had a real opportunity for free expression, a large majority might have gotten together behind some independent candidate. For instance, one man was elected mayor of a Massachusetts An example. city about a year ago by 1800 votes out of 7200; the 5400 other votes being divided nearly equally among four other candidates. The primary partisan system to prevent such mishaps has to choke off, in the interest of harmony, desirable candidates, in order not to risk a party defeat through a split ticket. . ... erential voting improves upon the present The present system necessitates the expenditure of large sums How prefof money and a great deal of time and energy to be nominated or elected. Under the preferential system no money or time need be expended in campaigns. A man can be elected on his reputation as is shown by the fact that the president of the Chamber of Commerce was elected to the Spokane city council during his absence from the city.... 208. Adequate representation of the minority 1 system. sentation Related to the question of making sure that successful candidates The aderepresent a majority of those voting, is the problem of the adequate quate reprerepresentation of the minority. To meet this last-named difficulty of the political reformers have put forth various plans for proportional minority. representation. These are designed to give minority parties representation in proportion to their voting strength. One of the earliest and best known forms of proportional representation is that applied in Illinois in 1870 in the effort to give minority parties adequate representation in the state legislature. The following passage describes the plan in use in Illinois: [The law provides] that "in all elections of representatives aforesaid, each qualified voter may cast as many votes for one candidate as there are representatives to be elected, or may distribute the same, or equal parts thereof, among the candidates, as he shall see fit; and the candidates highest in votes shall be declared elected." Under this plan it is of course true that any party having more than one-fourth of the votes in a senatorial district may elect one of the 1 From the Illinois Legislative Reference Bureau, Constitutional Convention Bulletins. Springfield, Ill., 1920; pp. 538-542. Framework of the Illinois plan of proportional representation. Importance of each party gauging its own strength. The device secured proportional representation for the two principal parties as well as for the Progressive Party in 1912, three candidates to the House of Representatives, if all of the votes of that party are concentrated upon one such candidate. A party having less than three-fourths of the votes in a senatorial district cannot elect all three of the representatives from the district if any other party having at least one-fourth of the votes has concentrated upon a single candidate; and if a party having a distinct majority, but less than three-fourths of the votes in a senatorial district, scatters its votes among three candidates, a minority party may be able to elect two candidates by a concentration of its votes upon the two. The cumulative system therefore makes it necessary that each party gauge its strength in advance of the election, and concentrate its votes in the election upon the number of candidates it thinks possible to elect. A minority party able actually to elect but one candidate may lose that one if it places two or three candidates in the field. The majority party able to elect two may lose one of the two if it places three in the field, and there have been some instances of a party failing to obtain under the cumulative system a representation in proportion to its strength, because of its placing too many candidates in the field. On the other hand, a party may fail of obtaining representation of its strength under the cumulative system because of its failure to have as many candidates as it could actually elect. That is, a party which has been a minority party in a district may place but one candidate in the field for representative, and may as the result of the particular election become the majority party with a possibility of electing two members of the house, if it had nominated two candidates. . . . With respect to the operation of the cumulative system, it may perhaps be said that the system has in the main obtained a representation for the two principal parties in the state in very close proportion to the actual votes cast by these parties, and also that the system obtained for the Progressive party in 1912 a strength in the House of Representatives proportionate to the vote cast by that party. However, the cumulative system has not obtained much of actual representation for weak minority parties, or for minority parties whose strength may be relatively great, but whose vote may be scattered somewhat evenly throughout all of the senatorial districts in the state. The Progressive party in 1912 cast a large vote, but its strength was much greater in some senatorial districts than in others. The Progressive party was, therefore, able in 1912 to elect a number of representatives proportional to the popular vote which was cast for representatives. In 1914, however, the actual vote cast for representatives by the Progressive party was much less than in 1912, and with this lesser vote the Progressive party obtained a strength in the House of Representatives disproportionately low as compared with the popular vote. . . parties have from lack tation. The same situation has presented itself with respect to other but small minority parties, which have not obtained such a strength as to be- minority come substantially the chief minority party in particular districts. continued The cumulative system in its operation has been in no way a scheme to suffer of proportional representation except as between the two principal of represenparties. . . . Perhaps the main purpose in the adoption of cumulative voting in 1870 was to do away with the distinctly sectional representation in the Illinois General Assembly, and this purpose has been accomplished. . . However, small parties have as a rule suffered from lack of representation and the cumulative system has been of little or no aid to them. ... 