears to be on the other side.
Says a progressive editor out in the state: "It not only doesn't
destroy but it builds up a party for principle." A prominent Re-
publican leader says : "It tends to destroy organization but does
not render the candidacy of a positive man all but impossible."
It would seem likely that what the party organization may lose
among the class of professional politicians it will probably gain
170 SELECTED ARTICLES
in the added support of the rank and file, who were largely dis-
franchised under the old system.
Nor is there any serious danger of split or faction in the
parties over the results of the primaries. This is the sentiment —
two to one — of the leaders. Violent factional fights were com-
mon under the old system. Under the present system, the vote
ordinarily settles the fight. An exception must be noted here in
the gubernatorial campaign of 1910. Mr. Dahlman, the Demo-
cratic nominee, was bolted by many Democrats. They justified
their action because Mr. Dahlman was appealing to Republican
voters on the ground that the issue was a non-partisan one.
And no doubt he owed his nomination to "wet" Republican votes.
True leadership is taking the place of demagogy. Of sixty-
two replies to this question only seventeen believed the power
of the demagogue had been increased. The demagogue depends
largely upon the presence of his admirers. An excited conven-
tion is an ideal place for him to do his best work. Under the
direct primary everything he says and does is subjected to the
severe test of newspaper criticism and private discussion. The
decision of the direct primary expresses the result of sober
judgment and not of spell-binding.
As a result of this new system the press will more and more
come into its proper sphere as a moulder of public opinion.
There is no evidence that any large number of editors abuse this
position of trust and honor. There is a temptation, it is true,
for the press to profit by the advertising of the candidates. This
temptation should be removed by introducing the publicity
pamphlet. The average intelligence of the voter may be trusted
to detect the unworthy motives of a corrupt editor. He will soon
lose his influence. On the other hand, a free and virile press
can not but render the greatest service. It is safe to assume that
just as the press of the state was the strongest champion of the
direct primary when it was adopted, it will be found among its
most efficient and faithful servants in the future.
Conclusions and Suggested Amendments
Sq far as Nebraska is concerned, the direct primary has come
to stay; During the years 1896 to 1907 in Lincoln, and from 1907
DIRECT PRIMARIES iT-i
to the present time in the state as a whole it has been thoroughly
tested and not found wanting. It has endured much severe criti-
cism ; yet few seriously propose to repeal it.
The law has been given an excellent chance to demonstrate its
superiority over the old caucus-convention system. Little at-
tempt has been made to interfere with its operation. The voters
are jealous of their power. Interference is likely to prove a
boomerang to those who attempt it. At any rate nothing would
prevent "good government" leagues or similar organizations from
meeting these attempts with equally effective counter moves.
Perhaps there is no other point on which so much conviction
has been developed as on the relative merits of the open and the
closed primary systems. As stated above, the primary was
opened in response to a strong demand on the part of the inde-
pendent voters. The experiences of the campaign of 1910, when
Mayor J. C. Dahlman of Omaha was nominated over A. C. Shal-
lenberger, so displeased strict party men that the closed primary
was reinstated in 191 1. At the present time sentiment is very
■decidedly in favor of the retention of the closed primary. Later
in this chapter an attempt will be made to show that perhaps the
result of the primary campaign of 1910 was really in favor of the
open primary, and that there are strong theoretical reasons in its
favor as well.
Opinions differ as to the relative merits of candidates selected
under the convention and the direct primary systems respectively.
It would not be fair to demand of the direct primary that it
justify itself by the selection of distinctly abler men. One of the
charges against the convention system was that it favored the
selection of candidates devoted to special interests. Now who
can doubt that the "interests" themselves are served better by
able men, and that they know where to pick them? All that can
reasonably be asked, particularly during this period of transition,
is that the primary shall secure a class of candidates, less sub-
servient to special interest and more responsive to the popular
will. When the question is put thus the primary will answer
for itself. As one editor put it, the direct primary secures "with-
out doubt freer men." That alone is sufficient justification.
172 SELECTED ARTICLES
The size of the vote cast at the primary is very gratifying.
Practically half of the vote gets out. Moreover, the vote is
steadily rising, not merely in actual number, but relative to the
election vote as well. That indicates that the direct primary has
an educational value. If a comparison is made with the number
of voters taking part in the old caucuses the figures assume even
greater significance. Then the nominations were left to a mere
handful of politicians. Now they are made by one-half of the
voters. And it is safe to assume that that half consists of the
best voters.
The cost of the primary has been discussed from two points
of view, the cost to the candidate and to the public. There is a
general sentiment that the cost of two campaigns is too heavy
for the candidates. This could be remedied largely by the use of
the "publicity pamphlet," printed and distributed by the state,
which will be discussed later. On the other hand, the cost to* the
public can not he shifted. It is admittedly very heavy in thinly^
populated counties. However, it is believed that good govern-
ment is worth all that it costs. The remedy is not the abolition
of the direct primary law, but rather the improvement of it so-
as to promote the greatest economy and efficiency in operation.
Theoretically the provision of the law requiring only a plur-
ality of the vote for nomination is a weakness. In practice, how-
ever, this objection has proved negligible. Only ii per cent
of the candidates nominated during the years 1907 to 1912 have
received the nomination with a vote as low as 35 per cent ; 89 per
cent have received more; 65 per cent received a clear majority.
Still, the adoption of the preferential vote would doubtless
strengthen the law considerably.
Sentiment is quite evenly balanced on the question of the
effect of the direct primary on party organization. Many feel
that the organization has so little responsible work to do that
it must eventually break up. However, this does not necessarily
follow. The present is a period of transition. Doubtless the
fact that nominations are taken out of their hands cause many
old spoilsmen to withdraw. They had been rewarded more or
less directly. Under the present system as much sacrifice is re-
DIRECT PRIMARIES 173
quired, but the rewards are less tangible. However, it is believed
that in the future these positions of trust and honor will prove
very attractive to many public spirited men who would not have
considered them under the old system.
While the direct primary law as a whole has worked quite
successfully, nevertheless its operation could doubtless be facili-
tated by the adoption of various reforms. Four are submitted for
consideration : the open primary, the publicity pamphlet, the
preferential vote, and the party council.
I. The Open Primary. — One of the weaknesses of party gov-
ernment is its lack of flexibility. Party discipline is too rigid to
permit a free and spontaneous alignment on new and important
issues. The welfare of the state is being sacrificed constantly
for the sake of a mere party name or the interests of a few office-
holders.
The open primary demonstrated its efficiency in 1910. A very
important issue had arisen. Two candidates for governorship
had taken a definite stand upon it. Any system of primary that
would not permit the voters to align themselves freely on one
side or the other is defective. If constantly found wanting in
emergencies it would almost surely be discarded.
Every voter has an equal right to exert his influence in de-
termining the policies of the government. Anything that tends
to debar a class of voters from exercising that right is unjust.
The independent voter has as much unselfish interest in the gov-
ernment as does the partisan. He is now debarred from partici-
pation in the most important step in choosing elective officers.
If constantly refused his rights he will some day arise and
abolish party government altogether.
2. The Publicity Pamphlet. — An important criticism of the
direct primary law is the expense of candidacy. This could be
lessened considerably by the introduction of the publicity
pamphlet. Besides reducing the expense of the candidates it
would serve the purpose of placing reliable information in the
hands of the voters. It should be prepared by the state and at
public expense. A definite amount of space might be allotted to
each candidate, for which a small charge could be made. A copy
should be mailed to every voter far enough in advance of the
14
174 SELECTED ARTICLES
primary to permit a full consideration and discussion of its
contents.
The contents of the pamphlet itself might be left to the dis-
cretion of each candidate. The latter should be held legally re-
sponsible for any misstatement of facts. Or, again, the contents
might be regulated by law to cover certain definite information.
For example, the candidate might be required to state his age,
qualifications, such as education and experience, his occupation,
and a personal platform. The voter is entitled to facts and
definite pledges frcan every candidate for public office.
3. The Preferential Vote. — While the plurality system of
nomination has worked remarkably well the adoption of the
preferential vote would greatly strengthen the law. Whenever
a voter is confronted by a number of candidates for his vote his
ballot should be capable of expressing perfectly the gradations of
his preferences. Now, in practice, it would not be necessary to
give more than three. There are very rarely more than three
candidates for the nomination for the same office. Generally
there are only two. The number of cases in which the prefer-
ential vote would be required would be so small as to add little
to the expense of the count. The practical advantages would by
far offset the disadvantages. It may be added that the senti-
ment of the state as indicated by the replies received on this
question are four to one in favor of this change.
4. The Party Council. — The present method of holding a
state convention before the primary to formulate a platform is
illogical. It discourages the adoption of new policies. It is in
the primary that men with new, progressive ideas come forward.
Delegates to the county and state conventions are not chosen on
account of policies they may advocate. They are chosen rather
as a reward for past services. On the other hand, candidates are
chosen or rejected on account of their policies. The successful
candidate represents the policies of the voters who send him.
Most of the adherents of the pre-primary convention method
maintain that the party and not the candidates should make the
platform. But who are the party? Is it the convention? By
what system of logic can it be maintained that the candidates
DIRECT PRIMARIES 175
selected by 50 per cent of the voters — the better half of the elec-
torate— are less representative of the party than are delegates'
chosen by a handful of politicians?
The platform should be made by a council of party candidates
for legislative and state offices. They will be held responsible by
the voters. The platform will then mean something. It will
not be a mere contraption to catch votes but a definite statement
of principles and policies actually to be carried out in legislation
and administration.
Allen H. Eaton. The Oregon System.
It is just to state that in the convention system, Oregon's
ablest citizens and best men participated. To draw the gloomy,
one-sided picture of the convention as an enemy of the people,
and as the subservient tool of the corporations would be as
unjust as it would be untrue. But in spite of the high ground
taken by many an Oregonian, the convention often deteriorated
into an arbitrary machine, controlled by certain cliques and
special interests. Candidates were selected for places of favor
and power by the controlling elements in each convention. In
many cases the interest had named the candidates in both party
conventions, so that in electing either one the people merely
exercised their right of franchise to the advantage of the con-
trolling interests.
As to the advantages of the Direct Primary Law, the first
thing which it accom.plished was to eliminate from politics the
too active poHtical bosses whose sources of strength lay in the
convention. It gave equal opportunity to all, for any man who
wanted to run for office could enter the contest on equal terms
with any other man. It annulled that system of elimination by
which all the candidates went into a convention and practically
pledged themselves to stand by the one who received the largest
number of votes. There is no question but that under the
Direct Primary Law every man has an opportunity, and advan-
tage which he did not have under the old political system. If
the new system has weakened parties, it has increased the power
of measures and it has therefore put principles ahead of men.
176 SELECTED ARTICLES
It is safe to say in regard to the Primary Election Law, that
the voters of the state of Oregon would not think of doing away
with it although certain defects have appeared and are appearing
which must be corrected in order to render it a satisfactory
measure.
We will now note some of the principal defects. The law
has practically done away with political party organization in
this state. Considerable disappointment among the partisans of
the state has resulted in the selection of candidates not in good
standing with the political parties. This has been partly due to
the fact that in the primaries, Democrats have registered as Re-
publicans and vice versa.
Some of the best men in the state of Oregon have practically
bankrupted themselves in their endeavor to acquire office.
Another disadvantage which applies particularly to thickly
settled localities where candidates are not known to the voters,
is that the candidates are not sought out by the electors; that
is, the office does not seek the man, but the man almost invari-
ably seeks the office. With no provision by which the qualifi-
cations of the candidates are to be considered by the political
organizations, with no organizations to seek out men for official
positions, with the active political leaders of yesterday out of
the field entirely, the result is that men generally become can-
didates upon their own initiative.
Another disadvantage which the people of the state are
coming to realize is that in the distribution of offices, centers of
population secure practically all the plums.
Jay W. Forrest. Direct Primaries Will Broaden Manhood.
Why there should be an opposition to the principles of Direct
Primaries it is hard to understand. In truth there is no open
opposition, for it would take a courage that is not possessed by
the average politician to get up and tell the people that they are
not fitted to govern themselves; that they must delegate to poli-
ticians the art of choosing the men who are to represent them.
In order that the masses of our people may be governed for the
benefit of the few, it is necessary that the many have no direct
DIRECT PRIMARIES 177
hand in their own governing. It is necessary that the many-
delegate to representatives the art of governing, and that such
representatives should be influenced so as to become the repre-
sentatives of the few, in order that governing may be carried on
for the advantage of rulers, not of ruled.
So the opposition to direct primaries among those who de-
sign to make of our government an instrument for the oppres-
sion of the many and the enrichment of the few is an opposition
that is covert, for to avow it would make it ineffective.
I do not want to be harsh, but he who, understanding, op-
poses direct primaries is no better than a monarchist, for he
holds that the people are not fitted to govern themselves, that
the few are fitted by divine law to rule ; that the many are con-
demned to be ruled for the benefit of the few by a law equally
divine. This is the law of kings ; it is not the law of democracy.
It does not breathe the spirit of our Declaration of Independ-
ence; he who holds it is false to our theory of government, a
worthy monarchist, but an unworthy republican.
No one who believes the people are fitted to govern them-
selves, capable of discerning what laws are good and what bad,
can honestly oppose direct primaries, which means nothing less
than government by and for the people.
Direct primaries, or the rule of the people, is only democracy
applied, and its growth demonstrates that at the core our people
are still democratic — not in a partisan sense, but in the true
meaning of that noble word — and they are determined by using
direct primaries to change this from a government of the peo-
ple, by the politicians and for the corporations, to one that,
while it is of the people, is actually by the people, and hence
is really, and truly for the people.
Gov. Winfield S. Hammond of Minnesota. Message to the
Legislature, 1915.
The people believe in primaries. They realize that there
are defects in the primary election system, but they prefer
that system as it is to a return to the old convention plan, and
unless it be to cure some defects in the present law or some
178 SELECTED ARTICLES
unfortunate conditions that the statute permits, there should
be no change in our primary election law.
It is a matter of common knowledge that many Democrats
vote in Republican primaries and help nominate Republican
candidates. Undoubtedly many Republicans likewise vote in
Democratic primaries, and members of other political parties
assist in nominating candidates for whom they do not intend
to vote. Perhaps on the whole no great harm is done by
this kind of voting, but the spirit of the law is violated. It
was intended that each political party should hold its own
primary; should nominate its own candidates, and that only
members of that political party should participate in their
selection. Heretofore in many portions of the State the
minority parties presented no candidates for county and legis-
lative offices. In the general election the members of those
parties voted for men others had nominated. They could
then qualify under the law and many felt justified in voting
in the primaries where a choice of candidates was offered
because in the general election there was no opportunity for
selection. It may be that at times they supported a candidate
for the nomination because they believed him to be more
likely than another to be defeated in the general election by
one of their own party; but the number who indulged in that
practice is comparatively few, and to repeat what was said a
moment ago, there is probably no great harm done by the
voters of one party going into the primaries of another.
Many times because of their participation in the selection
men best fitted for the offices they sought were chosen and
became the party nominees. Now if a large number of Re-
publicans are voting in Democratic primaries, why would it
not be well to allow all Republicans to vote in them? If a
large number of Democrats are voting in Republican pri-
maries, why not let all Democrats vote in them? Suppose
the Progressives do take part in nominating the candidates
of the Prohibition party, and the Socialists assist in making
the selections of other parties, the nominees for public office
would probably be as good men and as good party men as
they are now. If such voting were permitted by law none
DIRECT PRIMARIES 179
would refrain from exercising the privilege that others take.
The judgment of men who are unwilling to violate the spirit
of law ought to be of value, not only in the selection of public
officers, but in the selection of candidates for public office.
Should the Legislature see fit to amend the primary law so
as to permit all electors to participate in each primary, con-
siderable criticism of the system would be avoided; no harm
would be done, and on the whole, probably better nomina-
tions would be made. In the Republican primaries, of course,
the -only candidates to be voted for would be Republicans,
and in the Socialist primaries only Socialists would be con-
sidered, but all voters, irrespective of party, would select all
the nominees.
While no material change need be made in our election
laws, it is very desirable that their provisions be re-arranged
in a more orderly manner, and that many passages difficult
to understand be re-written. It is quite necessary, in my
judgment, that there be a thorough going over of these laws,
and the perplexities and apparent inconsistencies now found
in them removed. If this is done, I am confident it will meet
the approval of our citizens, especially our election officers
and the judges of our courts.
Gov. William L. Harding of Iowa. Message to the
Legislature, January ii, 1917.
It has been seriously proposed by some that the primary
principle be abandoned by this commonwealth, and that
election laws embodying that principle be repealed. The
same proposal has been made touching the same principle
as applied to the non-partisan selection of the judiciary.
When the Fathers drew the Declaration of Independence
and framed the Constitution, upon which our liberties rest,
they declared a new confidence in the individual, and in the
capacity of the average man to have his share of power and
responsibility in framing the laws of his government, and in
choosing the men who should administer them.
j8o SELECTED ARTICLES
Since those great days in the history of freedom, every
piece of machinery which has been designed to enlarge that
participation by the people, has justified itself, by the capac-
ity which it has developed in the people for its employment
to that end, and the force of public opinion is a vital one in
just the degree that such machinery has been developed for
its exertion.
The primary principle is fundamental. By it, the unit for
the expression of public opinion has been reduced from the
mass meeting to the individual, and no man's voice need be
drowned by the crowd. His right to be heard, and to be
counted, has been transferred fj-om the will of the presiding
officer to the quiet protection of the ballot box, and this
right to be so heard in the preliminary selection accom-
plished by the primary is as sacred to the individual, and as
valuable to the commonwealth, as the major right of suffrage.
The arguments for repeal are fundamental, and of great
antiquity. Their base is the distrust which the Tory of all
ages has felt of the populace. That feeling has made war
upon every enlargement of the franchise. It is the essential
belief of those who hold that the people must be trusted,
that a confession that they cannot be is a confession that our
form of government is doomed. This does not assert that
the people make no mistakes, but that they learn to use power
righly by being given it to use.
The use of the primary will better it. Even now, there
speaks for its retention, one great fact which outweighs all
objections made — that it is better for the State, that those
who administer its affairs cannot know with dangerous ex-
actness where their redeemer liveth — that he is best guarded
against giving what he has in trust, to satisfy a sense of ob-
ligation, who is obliged to unknown thousands.
If you shall feel, as I do, that the preservation of this
principle is vital, I am sure you will, no more than I, hear
with patience, pleas for saving money by abolishing the machin-
ery by which it is given play.
No saving of money which involves curtailing the liberty
and power of the individual citizen is an economy.
DIRECT PRIMARIES i8i
<jrov. Henry D. Hatfield of West Virginia. Message to the
Legislature, January 13, 1915.
I strongly favor a primary election law. The people
must be given the opportunity to pass upon the aspirations
-of each man of each political party, from those who would
secure nominations for Governor and United States Senator
-down to the district officers in the respective counties of the
State, including the selection of party committeemen by
the. direct votes of the people.
Gilbert L. Hedges. Where the People Rule. pp. 91-2.
It was earnestly urged by the opponents of the Direct
Primary Law [of Oregon] during the campaign for its adop-
tion that only the incompetent and egotistical would seek to
nominate themselves for office. At the first primary election
held after the law became effective, the names of many un-
worthy and incompetent candidates appeared on the ballot.
These names appeared to the exclusion of many who would
be willing to accept office, who possessed the ability to per-
form the duties of the various offices and yet who disliked
self-nomination. The people generally used good judgment
at this first election and the sycophant, professional pol-
itician, and bombastic nominee found out their standing in
the community. The votes cast for such people were indeed
small in number. Good men were selected and from that
time on the primary ballot has not been burdened with a
swarm of drones. To be sure, pin heads and effervescent
fizzers occasionally summon themselves to nominate them-
selves, but the stamp of popular disapproval of their can-
didacy is invariably placed upon their petty ambitions. At
present, those who aspire to office, however modest and
sensitive they may be, follow the provision of the Direct
Primary Law without compunction. Justices of the Supreme
•Court cause their petitions for nominations to be circulated
-without feeling that they are committing a breach of ethics.
i82 SELECTED ARTICLES
Members of the minority party have at times registered
as belonging to the majority party in order to help out a
candidate at the primary election. This practice has been
strongly condemned by the press and people generally. Too
much importance has been given to this subject. While the
Direct Primary Law sets forth in its preamble that "political
parties are useful and necessary at the present time," the
time is not far distant when political parties within a state of
the Union will be eliminated.
The Direct Primary Law destroyed the corrupt convention
system. The importance of this result can not be over-
estimated. Before its adoption, the rule of the party boss
was supreme. He selected his minions and servants and
made them members of the nominating convention. The
boss-ridden conventions apportioned the various offices
among the friends and fellow political pirates of the boss.
Nowhere in the system was there a place for calm delibera-
tion. The people saw these things but were powerless to
remedy the , condition. In the Direct Primary Law they
found the weapon which has served to destroy forever the
corrupt convention in the state of Oregon.
Frank E. Horack. Primary Elections in Iowa.
Thus far the Iowa primary has been subjected to no little
criticism — especially from the press of the state. As already
pointed out, those who opposed the passage of the law seem
to see their objections verified in the workings of its pro-
visions; while the friends of the measure are only confirmed
in their faith in the system. It is, however, a significant fact
that there is no real demand for the repeal of the law, al-
though suggestions for its modification are frequently ad-
vanced.
The Light Vote
The most general criticism of the Iowa primary has been
provoked by the light vote, the contention being that the
failure of the system to bring out a full vote was in itself dis-
DIRECT PRIMARIES 183
crediting. But this criticism overlooks the fact that the
participation of from fifty to sixty per cent of the voters in
the primary was vastly more than the total of the many
small caucus groups which previously assembled to select
delegates to county conventions.
Unintelligent Voting
Another serious charge advanced against the primary
method of choosing candidates is that most of those who vote
do not cast their ballots intelligently. Iowa boasts of a very
small per cent of illiteracy in proportion to the total popula-
tion; yet the public press of Iowa rings with the assertion
that the majority of voters at the second Iowa primary did
not vote intelligently. Some attribute this apparent unintel-
ligent voting to a lack of knowledge of the candidates on the
part of the voters. The primary election returns seem to
justify the statement that "in counties where a contestant's
name appeared first on the ballot he invariably carried that
county."
The Long Ballot
It is safe to say that, if the short ballot is adopted in connec-
tion with the primary law, many of the present criticisms of the
primary will disappear.
The Primary a Menace to Party
It has been frequently urged that the primary tends to de-
stroy the integrity of parties. This same argument was raised
against the adoption of the Australian ballot, and later against
the proposition to take the party circle oflF the Australian ballot
in Iowa. That these changes have promoted greater independ-
ence in voting can not be denied ; but that they have given a more
wholesome tone to elections is equally evident. No one would
now seriously advocate returning to the old system of the un-
regulated ballot. In fact, there is a growing demand for the
adoption of the original Australian ballot with its office grouping
instead of the party column. It must be admitted that all of
i84 SELECTED ARTICLES
these changes tend to minimize the party influence. The so-
called open primary has been especially assailed because it permits
the voter without any test of party affiliation to vote for the
candidates of either party so long as he does not vote both tick-
ets at the same time. It is objected, further, that without some
test of affiliation party responsibility ceases.
Perhaps the solution lies in the adoption of the second choice
plan as an addition to the present system. This would seem to
make the Iowa primary law more satisfactory — more especially
since the present thirty-five per cent rule frequently breaks down
when there are several equally strong candidates.
The Cost of the Primary
The cost of candidacy under the Iowa primary law has been
very generally criticised. The Dubuque Telegraph-Herald, a
Democratic paper, has demanded a stringent statutory regulation
of expenditures by candidates, asserting that as much as $2,000
had been spent in a single county by a contestant. A poor man,
it is declared, can not afford to go into a primary contest with
a man of means. The Washington Democratic laments that it
cost $1,500 to determine which of two candidates should be nom-
inated for sheriff, and that places on the Board of Supervisors
involved expenditures of money far in excess of the salary at-
tached. "The man with the largest purse," says the Waterloo
Times-Tribune, "is most likely to get up the most enthusiasm
and get most of the votes at the polls." "Judge Prouty," says
the Story City Herald, "spent $5,000 in his primary campaign
for the congressional nomination." The Charles City Intelli-
gencer remarks that "the recent primary campaign cost Lafe
Young, candidate for Senator, nearly $10,000."