209. Evils of the long ballot 1 length of the ballot and the result. The wave of democracy which swept over the country in the last Increasing century had the effect of increasing the number of elective offices in American government. A greatly lengthened ballot, together with the great frequency of elections, has made it impossible for the average voter to exercise proper judgment at the polls. Fairly representative of conditions throughout the United States is the case of Ohio, in which the long ballot was formerly a great evil. In The case 1911 a Short Ballot Committee reported upon conditions in Ohio of Ohio: as follows: few officials This unsatisfactory and undemocratic development of our election At first appliances has been one of gradual growth. The first constitution were of Ohio, adopted in 1802, incorporated the principle of comparatively elective, 1 From the Municipal Association of Cleveland for the Short Ballot Movement in Ohio, Report. Cleveland, Ohio, 1911; pp. 6-10. but gradually the ballot was lengthened. Some examples of the long ballot. The burden few elective officers. The only elective officials were the Governor, members of the General Assembly, one sheriff and one coroner in each county, and such town and township officers as should be provided by law. The secretary, treasurer, and auditor of state, and judges of the courts, were appointed by joint ballot of the Senate and House of Representatives. All other civil offices, created by law, were made appointive. Experience quickly proved that this arrangement of providing for the appointment of officers by the General Assembly was unwise, for it resulted inevitably in log-rolling and in purely partisan political appointments. As a result. . . the new constitution, adopted in 1851, provided for the election of the members of the legislature, Governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, auditor of state, treasurer of state, attorney general, members of board of public works, judges of supreme, common pleas and probate courts, clerks of courts, justices of peace, and all county and township officers. The General Assembly was forbidden to exercise any appointing power, except as specifically provided for in the constitution. . . The ballot of the state and county election of 1908 contained the names of 391 candidates for forty-five separate offices, not including the twenty-three presidential electors. The ballot of the 1910 election contained the names of 210 candidates for forty-two positions. The ballot in the Cleveland municipal election of 1909 contained the names of 285 candidates. In the 1911 primary election in Cleveland 324 names appeared on the tickets of the two dominant parties. And at the November election of 1911, four tickets were submitted to the voter in each precinct in Cleveland containing the names of 132 candidates for forty distinct offices. [Recent initiative and referendum legislation promises to increase on the voter the burden on the voter.] On November 7, the voters of Cleveincreased by initiative and land, for example, were asked not only to make their choice of forty referendum officials from a list of 132 candidates representing the four political legislation. parties, but also to express an opinion upon the advisability of the city issuing $2,000,000 in bonds for building a municipal lighting plant; an opinion on the question of whether the twelve amendments recently made to the Tayler Street Railway grant by the city council are for the protection of the public interest; and also an opinion on the advisability of creating a park commission as a substitute for the present plan of park control. When the voter entered the booth on November 7, he received seven separate and distinct ballots. . . The burden on the voter in The voters of Cincinnati were confronted with an even more formidable task. They were given nine separate and distinct ballots: 1. The municipal ticket, containing names of candidates for city Cincinnati. offices. 3. Delegates to Constitutional Convention. 4. Judicial ballot in three parts. 5. Ballot providing for annexation of eight suburbs. 6. Bond issue in two parts hospital purposes. 7. Bond issue for new jail and courthouse. 8. For increased tax levy under the Smith law. 9. To provide for Agricultural Experimental Farm in Hamilton County. circumstances intelligent voting is impossible. To say that the voters in these two cities were called upon to Under such perform a difficult task is far within the facts - plainly, it was an impossible task. It is absurd to expect the average voter, whose first duty is to earn a living for himself and family, to give the time necessary to enable him to vote intelligently and with discrimination on so many candidates and at the same time on such complicated questions.... The best informed voter was probably able to vote intelligently, as we have pointed out, upon not more than one-tenth of the candidates on the various ballots and he was therefore obliged to vote ignorantly on the other nine-tenths. . remedy The shortening of the ballot is advocated as a remedy for the The proevils of the long ballot. The essential features of the short ballot posed plan are first to elect only those officers who have to do with important for the public policies and who attract and deserve to attract public attention, long and second to make the number of these officers small enough that 1 From the National Short Ballot Association, The Doctrine of the Short Bellot. New York, 1910. ballot. |