The expense of the primary to the state is also criticised.
The Des Moines Daily Capital asserts that the primary election
costs ninety-six cents per ballot in Scott County. One dollar per
ballot is frequently asserted to be the cost of the primary to the
taxpayers of Iowa. "The present primary law," says the Anita
Tribune, "is an expensive luxury which could be easily denied
the people as a whole, and would be a saving of not less than
DIRECT PRIMARIES 185
a quarter million of dollars to the tax-payers of t'he state dur-
ing each biennial period."
A Congressman from Iowa informed the writer that he had
found it necessary to run a twenty dollar political advertisement
in each of the seventy newspapers in his district. It is generally
conceded then that primary campaigns as now conducted are
more expensive to the candidate than a contest for delegates
under the old system. The public, however, can not obtain too
much information relative to candidates and issues ; and as long
as the expenditures for such" purpose are not so great as to bar
the man of small means the expenditures are probably justified.
Some General Observations
The Iowa primary law has perhaps been criticised too much
from the standpoint of "political" results: whereas it should be
judged rather from the viewpoint of the opportunity which it
presents. The old convention method was open to as much
criticism and more abuse than the primary. The new system
has not as a matter of fact destroyed the party, although it has
overthrown some of the old party practices. The primary law
is not perfect: it will require considerable revision and amend-
ment before it will be entirely satisfactory. Moreover, it must
be remembered that the enactment of the primary law was
bitterly opposed, so that many of its provisions represent compro-
mises.
Gov. Charles Evans Hughes of New York. Message to the
Legislature, 1909.
The present [convention] system tends to discourage par-
ticipation by the party voters in the affairs of the party. En-
trenched power is so strong and the influence upon the choice
of the party candidates is so remote that it requires an un-
usual situation to call forth the activities of the party mem-
bers to the extent desirable.
Tlie candidates selected by the present method too often
and not unnaturally regard themselves as primarily account-
i86 SELECTED ARTICLES
able, not to their constituents nor even, broadly speaking, to
their party, but to those individuals to whom they feel they
owe their offices and upon the continuance of whose good will
they deem their political future to depend.
But the most serious consequence is to the people at
large. To the extent that party machinery can be dominated
by the few the opportunity for special interests which desire
to control the administration of government, to shape the
laws, to prevent the passage of laws, or to break the laws
with impunity, is increased. These interests are ever at work
stealthily and persistently endeavoring to pervert the govern-
ment to the service of their own ends. All that is worst in
our public life finds its readiest means of access to power
through the control of the nominating machinery of parties.
Party organization needs constantly to defend itself from
these encroachments, and the people for their proper security
must see that the defenses are built as strongly as possible.
There have been and are conspicuous illustrations of party
leadership won and held in opposition to those who have
represented special interests, and endeavoring faithfully and
honorably to perform its proper function. But this does not
alter the fact that our present method facilitates the control
of government by those whose purposes are antagonistic to
the public welfare. Nor shouldi we be unmindful of the ex-
tent to which the force of enlightened public sentiment in
indirect ways mitigates the evils inherent in our present sys-
tem. But this sentiment works under conspicuous disad-
vantages, and it is a defect in our system requiring remedy
that the actual power of nomination should reside with those
who are under strong temptation to disregard the public in-
terest in favor of private advantage so far as that course may
be deemed to be safe.
The time has come, I believe, when nominations by all
parties for elective offices should be made directly by the
enrolled voters of the parties respectively. This will pro-
mote true party representation. It will tend to strengthen
and dignify party leadership by making it less susceptible to
misuse and more in accord with general party sentiment. By
DIRECT PRIMARIES- 187
increasing the direct influence of the party voters their par-
ticipation in party affairs will be encouraged. It will make
the elective officer more independent of those who would con-
trol his action for their selfish advantage, and enable him to
appeal more directly to his constituency upon the basis of
faithful service. It cannot fail in the main to prove a strong
barrier against the efforts of those who seek, by determining
the selection of candidates, to pervert administration to the
service of privilege or to secure immunity for law-breaking.
It is a reform which is instinct with the spirit of our institu-
tions, and it is difficult to see how any party man, however
earnest in his partisanship, can oppose the right of the voters
of the party really to decide who shall represent them as
candidates.
The object of our primary legislation has been said by
the Court of Appeals to be "to permit the voters to construct
the organization from the bottom upwards, instead of per-
mitting leaders to construct it from the top downwards."
This is not only important with regard to offices in the or-
ganization, but the object cannot be effected so long as nom-
inations may be dictated and the power to make them does
not actually reside with the party voters.
<jov. Charles Evans Hughes of New York. Message to the
Legislature, January 5, 1910.
It is no more complicated or expensive to have a primary
election, under due protection and with an official ballot, at
which the party nominees shall be directly chosen, than to
liave a similar election of delegates. There are no greater
opportunities for fraudulent practices in the former case than
in the latter, nor as many. It is difficult to interest the peo-
ple in intermediaries, and general participation of the voters
in the primaries is conditioned upon their appreciation of the
fact that they accomplish something by such participation.
If it is to be desired to have the form without the substance,
to have representatives who as a rule do not represent and
those chosen for deliberation who usually do not deliberate,
i88 SELECTED ARTICLES
and to transfer the absolute decision to party leaders with-
the alternative to the party voter of bolting his ticket and*,
meeting the reproach of party disloyalty, the present system
may be defended. But if it be desired to have true party rep-
resentation and that the party members should express de-
cisively their wishes, this may be accomplished through a direct
vote.
Indiana Bureau of Legislative Information. Statements on
Direct Primaries.
Three hundred and ninety-seven members of the House
of Representatives out of 934 including the 13 from Indiana
are nominated by direct primaries.
Seventy-four out of 96 United States senators are nom-
inated by direct vote.
Thirty-eight out of 48 governors are nominated by direct-
vote.
In 40 out of 48 states the candidates for state offices other-
than governor are nominated by direct primaries.
The states which have no state-wide primaries are: Con-
necticut, Delaware, Indiana, New Mexico, North Carolina,.
Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont.
Maryland and Tennessee nominate candidates for governor
and United States senator by direct vote.
Governor Locke Craig of North Carolina recommends
the passage of a direct primary act for his state in his 1915
message. The Utah legislature is considering the adoption
of the direct primary. Vermont voted heavily in favor of
the enactment of a state-wide primary act and a preferential
vote for president by the state legislature at the 1914 election.
Governor Hatfield of West Virginia recommended a state-
wide compulsory primary act for his state this year. The-
Republican party has nominated state and congressional can-
didates by direct vote for many years.
Twenty-one states provide in their primary acts for the-
direct election of party committeemen at the primary. They
are: Arizona, California, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa,.
DIRECT PRIMARIES 189
Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Montana, New York, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Oregon, Penjisylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee,
Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming and Texas.
The average vote polled for governor in the 1914 primaries
in nine typical states was 55 per cent of the final November
vote while the average for United States senator in seven states
was 56 per cent of the final vote.
The following table shows the percentages in each state for
governor and United States senator :
Primary vote and vote at final election, 1914, by percentages
Governor
Wisconsin 65%
Kansas 37%
California 56%
New York 35%
North Dakota 87%
Minnesota 79%
Michigan 51%
Massachusetts 34%
Pennsylvania 52%
Average 55%
United States Senator
Wisconsin 63%
Washington 34%
Missouri 62%
Kansas 40%
California 58%
North Dakota 86%
Pennsylvania 49%
Average 56%
The Indiana Legislature is interested in the enactment of a
law to provide for the direct primary nomination of candidates
for all or certain state and county offices. Direct primaries have
now been tested sufficiently to admit of a critical opinion of their
effectiveness. For the purpose of formvilating a symposium of
opinion on this subject, will you please answer the following
Questions?
(1) On the whole, is your opinion of the direct primary favor-
able or unfavorable?
(2) What are the vital defects of the direct primary, if any
and how may they be eliminated, if, in your opinion, they can be
eliminated?
16
I90 SELECTED ARTICLES
(3) Has the direct primary been the means of making govern-
ment more responsive to popular needs?
(4) Has the direct primary improved the character of men
chosen to public office?
The above letter was sent out by the Bureau of Legislative
and Administrative Information to . all members of the United
States Senate, representatives in the lower house of Congress,
governors of states, some forty-five mayors in cities of more
than 20,0(X), members of the Republican, Democratic and Pro-
gressive National Committees, Republican, Democratic state
chairmen, and the Legislative Reference Librarians.
Replies were received from twenty-five United States sena-
tors, eighty-five members of the House of Representatives, twenty-
eight governors, fifteen mayors, nine members of the Republican
National Committee, six members of the Democratic National
Committee, seven members of the Progressive National Com-
mittee, twelve Republican state chairmen, seventeen Democratic
state chairmen, three Progressive state chairmen, and twelve
Legislative Reference Librarians.
In answer to the first question, the following answers were
given :
United States Senators : 14 favorable, 4 unfavorable, i doubt-
ful, I advocated an election under preferential ballot and 5
evaded answers to the questions.
Members of the House of Representatives: 68 were favor-
able, 5 unfavorable, 2 doubtful, 5 said the primary was success-
ful for local or small districts and 4 evaded answers.
Governors of States: 16 were favorable, 5 gave no definite
answers and 6 no answers at all. One was unfavorable.
Mayors of Cities: 10 were favorable, 2 unfavorable and 3
evaded answers.
Republican National Committee : 3 were favorable, 5 un-
favorable and I gave no answer.
Democratic National Committee : 2 were favorable, 2 un-
favorable, I doubtful and i gave no answer.
Progressive National Committee: 5 were favorable, and 2
doubtful.
DIRECT PRIMARIES 191
Republican State Chairmen : 7 were unfavorable, and 2
doubtful, 2 were favorable, and one said he had no experience
with the law.
Democratic State Chairtnan: 11 were favorable, 5 unfavor-
able, and I was doubtful.
Progressive State Chairmen : 3 were favorable.
Legislative Reference Librarians: 10 were favorable and I
said he had no experience with direct primaries.
In answer to the second question, out of the 219 replies re-
ceived from all persons, the following defects were cited:
Twelve said the voters are indifferent to the merits of candi-
dates.
Nine said primaries limit the aspirants to public office to
men of wealth.
Two maintained that men with newspaper connections have
an unfair advantage.
Seven urged that the voter cannot become familiar with the
candidates in large districts.
Eleven presented the argument that minority nominations are
the rule in primaries.
Six urged the multiplicity of candidates as a serious defect.
Thirty-three urged the expense of direct primaries as a vital
objection.
Two claimed that bosses control the primary.
Five said no party organization is possible under the direct
primary system.
Twelve presented the long ballot as a defect of direct pri-
maries.
Thirteen maintained that the closed primary is objectionable.
Nine maintained that the open primary is objectionable.
Four said personalities enter into campaigns.
Two urged the small vote cast as an objection.
Three objected to preferential voting.
Eleven said there are defects in the primary laws.
Two objected to the circulation of petitions.
Three objected to the length of campaign under the primary
system.
192 SELECTED ARTICLES
One each maintained that nominations are made in a hit or
miss style, that it is more difficult for the "office to seek the
man" under the primary system, that there is no opportunity for
framing a party platform, that dishonest counts result, that de-
feated candidates and their friends do not support the ticket,
that there are defects in the registration system, and that the
primary gives an advantage to thickly settled sections.
In answer to the third question, the following answers were
given :
United States Senators: 15 yes, 4 no, 6 no answer.
Members of the House of Representatives: 61 yes, 7 no, i
doubtful, 12 no answer.
Governors of States : 8 yes, 3 no, 17 no answer.
Mayors of Cities: i yes, i no, 13 no answer.
Republican National Committee : 2 yes, 4 no, 2 doubtful, i no
answer.
Democratic National Committee : 2 yes, 2 no, i doubtful, i no
answer.
Progressive National Committee : 3 yes, 2 doubtful, 2 no
answer.
Republican State Chairmen : 3 yes, 5 no, i doubtful, 3 no
answer.
Democratic State Chairmen: 11 yes, 3 no, 3 no answer.
Progressive State Chairmen : 3 yes.
Legislative Reference Librarians: 6 yes, i no, 5 no answer.
In answer to the fourth question, the following answers were
given :
United States Senators: 14 yes, 3 no, 3 doubtful, 5 no
answer.
Members of the House of Representatives: 40 yes, 14 no, 5
doubtful, 20 no answer.
Governors of States : 5 yes, 5 no, 18 no answer. ^
Mayors of Cities : 4 yes, 5 no, 6 no answer.
Republican National Committee: i yes, 5 no, i said even-
tually, 2 no answer.
Democratic National Committee: i yes, 3 nb, i doubtful, i
no answer.
DIRECT PRIMARIES 193
Progressive National Committee: 2 yes, i no, i doubtful, 3
no answer.
Republican State Chairmen: 2 yes, 7 no, 3 no answer.
Democratic State Chairmen'. 1 yes, 10 no, 4 doubtful, 2 no
answer.
Legislative Reference Librarians : 5 yes, 6 no answer, i no.
Progressive State Chairmen : i yes, i no, i .doubtful.
[The following extracts are from letters received in reply
to this questionnaire:]
Senator John W. Kern, Indiana
(i) My opinion of the direct primary is distinctly favor-
able.
(2) There are no "vital defects" in the direct primary
system. There are serious defects in many of the direct primary
laws. A study of the several changes and improvements made
in such laws in states where the system has been in operation for
a long time will disclose the character of defects to be avoided.
(3) Where the primary laws have been perfected by giving
the elector a right to vote for a first and second choice, and
where the machinery provided is not cumbersome, the direct
primary has been the means of making government more re-
sponsive to popular needs.
(4) The direct primary has been the means of improving the
character of men chosen to public office.
Governor E. W. Major, Missouri
On the whole the direct primary law is favorable. There are
a number of good people who believe that the Governor, United
States Senators, etc. should be elected by direct primary, and
that the minor officers should be elected by Convention. For
myself, personally, I am in favor of electing all of them 1^
direct primary. It has been the means of securing good public
servants who have responded in their service to the interest of
the people.
194 SELECTED ARTICLES
Speaker Champ Clark
A father naturally likes his own child. I started the Con-
gressional Primary system in the United States in 1896.
I think it works very well. I don't believe it is a cure for all
the ills that flesh is heir to but I do think it is an improvement
on the convention system.
Governor James Withycombe, Oregon
(i) The direct primary is working most satisfactorily here.
(2) There are, no doubt, some defects in the primary law,
but their elimination is altogether too complicated to go into
in detail here.
(3) The -direct primary has made government more respons-
ive to popular demands, surely, if not always to popular needs.
(4) The direct primary, I believe, has raised the general
character average of those in public office.
Governor W. P. Hunt, Arizona
In Arizona the direct primary law is applicable to all elective
State officials, as well as to officers of lesser importance. The
system as exercised in this State has, on the whole, proven very
satisfactory, and has accomplished a great deal toward doing
away with the power of the political boss, and the influence of
the corrupt political machine.
It is well, in fairness, to state, however, that a direct and
active interest of the electorate in matters pertaining to State
government and to the nomination of capable men for office is
essential under the direct primary system ; otherwise an incom-
petent individual backed by corrupt influences may, under cer-
tain conditions, secure the nomination in the absence of a proper
interest on the part of the citizens. Any danger on this score
can, of course, be obviated by a proper campaign of education
and by reasonable activity on the part of the forces of good gov-
ernment.
In conclusion, however, I will say without hesitancy that the
system of direct primaries applicable to all officers is immeasur-
ably better than the older method of nominating by Conventions.
DIRECT PRIMARIES 195
Senator Luke Lea, Tennessee
I beg to advise that Tennessee has no direct, compulsory
primary law. I am of the opinion, however, that direct primaries
are right and the best means of nominating candidates. I think
the direct primary has resulted in making the government more
responsive to popular needs and the character of public officials
has been improved.
Senator James E. Martine, New Jersey
My opinion of the direct primary system is very favorable.
I do not believe there are any such vital defects or deficien-
cies in the system as to require elimination,
I believe that the direct primary has been the means of bring-
ing public men more into sympathy with public ideas than ever
before.
Governor David I. Walsh, Massachusetts
My opinion of the direct primary is distinctly favorable.
Certainly the direct primary "has been the means of making
government more responsive to popular needs" because it has
most decidedly freed the electorate from public officials who in
the old days were nominated by political bosses.
Governor Winfield S. Hammond, Minnesota
[Reported by his Secretary]
(i) The Governor's opinion is favorable toward the direct
primary.
(2) The Governor finds that there are defects in the primary.
(3) The Governor believes that the direct primary has been
the means of making government more responsive to popular
needs.
(4) The Governor feels that there is perhaps not much
difference in the character of the men chosen to public office.
Good men were chosen under the old convention system, and bad
men, and under the direct primary it is often possible for a bad
man to get in.
196 SELECTED ARTICLES
Democratic State Platform, March 21, igis
We favor such amendments to the present primary election
laws of Indiana as will insure the honest and fair selection of
candidates to be voted for by the people.
Democratic State Platform, March 19, 1914
We declare in favor of a state-wide primary election law,
carefully guarded as to simplicity and economy, at which the
people shall nominate all candidates for office: that all the pro-
visions of the corrupt practices act and general election laws
shall be made lb apply to such primary elections — the state
convention to be retained for the purposes of counsel, organiza-
tion and declaration of party principles, and precede the nomi-
nating primaries.
Republican Platform, 1912
This convention indorses the enactment of a law providing
for the primary election of all delegates to the congressional,
state and national conventions, the same to be safeguarded by
the Australian ballot system and a corrupt practices act.
Progressive State Platform, April 18, 19 14
We believe that the Progressive party is entitled to the sup-
port of the people of Indiana in seeking to accomplish the fol-
lowing results :
2. Direct primaries for the nomination of all elective of-
ficers, including candidates for president and vice-president, and
of all officials of party organizations, to be held by all parties
on the same day, which day shall be a registration day, these
primaries to be governed by the corrupt practices act.
Albert M. Kales. Unpopular Government in the
United States.
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,
DIRECT PRIMARIES 197
but in the long run its presence exaggerates the very condi-
tion 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.
Literary Digest. 42:445. March 11, 1917.
Chicago's First Direct Primary.
Other cities watched with peculiar interest last week
Chicago's experiment in nominating her mayoralty candidates
by direct primary, and the result apparently leaves them
thoughtful rather than converted. The vote was unexpectedly
large and surprisingly expensive. With ten candidates in the
field — five Republicans, three Democrats, one Socialist, and
one Prohibitionist — more than 250,000 votes were polled, at
an estimated cost to the city, the candidates, and the organ-
izations of nearly $700,000, or about $3 a vote.
Michigan Law Review. 15:21-37. November, 1916.
Direct Primary Legislatioa in Michigan.
Arthur C. Millspaugh.
Michigan's direct primary legislation, as it now stands, is
still far from perfection. The most thoughtful politicians are
not satisfied with it. They say it occupies a half-way posi-
tion: it must either return to the old system or advance to a
more simple and effective means of popular expression. The
198 SELECTED ARTICLES
direct primary acts have been not only experiments r thty
have also been sops.
The state has experimented with certain features of the
direct nomination system such as party enrollment, the forty
per cent provision, the fifteen per cent provision, the second
election, and the blanket ballot, and has either partially or
wholly abandoned them, but on the other hand it has shown;
little inclination to try the preferential vote.
Throughout this legislation, at least one- consistent prin-
ciple has been maintained: that the conduct of direct primary-
elections should be removed from the control of the party
organizations. Yet, in legal theory, the direct primary is a
party, not a public affair. Said the state supreme court in
1908: "A primary election is not an election to public office.
It is merely the selection of candidates for office by the mem-
bers of a political party in a manner having the form of an
election." Accordingly, when the direct primaries fail to
nominate, or when a vacancy occurs in the party ticket, the
appropriate party committee is uniformly empowered by the
primary laws to fill the vacancy. The direct primary is a.
method of nomination, not of election.
Gov. Charles R. Miller, of Delaware. Address to the
Assembly, January 11, 1917.
There is a strong feeling throughout the state that the
Direct Primary Election does not fulfil the object intended to-
be obtained by the enactment of this law.
The purpose and intention of this law was to confer upon
the electorate a greater and more direct influence in the selec-
tion of party candidates for office by the people. Experience
appears to have demonstrated that a considerable majority
of the voters of the state neglect to avail themselves of this
privilege.
DIRECT PRIMARIES 199
Minneapolis Journal. October 12, 191 7.
Direct Primary in New York,
If Greater New York fails to re-elect the man who has ad-
mittedly been the best Mayor it ever had, the direct primary
will be the blame.
Of course, the masses of New York Republicans should
have turned out to the primary and put Mitchel through.
But they didn't. They assumed he would go through, and
they stayed away while every enemy the Administration has
made by going straight, religiously went to the primary and
voted for Bennett.
One of the worst things about the direct primary, unless
it is fitted out with a convention adjunct, is its deadening in-
fluence on party organization. When party organization
fails, interest in governmental affairs sinks to a low ebb. The
primary then offers golden opportunities for self-seekers and
demagogues. Government degenerates, too, because it is
conducted on a personal and individual responsibility, instead
of on the responsibility of parties whose principles and aims
are known.
Gov. Keith Neville of Nebraska. Message to
Legislature. 19 17.
Considerable dissatisfaction with the primary law has been
engendered by reason of certain abuses that have grown up
under it. There are perhaps some who feel that the primary
system is wrong in theory, but they are so few in number that
their views need not be considered. Each succeeding primary
election attests the growing popularity of the principle. At the
recent primary over 200,000 voters participated in the nomina-
tion of the candidates — over three-fourths of the vote cast at
the general election in 1914.
The dissatisfaction with the present law can be traced to three
sources :
First: The ease with which unqualified men may become
candidates for the higher offices in the state and even in the
nation.
200 SELECTED ARTICLES
Second : That an elector receiving the votes of two or more
parties at the primary, though defeated for the nomination of
the majority party, frequently is the nominee of a minority party
by virtue of an insignificant number of votes.
Third: That the primary election is not always final and
that men without substantial support can be injected into the
race by petition after candidates have been legitimately nomin-
ated for the office.
To correct these abuses, legislation should be enacted as
follows :
First: For all offices created under the constitution of the
state and nation any qualified voter may become a candidate
by presenting to the Secretary of State a petition with signa-
tures approximating i per cent of the total vote cast for all
candidates for such office at the last general election, such
signatures representing voters in at least two-thirds of the
counties of the state or district.
For legislative offices and that of county judge, the only
county office established by the constitution, as well as all other
county offices the present system should be continued, for the
reason that in the small units the voters have in a general way at
least an idea of the qualifications of candidates for such offices.
Second : In instances where a candidate seeks nomination
on two tickets, if he loses the nomination of the majority party,
he should not be permitted to accept the nomination of the
minority party, unless the vote received by him from such
minority party was in excess of that received by him from such
majority party.
The abuses sought to be corrected by this recommendation
are minimized by the fact that two minority parties have ceased
to exist as such by failure to fulfil the requirements as provided
by law. Members of those parties can present a ticket, however,
in counties, legislative or congressional districts where their
party candidates polled i per cent of the total vote cast at the
recent election and where the requirements of the law have been
met.
Third : No candidate, whose name "appeared ofi the primary"
ballot, should be permitted to file by petition and the number"
DIRECT PRIMARIES 201
of signers required upon the petitions of persons desiring to
become candidates after the primary should be greatly increased.
New York Senate. Report of Special Committee of Senate
on Primary Law. Submitted with Bill to Establish
State Wide Judicial Conventions.
March i, 1918.
In the year 191 7 there were enrolled in this state as members
of political parties 829,971 Republicans, 692,519 Democrats, 30,653
Socialists, 18,102 Prohibitionists. The total number of those
voting at the presidential election of 1916 was 1,715,768.
It will thus be seen that about 91 per cent of the voters of
this state have indicated by their own act their desire to be
associated with some political party. As the voters of the State
have extended the suffrage to women, it is likely that the figures
above quoted may be nearly doubled in 1918.
It must be assumed that voters, when they voluntarily affiliate
themselves with a political party, are doing so because they are
in sympathy with the aims of the party with which they enroll.
The present election law provides that the candidates of these
enrolled voters shall be nominated by a plurality of those partici-
pating in a primary election, but it provides no method whereby
these groups of voters may assemble to declare their pur-
poses to all the voters. That right to assemble, of course,
cannot be constitutionally denied, but it is physically impos-
sible for six hundred thousand individuals to assemble. The
only method of assemblage which they have therefore is
through elected representatives.
We propose an amendment to the election law which will pro-
vide for the election of such an assemblage of each political party
in the state, that each may make manifest, after consultation
and deliberation, what its aims are, and at such meeting or con-
vention, propose candidates in support of such aims. Every mem-
ber of a political party, and every citizen, should know what
are the purposes and principles of the parties existing in this
state. No such purpose can be established by any direct action
202 SELECTED ARTICLES
at a primary. It can only be made clear by a convention of
representatives chosen at a direct primary in which all the en-
rolled voters of each party will have the right to participate.
The present law makes any such expression impossible, in that
it provides only for nomination of candidates, who may or may
not write their own platforms, making them in effect, independent
candidates for office, and not representatives of a group organ-
ized for the political purposes in which it believes. The present
law provides for a complete party machinery for each political
party by the election of county and state committeemen, placing
the sanction of law and the control of law upon the party organi-
zation, but in effect denying to political parties the right of repre-
sentative assemblage. Party aims and purposes cannot be articu-
lated by candidates who may be nominated, because they, them-
selves, have no method of discovering what is the party will,
unless there be an assemblage of representatives regularly chosen
through direct action of the members of the party.
What we propose is not a state convention as formerly con-
stituted, the delegates to which were elected in many cases with-
out direct action on the part of the enrolled voters of the party,
but a convention of delegates from each Assembly district in
the state who must be designated, as candidates for office now
are designated, by petition for the party position of delegate, and
be chosen by a majority vote of the party in the district.
The right to sit in the convention will be derived solely from
the electors and will be officially certified subject to review only
by the Court. There can therefore be no contested seats in the
convention.
We have provided also opportunity for such electors joining
in a petition in behalf of proposed delegates that such proposed
delegates may be pledged to the nomination of a certain candi-
date for a State office, if these enrolled electors so desire. Thus
the enrolled voters are given every opportunity to express their
will for candidates, as well as for delegates who will meet in
party assemblage to declare the representative party will.
We are also proposing that candidates for Judges of the
Supreme Court in the several judicial districts, shall be similarly
DIRECT PRIMARIES 203
-nominated by delegates directly elected on primary day. It is
inherent in the functions of the judicial office that the office
should seek the man, and not the man the office.
We have given careful consideration to the question of direct
primaries, and submit as a part of this report, a detailed state-
ment of the expenditures of the several counties under the
present law. The cost in presidential years is a million dollars,
-and in other years approximately one-half that sum. With wo-
man's suffrage, it will be largely increased and may be double.
In several counties the average cost per vote at the direct prima-
ries is from two dollars to six dollars. We are of the opinion
that relief from this burden cannot be had before the re-establish-
ment of conventions, and when they are re-established the way
will be clear for relief in some way in harmony with the public
demand.
[A table summarizes the cost of conduct of primary elec-
tions for the years 1914, 1915, 1916 and 1917 by counties. The
cost per vote for 1916 varied from 9 cents to $3.46, with the average
per county as $1.09. In 1917 the cost varied from 6 cents to $6.32,
-with the average per county as $1.38.]
Gov. E. L. Philipp of Wisconsin. Message to the
Legislature, January 11, 1917.
Despite all that has been said against conventions it has
been fully demonstrated that there is a strong demand among
the people for^ political gatherings. The fact that every
political party of any consequence in the state holds conven-
tions or conferences (which are in effect conventions under
another name) is a complete answer to the argument that
party conventions are unnecessary or undesirable. Party
conventions should be provided for by law to enable mem-
bers of the parties to meet and agree upon a declaration of
principles that the party stands for. The present system of
permitting successful candidates to meet after primary and
decide upon a platform with which to go to the people for
election is wrong in principle and destructive of political
parties. Under that system the candidates may promise most
anything to the voter before the primary and completely
204 SELECTED ARTICLES
change their political views after the primary, if in their
judgment it is necessary to make such changes to meet political,
conditions.
Public. 17:895. September 18, 1914.
When the Primaries Fail. John S. Pardee.
As an attempt to eliminate the politician, the primary is av
failure. The politician is the man who attends to political
duties. He cannot be retired by men who do not attend to
political duties. The machine is an agency for collectinij the
available strength of any political group. It can be overcome
only by a force of numbers vastly superior. Upheavals
sometimes come which carry everything before them, but
ordinarily the only way to get action in politics is by political
action. The non-political brand of politics never has been a
success and never will be for any length of time.
Under any system the people can get anything they want
any time they want it bad enough. Under the primary sys-
tem, it is easier to get what the people want, or rather it is
harder to thwart the well-defined will of the public. But the
primary is no automatic device for registering the uncon-
scious desires of the public.
P. Orman Ray. Introduction to Political Parties and
Practical Politics, pp. 140-64.
The specific advantages claimed for the direct primary may
be enumerated as follows :
(i) Active political work on the part of the rank and file
of the party is encouraged because the direct primary makes-
it easier for the ordinary voter to exert an influence on the
choice of the committeemen and candidates.
(2) It brings out a larger vote to the primaries. From
twenty-five to seventy-five per cent of the party voters
quite regularly come out to the direct primary, and when an
especially sharp contest is on from fifty-five to eighty-five
per cent come out.
DIRECT PRIMARIES 205
(3) The direct primary is simpler than the convention
system. Under the latter there is a primary followed by the
various conventions. Under the direct system, one day's
primary election usually settles everything, and the whole
cumbrous and expensive machinery of the delegate conven-
tion is abolished.
(4) Where the party committeemen are chosen directly
by the voters, the system "promotes true party leadership by
making it less susceptible to misuse, and more in accord with
general party sentiment."
(5) It is claimed that the direct primary "secures the nom-
ination of better men by making their nomination depend
upon the presentation of their claims to the voters, instead of
upon secret manipulations." A more conservative statement
would be that the direct primary is an institution for bring-
ing out a conspicuously fit person, or for attacking a con-
spicuously unfit one or one whose alliances are conspicu-
ously unfit.
(6) The direct primary takes away from the politicians
much of their former control over nominations, and places
that control more nearly in the hands of the people. The
result is to make "the elective officer more independent of
those who would control his action for their own selfish ad-
vantage, and enables him to appeal more directly to his
constituency upon the basis of faithful service." Thus it
proves "a strong barrier against the efforts of those who seek
to pervert administration to the service of privilege, or to
secure immunity for law-breaking."
(7) Bribery and corruption are rendered, if not more dif-
ficult, at least less potent than formerly in determining nom-
inations.
(8) The simplification of our large and confusing ballot is
a result that may ultimately be looked for. While the direct
primary does not reduce the number of elective offices, it
v/ill have a constantly increasing influence to that end, be-
cause it will serve to keep before the voter the magnitude of
the political burden unnecessarily loaded upon his shoulders.
It
2o6 SELECTED ARTICLES
Against the direct primary system a large number of
objections have been raised. They are often advanced by the
old type of machine politician and bosses who appear to be-
lieve that their power and influence will be destroyed by the
new system. Irrespective, however, of the character of the
objectors, the objections themselves deserve consideration.
They may be briefly enumerated as follows:
(i) The character and efficiency of public officials have
not been improved under the direct primary system.
(2) Corruption in politics has not been diminished. On
the other hand, it is claimed that the new system "tends to
promote, rather than check, electoral corruption. A primary
election is merely another election, and as elections are now
conducted we have enough of them. A primary is merely
another opportunity for the 'floater' and the 'grafter.' A
large and corrupt use of money is encouraged."
(3) It makes it virtually impossible for any one "except-
ing moneyed men or demagogues to be elected to office,"
because of the great expense involved in canvassing for two
elections, the primary and the regular election which follows.
(4) Since the expenses connected with the conduct of the
direct primary election are borne by the pubUc, the system
involves a large increase in taxation.
(5) The petition method of placing names on the primary
ballot has created a class of mercenaries, hired for the pur-
pose of soliciting signatures to such petitions.
(6) The direct primary tends to weaken and disorganize
the party, since it renders more difficult the harmonizing of
differences and jealousies and misunderstandings. It affords
no security for a geographical distribution of the candidates
which is calculated to strengthen the party throughout the
State. As tried in some States, it facilitates Democrats nom-
inating Republican candidates and Republicans assisting in the
nomination of Democratic candidates.
(7) No satisfactory method has been provided for the
making of a party platform. In those States where the plat-
form is drafted by the party nominees it is asserted to be a
DIRECT PRIMARIES 267
mere "catch vote" affair, and not a true embodiment of the
party's principles.
(8) The new system has not dethroned the political boss or
put the machine "out of business." It does not remove any
of the conditions which have produced the system of
machines and bosses, but intensifies their pressure by making
politics still more confused, irresponsible, and costly. It
parallels the long series of regular elections with a corre-
sponding series of primary elections in every regular party
organization. The more elections there are, the larger be-
comes the class of professional politicians to be supported
by the community.
(9) The direct primary tends to a multiplicity of candidates,
with a resulting confusion of the voters. The "ring" in-
fluence can easily cause a number of respectable candidates
to be brought out, and thus divide the' vote of the best
citizens, while the ring or machine candidate may easily
obtain a larger number of votes than any of his opponents.
(10) Direct primary elections are a blow at representative
government and tend toward pure democracy.
(11) State-wide direct primaries favor populous centres
against rural communities.
In determining the weight which should be attached to
these various criticisms of the direct primary system, it
should be noted that many of the objections could with equal
force and effect be urged against the convention system. It
is believed that the new system, when fairly tried, tends to
diminish rather than to increase the evils of the older
methods. It is safe to say that no remedy for the evils of
the convention system can be considered perfect "because
human nature cannot be changed by legislation, and oppor-
tunities for political mischief will exist under any system."
After all, the direct primary method must stand or fall by
the comparative value of results achieved through its use.
208 SELECTED ARTICLES
Gov. S. V. Stewart of Montana, Address to Assembly,
January 2, 1917.
I do not believe the people would approve any measure
attempting to abolish the principle of the primary law, but
they will certainly welcome any amendment that will make
it less expensive and less cumbersome,
William Sulzer. Why Direct Primaries?
I know that the people of the State of New York in
common with the people of other states believe that if they
are qualified to choose by their votes on election day govern-
ors, judges, senators and congressmen, they are also com-
petent on primary day to nominate these same officials — not
some of these officials, but all of them.
If it is wise to trust the people with the power to nomin-
ate some public officers, I am sure it is just as wise to trust
them with the power to nominate all public officers. I be-
lieve that it is as wise to trust them to nominate a Governor
as to trust them to nominate a constable, and as wise to
trust them to nominate a judge of the Court of Appeals
as to trust them to nominate a justice of the peace.
So if anyone tells you that a direct primary law is not a
good thing, you deny it, and point to what other states have
done through the agency of this beneficent system.
No man fears direct primaries, except a man whose char-
acter, and whose ability, and whose mentality, cannot bear
the searchlight of publicity. No man fears direct primaries,
unless he wants to be the creature of invisible government
rather than be the servant of popular government.
U. S. 62d Congress. 3d Session. Senate Document No. 993.
What is Progress in Politics? Nicholas Murray Butler.
The method of the direct primary is doubtless ad-
vantageous within relatively small and homogeneous com-
munities, where men know each other and where candidates
DIRECT PRIMARIES 209
for office can be discussed with some degree of understand-
ing and personal acquaintance. That it will be highly disad-
vantageous to substitute the direct primary for the method
of the convention and conference when large areas are in-
volved, such as a great State or the Nation as a whole, I am
entirely certain. It will, among other things, exalt the pro-
fessional politician and the man who can provide or secure
the great sums of money needed to carry on a campaign for
several weeks or months before a large and widely distributed
body of electors. True progress will consist in freeing the
convention system from abuses, not in abolishing it.
U. S. 63d Congress. 3d Session. Senate Document No. 985.
The Preferential Ballot as a Substitute for the Direct
Primary. Lewis Jerome Johnson.
Bad as is the plurality system in elections, it is perhaps
more dangerous still in the direct .primary. Whoever else
may appear at the primary, those with axes to grind are
pretty sure to be there to a man, and of these the largest
single faction, or plurality, is more than likely to be machine
ridden. A minority goes to the primary. A minority of that
minority is more than likely to carry the primary. A nom-
ination is made by a minority of the minority because the
procedure divides the majority. The party label is thus
captured for some machine candidate, as readily as of old,
perhaps, and with less of that sense of responsibility which
sometimes exercises wholesome restraint upon a party man-
agement. The party as a whole, when it comes to election,
meekly votes for the party label and the damage is done.
The direct primary looks like a failure and, worse yet, the
whole forward movement with which it is identified naturally
drops in public confidence.
Vermont Bulletin. 11:3-19. December, 1913.
Direct Primary.
Following the statements that have been made about the
direct primary, it remains to analyze the results of the move-
2IO SELECTED ARTICLES
ment as a whole and to ascertain, if possible, what would be
the result if direct primary elections were established in this
state.
In doing this it will not be necessary to indulge in idle
speculation. Experience in a wide variety of conditions
shows the possibilities of the system. While these condi-
tions are not exactly similar to those found in Vermont they
may safely be taken to indicate the probable results in this
state.
(i) Is the Direct Primary popular where it has been
adopted? Though laws have been amended in many states
these amendments have been for the purpose of strengthening
the law or extending its application. In no state has a direct
primary law, once adopted, been repealed. In California the
law was declared unconstitutional. Rather than abandon the
reform the voters of the state amended the constitution. In
Crawford County, a rural county in Pennsylvania, the Re-
publican County Committee adopted the direct primary sys-
tem of nomination in i860. It has been in force ever since.
Twice the voters have been asked to decide whether it should
be continued and twice they have voted overwhelmingly in
the affirmative. The last of the two votes was taken after
nineteen years of experience. The average vote cast in the
direct primaries for thirty-one years in this county was 73 per
cent of the average election vote for the same period.
(2) Would the Direct Primary bring out a larger number
of voters than the convention system? The estimate stated
earlier in this study places the vote in caucus as about one-
third, though that is on the average high. Estimates made
by the secretaries of state of three states places the propor-
tion at between five and eight per cent. Probably the eight
per cent more accurately represents the facts than does one-
third.
Direct primaries bring out quite regularly from 25 to 95
per cent of the voters, states one authority. The ratio in
percentage of the vote cast at the primaries in 1908 for
governor in direct primary states to the vote for governor at
the succeeding general election in seven states was:
DIRECT PRIMARIES 2ii
IlHnois, 52%, Missouri, 58%, Washington, 65%.
Iowa, 51%, Wisconsin, 46%, Average, 58%.
Kansas, 45%, South Dakota, 63%,
Some instances of still higher ratios are:
Republican Governor, Dakota, 1908, 99%.
Republican Governor, Washington, 1908, 93%.
Democratic Governor, Missouri, 1908, 72%.
•Republican Governor, Illinois, 1908, 75%. '
These are but samples of facts that indicate in many places
the larger number of voters that become interested through
the new method. Throughout the country there is a decided
opinion that this result will always follow. Instances may
be found where the direct vote is lighter than it was under
the delegate plan, yet they do not constitute the majority of
cases. Drawbacks are often experienced due to the time of
holding the election. The effects are more noticeable from
this cause in rural communities. Summing up the evidence
it may safely be said that there is no doubt that a larger per-
centage, of the electorate participate in the primary under the
direct system than under the indirect. The personalities that
are thrust into a primary campaign, the sensational nature of
the personal contest, the great importance of the individual,
all tend to swell the primary vote.
(3) Does the Direct Primary increase the cost of being a
candidate? On this question there is much difference of
opinion. Some conce.de the fact. Others do not. It should
be kept in mind that abuse of money is possible in any cir-
cumstances. It is not limited to politics. If more money
really is used, it is not so easy to use it corruptly. It is very
important that the contest be carried into every town and vil-
lage however remote. Supporters won in a rival's home dis-
trict may prove decisive. Personal contact is hence very
important and it all costs money. Besides expense for per-
sonal canvass there is advertising in newspapers and mag-
azines, the circulation of literature, the expense of meetings,
putting workers into the field, all of which contribute to the
cost of maintaining a direct primary. This expense can be
212 SELECTED ARTICLES
overcome to some extent by a "corrupt practices" act similar
to those in use in many states, where a candidate is not per-
mitted to give anything of value to a voter, not allowed to
contribute to worthy causes, as buying tickets to a church fair
or a sociable, and not allowed to expend money for news-
paper advertising. Nevertheless, if the public mind is ed-
ucated, if the average man gets a clearer conception of the
government of our country, if public intelligence is increased,
then the outlay will be doubly repaid. Of course, this
amount should not be so large as to make it absolutely im-
possible for the average man of good character and ability to
compete.
Striking instances show that lack of money is not a handi-
cap, if a candidate goes to the people with issues in which
they are interested. In Washington, Senator Jones, a com-
paratively poor man, won against a millionaire rival who
spent money freely. Joseph L. Bristow won the nomination
in Kansas against Chester I. Long. Long spent seven times
.as much as Bristow. Senator Johnson, of N. Dakota, a
farmer of moderate means, spent "almost nothing" against
three competitors who spent altogether over $200,000.
Governor Warner of Michigan made the statement that in a
contest for governor just before the change to the new sys-
tem "more money was expended than will be used in the
next ten years under the direct voting system." One well
acquainted with conditions in New Hampshire says: "In New
Hampshire less money has been spent for nominations under
the primary than under the old system." It is well known
that too much money is spent anyway for securing nomina-
tions and elections; and this may be regulated at any time
that the people wish a law fixing the amounts.
(4) Is the character of the candidates of a higher type
under Direct Primaries than under the convention system f
This is a question which cannot be briefly answered by "yes"
or "no"; as in the end the people themselves will determine
the answer. The direct primary affords the people the
chance to have candidates of the highest type, but whether
this type will be chosen cannot be foretold. Several in-
DIRECT PRIMARIES 213
stances have shown that the poor candidates are certainly not
eliminated. If the candidates are of no higher type they are
far more responsible to the people when elected by the
people under the direct primary than when elected by the
machine under the convention system. They feel the tre-
mendous force of public opinion which they know can make
or break them and it is to this public opinion that they are
responsible. If this responsibility is developed among those
who govern the people of the United States, a great step will
have been taken towards better and more democratic govern-
ment. The opportunity is theirs; the people can choose be-
tween a notoriously unfit candidate and one who is con-
spicuously fit to hold an office of public trust. In no case
will the direct primary guarantee the choice of the proper
candidates. This remains in the hands of the voters them-
selves.
(5) Will the number of candidates be large; and how 'Will
a large number affect the election? It is evident that if the
special interests should all be centered on one man, his
chance of election would be greater if there were three candi-
dates against him, than if there was only one. Here is a
possible weak spot in the system where there might be a
chance for the boss to exercise his control. This weakness
may be overcome by the system used in Minnesota for ob-
taining a majority. This is done by the preferential ballot.
There is much evidence however that this danger of a
large number of candidates is after all an imaginary one. To
keep the number down by requiring a large percentage of
signatures results practically in the hiring of workers by
wealthy candidates to collect the necessary number. In New
Hampshire a candidate may secure a place on the ballot
either by securing a very small number of signatures to a
petition or by the payment of a small fee. Many thought
this would greatly increase the length of the list of candi-
dates. Experience has shown that it does not do so. The
feeling is that "it is clearly better to let anybody who will
cast his hat into the ring leaving the voters to select the
candidate whom they want. Experience proves that men do
214 SELECTED ARTICLES
not ordinarly care about being beaten in a primary any more-
than elsewhere, and that they will not declare as candidates
unless they expect they can be nominated."
(6) Do Direct Primaries destroy party organization? This^
is not the case where the direct primaries have been given
a fair chance. The party organizations are as flourishing
as under the old system. There has been some talk of fac-
tional disturbances and inharmony, but this criticism is un-
grounded because there are no more factional disturbances
of a personal nature under the new system than there are
under the old.
(7) Do State-Wide Direct Primaries favor populous centers
against rural districts? Upon this point the answer is positively
no. Experience shows this answer to be correct. Facts fur-
nished from authorities in twenty-two states show that the
state officers come mostly from the smaller towns and rural
districts. Of 21 governors chosen by direct primaries, 16
came from towns or cities of less than 20,000 inhabitants.
In Illinois 5 out of 6 state officers from towns less than 16,000.
2,500.
" 5,000.
" 12,000.
" 8,000.
" 2,000.
" 10,000.
" 20,000.
Vermont. Legislative Reference Bureau. Direct Primaries.
There has been much discussion of the direct primary and
many arguments have been advanced pro and con. The fol-
lowing have been compiled from various sources and are
here arranged in opposing columns. This method of ar-
rangement does not result in a continuous logical develop-
ment of the argument on either side of the question, the aim
having been rather to make a compilation of all or nearly all
of the arguments than to make a consistent presentation of
either side of the case. The preferential primary is not
Iowa
6
" " 7 "
Kansas
7
u . g .
Missouri
5
u . ^ .
Nebraska
7
" - 8 "
Oregon
2
" " 6 "
Washington 6
" '• 8 "
Wisconsin
5
" - 6 "
DIRECT PRIMARIES
215
treated in these arguments because the results of experience
under such a system are not available from which con-
clusions might properly be drawn. However many of the
arguments given below regarding the direct primary might
be applied one way or the other to preferential primaries.
For Convention
If it -was thought that the
convention did not represent
the will of the people a very
simple remedy is at hand. Un-
less a candidate receive a two-
thirds vote at the convention
a primary could be held. Thus
the primary could be used as a
safety valve, as a guarantee to
the people that their wishes
would not be disregarded.
The argument for direct pri-
maries is based upon the as-
sumption that the voter is
either corrupt or ignorant; cor-
rupt in that he has used his
vote in violation of his duty or
ignorant in that he has un-
knowingly let himself be used
by unscrupulous politicians. If
this be the case it is a condi-
tion which a mere change in
nominating machinery will not
remedy.
As the number of voters who
participate in the caucus under
the convention system is not
a matter of record no accurate
comparison can be made. But
it is a matter of fact that at
the last general election in the
states of Maine, New Hamp-
shire, Wisconsin, Kansas, and
Oregon, typical primary states,
the total vote for governor at
the primary was 573,254 while
the vote at the general elec-
tion for governor was 1,020,533.
The convention is in harmony
with the representative system
of government. If you abandon
it in favor of the primary you
are but taking the first step
toward the pure democratic
For Primary
The convention has always
been a tool easily handled by
a clever boss. By trading off
minor places and by sharp
practices the boss has brought
the convention into disrepute
as an instrument fitted to ex-
press the people's will. Even
when honestly and fairly con-
ducted, a convention gives an
undue advantage to aggressive,
unscrupulous men, which they
would not have in a direct pri-
mary.
Direct primaries are based
upon the assumption that the
rank and file of the voters are
honest and intelligent, and that
they should each and all be
allowed to express their views
on all candidacies at their us-
ual voting place instead of del-
egating that duty to a few del-
egates who, away from home
and under pressure, may be
led into mistakes, or worse.
It is a matter of common
knowledge that only a small
per cent of the voters partici-
pate in the caucus but there is
a large vote at the primaries
because the voters know that
their vote amounts to some-
thing; therefore they come out
to the primary. By bringing
all the candidacies before the
voters at one time, state, con-
gressional and county, the in-
terest and vote will be larger
and more representative than
by handling them in sections as
at present
In this nation and in this
state, the will of the people is
and should be the supreme law;
and that that will may be
made effective, you need pub-
lic oflficers who owe their nom-
2l6
SELECTED ARTICLES
For Convention
form of government, a govern-
ment which history proves ab-
solutely unworkable for any
but the smallest political units.
The curse of the evils of
bossism is not In the machin-
ery of politics. It is chiefly in
the frequency of elections and
the enormous number and ab-
surd variety of places to be
filled by elections. Not more
but less elections is what we
want.
It must be remembered that
Vermont does not have the
same convention system that
many of the Western states
where they now have direct
primaries, formerly had. Where
the voters in the town elected
delegates to the county conven-
tion who in turn elected dele-
gates to the state convention
which nominated the state of-
ficers. In Vermont the town
elects directly the delegates to
the state nominating conven-
tion and holds those delegates
directly responsible. Vermont
laws should be framed not to
meet the needs of some far off
Western state but to meet the
needs of Vermont,
Where the direct primary
concentrates the burden of the
expense of making nominations
in a few candidates, the con-
vention scatters it among a
large number of delegates who
were each able and willing to
stand the small expense requi-
site to attend the convention.
No law can be framed which
will adequately limit the expen-
ditures of candidates. Every-
one knows that the active can-
didate begins work years before
the actual campaign and if he
For Primary
ination as well as their election
directly to the vote of the peo-
ple.
We are using 19th century
machinery to nominate ofRcers
under 20th century conditions.
The methods of politics no less
than those of business mvist be
in accord with the spirit of the
times. Anything which will
tend to increase interest in
public officials and public af-
fairs as does the direct primary
is of inestimable benefit.
The direct primary move-
ment is one that is sweeping
the covintry. Vermont is out
of step with the march of prog-
ress and it is high time she got
in line.
Any indirect method of rep-
resentation destroys responsi-
bility. The management of cau-
cuses and conventions has be-
come so complicated that they
are practically removed from
popular control and fall into
the hands of professional poli-
ticians.
The delegates elected to at-
tend upon the nominating con-
vention are confronted with
the expenditure of a consider-
able sum of money and a still-
further contribution of time to
make a journey to the place of
holding the convention. They
must undertake this expense
either from a pure loyalty to
party, devotion to the interest
of some candidate or because
they personally aspire to re-
ceive some political prefer-
ment, and regard the time and
money spent in the light of a
political investment.
Under the convention system
it is a matter of common re-
port that large sums of money
have been expended. A pri-
mary law properly guarded by
requiring publicity and limita-
DIRECT PRIMARIES
217
For Convention
has abundant money to spend
in thus early advancing- his
candidacy he will spend it.
Moreover there are many indi-
rect ways of spending money
which in states having the pri-
mary it has been found impos-
sible to reach by publicity laws.
Not only is the expense of
candidacy increased but the ex-
pense to the state is doubled
by virtue of the fact that a
second election is held. In
some of the states where direct
primaries are in force the
states pay for publicity pam-
phlet advertising the merits
of the different candidates and
in other of the direct primary
states there is an agitation for
this so-called reform.
For Primary
tion of campaign expenses
would make clear to everyone
just how the money was spent,
and that in itself would cure
the extensive and improper use
of money.
It is quite proper that the
state should bear the expense
of candidacy in a measure and
one of the principal evils of the
convention system lies in the
fact that the candidate must
pay his own expenses or al-
low them to be paid by some
interests under obligation to
whom he will thereby be
placed.
The party convention must
be retained to frame the party
platform. The platform should
not be framed by the nominees
of the party as thus they
would be given all the power
of the party and having been
nominated the party can have
no redress if the platform fails
to express its principles. The
people should instruct the can-
didates, not vice versa.
There has been a strong ten-
dency in states having the di-
rect primary for the party
managers to submit a complete
slate at the primary and
through the influence of their
organization to nominate it in
its entirety. This practice,
common in certain states makes
the nomination of a candidate
objectionable to the party or-
ganization a practical impossi-
bility as he would have to build
up an organization in every
district throughout the state
to stand a chance against the
firmly intrenched party ma-
chine.
A convention composed of all
of a party's candidates would
make a platform which would
be more binding upon them
than a platform made by a
convention of which they were
not members.
Granted that the party man-
agers do submit a complete
slate; under the primary sys-
tem the people have the chance
to reject it, while under the
convention they do not.
The following Important ele-
ments of party success can be
considered in making a well
balanced ticket at a conven-
tion but not at a direct pri-
mary; geographical distribution
The one test we should ap-
ply to candidates for office is,
can he do the work re-
quired honestly and eflficiently?
Whether he lives in one end
of the state or the other is
2l8
SELECTED ARTICLES
For Convention
of the candidates; their nation-
ality; their social standing-; the
class represented; the commer-
cial, industrial and agricultural
interests, etc., that they stand
for; the shades of political idea
entertained.
The delegates to the conven-
tion being the prominent citi-
zens of the community are
likely to have been members
of the legislature and thus to
have become acquainted with
the candidates for the minor
offices who in reality conduct
most of the business of the
state and regarding whom the
ordinary voter would have no
knowledge.
The process of deliberation
and debate in a convention se-
cures an attention to all the
circumstances that a primary
cannot obtain. Under a primary
system Seward, not Lincoln,
would have been nominated, in
1860. Lincoln is a typical prod-
uct of the convention system.
The well-known man regard-
less of what he is noted for
has an advantage in the race
for the nomination over one
better qualified but less gen-
erally known. It is notoriety
and not worth that counts un-
der the direct primary.
The people are compelled to
depend almost entirely on what
the newspapers say about the
candidates while under the
convention system the people's
representatives at the conven-
tion meet the candidates and
can form their own judgments
of them.
Willingness on the part of
adequate men to serve the
public in office is rare enough
at best, and willingness on the
part of adequate men to under-
go one protracted and neces-
sarily expensive campaign of
personalities for the right to
undergo another protracted and
For Primary
not a common sense, business
like requirement. What the
state needs is genuine service,
not a lesson in geography, so-
cial standing or commercial in-
terests.
In Vermont the minor officers
are town, village and city of-
ficials, and in these cases we
have a fairly good primary sys-
tem now. In this state the di-
rect primary should apply to
state, congressional and county
officials only, and every voter
should have the right to pass
on every one of these nomina-
tions.
The talk of the "calm and
deliberate judgment" of the
convention is pure farce. What
more disorderly, more turbu-
lent, and generally uproarious
assembly can one imagine than
the average political conven-
tion?
To say that the people of
Vermont would elect a man
merely because he had some
notoriety strongly questions
their good sense, to say the
least. And it is a fact that the
men who are well known are
those who in turn know the
state well, its conditions and
needs.
The newspapers are one of
the greatest powers in modern
life and they will exercise their
power regardless of what nom-
inating system we have.
It can be well argued that
unless a man has interest
enough in a governmental of-
fice to work to get it, he isn't
the man we want for that of-
fice. We want men in office
•who are interested in their
work. There is no difference
between the two systems in the
DIRECT PRIMARIES
219
For Convention
•-expensive campaign for the
right to serve the public in
•office is more than can be ex-
pected normally except from
those at once very rich and
very patriotic.
The primary makes possible
the choice of a candidate by a
small faction of the party de-
cidedly in the minority. If
there are six candidates and
the vote is somewhat evenly
divided it is possible that the
highest candidate may receive
not more than 17 7o of the total
vote cast. There is not suf-
ficient guarantee that the suc-
cessful candidate really com-
mands sufficient general sup-
port in the party to warrant
his choice as a representative.
Any second choice system is
too complicated to receive the
consideration of practical men.
For Primary
length of campaign or in the
expense. There was probably
never a primary campaign in
the country so expensive in
proportion to the area and pop-
ulation of the state as was the
convention campaign of Ver-
mont in 1902.
Under the convention system
it often happens that candi-
dates are nominated who re-
ceive no votes whatever in the
caucvises, but are put in through
manipulation and trading, re-
gardless of any expression at
all on the part of the voters.
The primary system gives the
majority a much better chance
of forcing their will than any
other system ever introduced.
The direct primary increases
the power of the large towns
at the expense of the small
towns. At a nomination by di-
rect vote of the people the vote
for Chittenden County would
be practically dominated by
Burlington and Winooski and
Washington County by Barre
and Montpelier and a similar
domination by the large towns
would be the result throughout
the state. The vote in Essex
Count.v would be more than
balanced by the vote of either
Bennington, Brattleboro, or St.
. Johnsbury.
No plan is honest that per-
mits a Democrat to participate
in a Republican caucus, whose
nominee he has no intention of
supporting, or the reverse. And
if you do not have such a plan
:you must have one whereby the
-voter declares in advance his
The direct primary does not
weaken the power of the small
town. It strengthens the power
of the individual voter, and
aids the rank and file both in
the small towns and in the
large ones. The only power
weakened is that of the bosses,
the political worker, and the
selfish interest. Under the
present convention system a
small town sends one, two or
three delegates to a convention,
held in a city or large town.
On these delegates is massed
all the pressure that the big
town, the big interests and the
big politicians can produce. Un-
der a direct primary the voters
go to their regular polling place
and vote their preference with-
out outside pressure, and ma-
nipulation.
Our political life is largely
dominated by parties and so a
man must as a practical means
of making his will felt, ally
himself with one party or an-
other. Any man who refuses
such a simple requirement as
that should not complain if he
220
SELECTED ARTICLES
For Convention
political allegience, and having
done this he has lost his inde-
pendence as a voter.
The direct primary, through
doing away with the party
convention and all the enthu-
siam and sentiment created
thereby, lessens party respon-
sibility and interest and the
loss of the efficiency of the
party as an organization logi-
cally results.
The primary calls for another
complete election and prelimi-
nary election campaign with
all the waste of time and
money and political turmoil en-
tailed thereby.
There are so many candi-
dates at the primary that the
voter cannot vote intelligently
on any but the most important
officers.
It is a fact that in nearly
every state where direct pri-
maries are in force there have
been constant and continual
demands for supplementary
legislation to make primaries
efficient. As one writer has
expressed it "it is like using
drugs, the more they use the
drugs the worse off they are."
For Primary
is no better off under the pres-
ent nominating system.
The argument that the pri-
mary destroys the party power
is based on theory and not on.
experience. For it is a fact
that in the states where direct
primaries are in force parties
are as strongly entrenched as
ever.
The primary system substi-
tutes for the elaborate system
of unregulated caucuses and
conventions a simple method of
nominating all officers at one
election.
Primaries enlarge the field of
public service by increasing the
range of men who can have
hope of getting into office. And
it is not a fact that the voters
of Vermont are so unintelligent
as to be unable to choose their
officers.
Direct primaries have called
for no more supplementary
legislation than have caucus-
and convention systems. The
only difference is, that as the
primary system is newer, sup-
plementary legislation is more
recent and therefore more
prominent in the public mind.
Then too, we must remember
that the direct primary laws in
some states were prepared by
those who opposed them, driven
to it by public pressure. There
is no serious trouble in states
like Oregon, Washington, Wis-
consin and others where the
pi'imary laws have been writ-
ten by friends of the system
and not mutilated by enemies
in the course of enactment.
APPENDIX
Primary Election Laws
Gertrude Woodard
For citations to state laws previous to 1910 see Merriam, C. E.
Primary Elections, (1909) p. 298-302.
Alabama 1911 no. 479, p. 421.
1915 no. 78, p. 218: no. 410, p. 364.
.Arizona 1912, Special, c. 84, p. 272.
1915 c. 48, p. 89.
Arkansas 1909 act 165, p. 505
1917 act 175, p. 951. (Absent voting.)
California Political Code §1373.
1911 c. 398, p. 769: c. 713, p. 1393.
1911. Extra, c. 17 p. 66: c. 18, p. 85.
1913 c. 690, p. 1379.
1915 c. 135, p. 239. (This act was referred to the
electors, Oct. 26, 1915 and was not approved.)
1915 c. 137, p. 279.
1916 c. 1. p. 6: c. 2, p. 36.
1917 c. 711, p. 1341.
Colorado 1910 c. 4, p. 15.
1915 c. 76, p. 221. (Absent voting.)
Delaware 1897 v. 20, p. 375.
Florida 1913 c. 6469, p. 242.
1915 c. 6874 p. 143.
1917 c. 7380, p. 241. (Absent voting.)
Georgia Code 1911 v. 1., c. 8, p. 46.
1917 p. 183.
Idaho 1909 p. 196.
1911 c. 178, p. 571.
1913 c. 85, p. 347.
1917 c. 142, p. 453. (Absent voting.)
Illinois 1909-1910, Special, p. 47.
1913, p. 310, p. 646.
Callaghan's 111. Laws, Ann. 1913-1916, p. 637.
1917 p. 434. (Absent voting.)
Indiana 1915 c. 105, p. 359: c. 4, p. 13.
1917 c. 117, p. 354.
1917 c. 100, p. 317. (Absent voting.)
222 APPENDIX
Iowa Code Supp. 1913 §1087 et seq.
Code Supp. 1915 p. 96.
Code Supp. 1915 §1137 b, p. 100. (Absent voting.)'
Kansas G. S. 1909. c. 36, art. 12, §3289 et seq.
1911 c. 182, p. 310.
1913 c. 190, p. 305: c. 193, p. 309.
1915 c. 204, p. 249.
Kentucky Thum's Supp. 1915. §1550 et seq., p. 332.
1918 c. 37, p. 106. (Absent voting- at general elec-
tions.)
Louisiana 1912 act 198, p. 385; act 21, p. 27.
1914 act 67, p. 162: act 266, p. 519: act 277, p. 547.
1916 act 35, p. 66.
1917 act 34, p. 54 (Electors in military service.)
Maine 1911 c. 199.
1913 c. 56, p. 49: c. 127, p. 131: c. 221, p. 313.
Maryland Poe's Code (Elections) Art. 33, p. 1027.
1912 c. 2, p. 3: c. 134, p. 289.
1914 c. 475, p. 792: c. 761, p. 1337.
1916 c. 293, p. 585: c. 160, p. 273.
Massachusetts.. 1911 c. 550.
1912 c. 254.
1913 c. 835, p. 983, c. 996.
1915 c. 36, p. 33: c. 105, p. 91: c. 283, p. 337.
1916 c. 16, p. 12: c. 81, p. 59: c. 315, p. 596.
1917 c. 79-81, p. 72-73.
Michigan 1912 act 9, p. 17.
1915 act 219, p. 370.
C. L. 1915 V. 1, c. 77.
1917 act 203, p. 427. (Absent voting.)
Minnesota R. L. 1905, amended 1912, amended 1913 c. 389,
p. 542.
1913 c. 520.
G. S. 1913 §307 amended 1915 c. 76, p. 106.
1917 c. 26, p. 41.
1917 c. 68, p. 82 (Expressly excludes absent voting
at primaries.)
1917 c. 133, p. 183 (Presidential primary law re-
pealed.)
Mississippi Code 1906, c. Ill, p. 1034,
1912 c. 237, p. 309:
1913 c. 149 p. 193.
1916 c. 161 p. 224.
Missouri 1909 p. 481.
1911 p. 242.
1913 p. 330-335.
1917 p. 279.
1917 p. 275. (Absent voting.)
Montana Code Supp. 1915 p. 951, 972, 975.
1917 c. 155, p. 352. (Absent voting.)
APPENDIX
223
Nebraska C. S. 1911 §3326, c. 26, p. 919.
1911 c. 46, p. 218.
1913 c. 149, p. 383: c. 96, p. 247.
1915 c. 32-34.
1917 c. 37, p. 112: c. 33, p. 103.
1913 c. 200, p. 613. (Absent voting.)
,...1913 c. 284, p. 510.
1915 c. 283, p. 453.
1917 c. 155, p. 276.
New Hampshire 1909 c. 153, p. 520.
1913 c. 97, p. 569: c. 167, p. 711.
1915 c. 124, p. 145.
Nevada.
New Jersey.
New York .
C. S. 1911, p. 2162.
1915 c. 319, p. 566.
1916 c. 41, p. 72.
1917 c. 197 p. 569.
.1909 c.
1911 c.
1913 c.
891.
820.
North Carolina.. 1915 c. 101, p. 154.
19J7 c. 23, p. 78. (Absent voting.)
North Dakota.
Ohio.
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania .
South Carolina.
South Dakota. .
.1907 c. 109, p. 151.
1911 c. 207-213, p. 314-330.
1913 c. 222, p. 360: c. 223, p. 362.
1913 c. 155, p. 206. (Absent voting.)
1915 c. 150, p. 192.
,1913 (103) p. 476.
1914 (104) p. 8.
1915 (106) p. 542.
1917 (107) p. 25,400.
1917 (107) p. 52 (Absent voting.)
.R. L. 1910 c. 28. p. 745.
1915 0. 152, p. 245: c. 169, p. 303.
1917 c. 184, p. 347-348.
Lord's Laws (Elections) Title 27, c. 3, p. 1318.
1911 c. 5, p. 19.
1915 c. 242, p. 348: c. 124, p. 124.
1913 c. 400, p. 719.
1917 c. 278, p. 753.
.Code 1912, V. 1, c. 13.
1915 c. 118, p. 163.
1918 no. 574, p. 1076
.1916 Special, c. 3, p.
1917 c. 234, p. 320.
1917 c. 233, p. 317.
(Voters in U. S. Service.)
(Absent voting.)
Tennessee .
Texas
1917 0. 118, p.
1917 c. 104, p.
338.
305.
(Absent voting.)
,Rev. Civ. Stats. 1911 c. 10, title 49.
1913, 1st called, c. 39, p. 101: regular, 1913 c. 46, p88.
1918 c. 90, p. 191.
224
APPENDIX
Vermont
Virginia
,G. L. 1917 c. 9, p. 107.
1912 c. 307. p.
1914 c. 305, p.
1916 c. 369, p.
1918 c. 40, p.
■Washington..,
West Virginia.
Wisconsin.
Wyoming.
611.
513.
633. (Absent voting.)
c. 4.
R. & B. Code, V. 2, title
1913 c. 58, p. 194.
1915 c. 52, p. 174.
1917 c. 71, p. 233.
1917 c. 159, p. 712. (Absent voting.)
.1915 c. 26, p. 222.
1916, 3rd extra, c. 5,
1917 c. 61, p. 187.
1917, 2nd extra, c. 13
service.)
p. 14.
, p. 54. (Absent voters in U. S.
Statutes, 1917 (Elections) title II, c. 5, p. 23.
1917 c. 570, p. 956. (Absent voting.)
1911 c. 23, p. 25.
1913 c. 128. p. 192.
1915 c. 74, p. 71: c. 160, p. 242.
1915 c. 102 p. 120. (General elections, absent vot-
ting.)
APPENDIX
225
Table of Comparison of the State Primary Laws
State
Offices
Presidential
Primary
U.S.
Senator
Absent
voting
Alabama
State, county and mun-
icipal officers.
X
Arizona t
All elective senatorial,
congressional, state, county
and precinct offices.
X
Arkansas
Legalizes party primary
election to nominate can-
didates for U. S. senator,
congressman, or legislative,
judicial, state, district,
couaty, township or mu-
nicipal office.
X
X
California t
All elective public officers
except certain local offices.
X
X
Colorado t
U. S. senator, congres-
sional members, all elective
state, district, city, county,
ward, precinct officers; ex-
cept certain local officers,
delegates to political as-
semblies and presidential
electors.
X
X
Florida t
All candidates for all
elective state, congression-
al and county offices. U. S.
senator, and members of
state, congressional and
county executive commit-
tees . . .
X
X
Idaho t
All elective state, district
and county officers and
all candidates for congress.
X
X
Illinois t
All elective officers, ex-
cept certain school and
township officers and pres-
idential electors.
Advisory
X
X
Indiana t
All state, congressional,
county, city and township
officers, judicial and legis-
lative officers, prosecuting
attorneys, senators and rep-
resentatives in congress,
delegates to conventions
for nominating state offi-
cers, U. S. senator and
presidential electors.
Repealed
X
X
U. S. senators, congress-
men, electors, all elected
officers except judicial offi-
cers.
Repealed
X
X
t = Mandatory.
226
APPENDIX
Tables of Comparison of the State Primary Laws
State
Offices
Presidential
Primary
U.S.
Senator
Absent
voting
Kansas t '
All elective officers, ex-
cept at special elections to
fill vacancies and certain
local elections.
X
Kentucky
All elective officers ex-
cept certain local and school
district officers and presi-
dential electors.
Repealed
X
Louisiana t
All nominations for U. S.
senators and congressmen,
all state, district, parochial
and ward officers, state
senators and representa-
tives, city and ward offi-
cers in all cities, towns and
villages.
X
Maine
All state and county offi-
ces, U, S. senators and
congressmen.
X
Maryland t
Candidates for public of-
fice in Baltimore and the
counties of the state,
judges, U. S. congressmen,
and delegates to county,
legislative district, congres-
sional, city and state con-
ventions.
X
X
Massachusetts t
All offices to be filled at
a state election.
X
Michigan t
Governor, lieutenant-gov-
ernor, U. S. senators, con-
gressmen, members of the
legislature, county officers,
certain city and local offi-
cers.
X
X
X
Minnesota t
All elective officers ex-
cept certain local ones.
Repealed
Mississippi t....
All state, district, county
and county district officers,
judge of supreme court,
U. S. senators.
X
Missouri!
All elective officers ex-
cept certain school and
local officers.
X
Montana t
All candidates for public
office.
X
X
Nebraska t
All elective officers and
judicial officers, except cer-
tain local and county offl-
X
X
X
t = Mandatory.
APPENDIX
227
Tables of Comparison of the State Primary Laws
State
Offices
Presidential
Primary
u. s.
Senator
Absent
voting
Nevada t
U. S. Senators and con-
gressmen, all elective pub-
lic officers, except certain
local officers.
X
New
Hampshire t..
U. S. senators and all
elective officers except cer-
tain local ones.
X
New Jersey t • • •
State, county .and mun-
cipal public officers but not
presidential electors.
X
X
New Mexico. . . .
In commission cities.
New York t
All offices to be filled at
general election, except
town, village and school
district offices and presi-
dential electors.
North
Carolina t
U. S. senators and con-
gressmen, state and dis-
trict officers.
X
X
X
North
Dakota t
U. S. senators and con-
gressmen, state and county
officers, district assessors,
judges of supreme and dis-
trict courts, members of
legislature, county com-
missioners, party dele-
gates to national conven-
tions, presidential electors
and national committee-
men.
X
X
Ohiot
U. S. senators and con-
gressmen, state and dis-
trict officers.
X
X
X
Oklahoma t
U. S. senators and con-
gressmen and all state,
district, county, township
and precinct officers.
X
Oregon t
U. S. senators, presi-
dential electors and all
elective officers.
X
X
.if
Pennsylvania t •
U. S. senators, congress-
men, elective state, county,
city and ward officers but
not presidential electors.
X
X
South
Carolina t
Direct primary is under
rules of dominant party.
X
t = Mandatory.
228
APPENDIX
Tables of Comparison of the State Primary Laws
State
Offices
Presidential
Primary
U. S.
Senator
Absent
voting
South
Dakota t
All elective offices ; presi-
dential, congressional,
state, county, legislative
and district, presidential
electors and all party del-
egates and committeemen.
Optional for city, town,
township and school dis-
trict officers.
X
X
X
Tennessee t
(1909, unconsti-
tutional. 1917
C.H8, p. 338 J
Members of general as-
sembly, governor, railroad
commissioners, U. S. sena-
tors and congressmen, but
not presidential electors.
X
X
Texas t
All state officers, candi-
dates for congress, all dis-
trict officers and those of
cities and towns.
X
X
Vermont f
U. S. senator and all of-
ficers to be chosen at a
general election.
X
X
Virgrinia
U. S. senator and con-
gressmen and all elective
officers.
X
X
Washington t...
U. S. senator and con-
gressmen, state, county
and city oflficers.
X
X
West
Virginia t
U. S. senator, congress-
men, presidential electors,
state, county and district
executive committees, del-
egates to national conven-
tions and all candidates of
political parties except
judges and certain city of-
ficers.
X
X
Wisconsin t
U. S. senators, congress-
men, state, county and city
officers:
X
X
X
Wyoming t
U. S, senator and all
oflfices to be filled by direct
vote of the people.
X
t = Mandatory.
•»— s
THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE
STAMPED BELOW
RETURN TO the circulation desk of any
University of California Library
or to tine
NORTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY
BIdg. 400, Richmond Field Station
University of California
Richmond, CA 94804-4698
ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS
• 2-month loans may be renewed by callina
(510)642-6753
• 1-year loans may be recharged by bringina
books to NRLF
• Renewals and recharges may be made 4
days prior to due date.
DUE AS STAMPED BELOW
.SEP 2 2 2001
12,000(11/95)
YB QB403
U.C.BERKELEY LIBRARIES
co^b7fllSflE
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11