election, and intends to support the candidates named in the primary. South Dakota requires previous support of the party, belief in a "substantial part" of principles of the party, and intention to support the candidates nominated. Pennsylvania requires a declaration that the intending voter supported a majority of the party's candidates at the last election.

As the question of party suffrage has occupied the attention of legislators for the last ten years, so the registration of party voters has become one of great interest. Starting with

no lists at all, advancing to informal party lists, then on to the regular registration books used in the general elections, we find in the latest period the system of party registration introduced. A number of States have provided for such a system: Kentucky in 1892; New York in 1898; Nebraska in 1899; South Carolina in 1900; North Carolina and Connecticut in 1901; Maine and New Jersey in 1903; Iowa, Oregon and Vermont in 1904; and Michigan in 1905 are among the number. The character of these provisions is much the same in all States. At the time of registration the voter is given an opportunity of declaring his party affiliation, if any, which is then indicated in a column of the registry book. A list of party voters is then made up from these preferences, and this serves as their registry list for the ensuing primary election. In New York the declaration of affiliation is secret and the names are not disclosed until after the general election, when the lists are thrown open and in New York City are printed.

In a very few instances during this period, the party test has been abolished altogether. The California law of 1899 contained a provision which enabled the voter to cast a ballot for either party, without divulging his party preference. This clause was subsequently declared unconstitutional, however. A similar provision was contained in the Oregon law of 1901, which was also declared unconstitutional. The Minnesota law of 1899, provided for the open primary, but in 1901 this feature was abandoned. In the Wisconsin law

of 1903, absolute secrecy of the ballot is secured, and the voter may vote for candidates of whichever party he may choose. Of course, he cannot vote with both parties at the same time.

It is urged in favor of this plan that it protects the secrecy of the ballot; that it makes intimidation or undue influence impossible; that the requirement of a partisan test is both unnecessary and useless; and that the test of allegiance excludes only the honest citizen while admitting the dishonest and corrupt. It is objected, however, that without some sort of party test, the responsibility of the party for the character of the nominations made or of the platform adopted is entirely broken down. Members of the republican party may assist in the nomination of weak democrats, or vice versa; and unscrupulous leaders may readily transfer blocks of voters without regard to party lines. When a corrupt machine is threatened by the nomination of an aggressive reformer, it is possible to avert this menace by the use of available numbers of the other machine. In these ways, it is held, the responsibility of the party may be completely destroyed, or, at any rate, seriously crippled, and reform movements may be made more difficult.

On the whole, if any test is required, it would seem sufficient to exact from the voter a statement that he is in general sympathy with the principles of the party and that he intends to support its candidates generally at the next election. This eliminates the period of probation and permits the voter to pass freely from one party to the other as conditions or circumstances change. The system of party enrollment or registration seems to lay undue stress on the rigidity of party organization, although this may be to some extent offset by liberal provisions for supplementary enrollment or change of party registration. The chief objections to this system would then disappear, but also its chief merit, namely, that of keeping out the unwelcome and unscrupulous invaders of the party. This illustrates very well the inherent difficulty in all tests, namely, that of letting down the bars for the honest,

independent voter without admitting, at the same time, the dishonest and the venal. It appears, then, that no solution of the problem of party test has yet been reached and that much more practical experience and much more mature reflection will be necessary before the proper sort of a regulation can be devised.

In framing direct primary laws, an important problem arises in connection with the formation of the party platform. With the abolition of the delegate convention, the representative body of the party, how shall the declaration of party principles be drawn up? What shall be substituted for the present authority? How shall the declarations of such an authority be made binding? In local areas, where direct primaries have chiefly been tried and where differences in principle are rare, the question of the platform has not occasioned serious trouble. In larger districts, like States, however, the question becomes more important for, although distinct State issues are not so common as State campaigns, there are occasionally serious divisions of opinion in State elections and for such emergencies provision must be made in the law.

Several answers have been given in the various States. In Wisconsin provision is made for the formation of a State platform by a candidates' convention. This body is made up of all the party candidates for State office and for the legislature, together with the hold-over members of the State senate. In this way members both of the legislative and the executive departments may be committed to a definite party policy, and this party policy formally presented as the platform. In Missouri the law provides for the formulation of the platform by the State central committee acting with the party nominees for State office, for congress, and for the legislature. In North Dakota the platform is framed by the State central committee with the candidates for State office. Still another method is found in Nebraska, where each county committee elects one delegate and the delegates so chosen meet and frame the party platform. In Texas another plan is provided. On petition of 10 per cent. of the party voters,

any question of policy must be submitted to the voters of the State at the primary and, if approved by a majority, becomes a part of the platform of the party. It is also provided that no convention shall place in the platform or resolutions of the party they represent any demand for specific legislation unless it shall have been submitted to a direct vote of the people and shall have been endorsed by a majority vote of all the votes cast in the primary election of each party. Provision regarding a party referendum was contained in the Oregon law of 1901.

More commonly, however, the platform is formed by the candidate or candidates themselves. This is the general method employed in local campaigns throughout the South, and in the State campaigns of Washington and Oregon in the North. In the Oregon law, express provision is made for declaration by the candidate of the principles upon which he stands in not exceeding one hundred words and twelve words are permitted to be printed upon the ballot. But where no legal provision is made for such a declaration upon the ballot, the candidate may of course make such a statement the basis of his campaign. The shaping of the platform by the candidate seems, all things considered, best fitted to survive. Where there is a serious difference of opinions as to policies, the platform is likely under any system to be shaped by the dominant groups and will be practically the program outlined by this faction in its fight before the primary election. Generally such issues are as clearly and as sincerely defined during the primary as they would be in the platform framed by the convention, for it should not be forgotten that the average party platform is verbose and perfunctory and often serves no real purpose, since the elections are usually conducted upon the basis of national issues. Where there is no living issue of a local character, it is not likely that the question will be obscured or befogged because of the failure. of the party convention to elaborate its position on other questions.

In case definite machinery is provided, the Wisconsin plan

seems to possess some merit. The party program is made, under this system, by those who, if elected, are to carry it out; and the majority might reasonably be held to bind the minority. The platform is made after the candidates are chosen, however, and in case of an unwilling candidate, there would be no effective way of securing acquiescence in the program, either before or after the election. As compared with a platform framed either wholly or in part by the party committee, the candidate convention is far superior. Party committeemen are chosen to manage campaigns and conduct organization business, and not for their opinions upon questions of public policy or their ability to frame statements of public policy.

Under a system which provides for the selection of candidates by direct vote, the percentage of the total vote necessary for a choice is a subject of considerable importance. The common plan throughout the North and West is to require merely a plurality vote. The candidate receiving the highest number of votes is made the nominee. In the Southern States a clear majority is usually required and when no candidate receives the necessary vote, a second primary is held, in which the two leading candidates participate. As another alternative, it may be provided, as in Illinois (1905) that in case no candidate receives a majority of all the votes cast, a convention shall then make the selection. In recent years, provisions have been made requiring the candidates to secure a minimum percentage of the votes cast; thus in Michigan, 40 per cent. is required, in Iowa 35 per cent. Under the Michigan plan, if 100,000 votes are cast, there is no nomination unless some candidate receives at least 40,000 votes. If no choice is made then the convention must select the candidate.

Finally, a system of preferential vote has been advocated. Under this plan the voter indicates his first and second choices for the office and, in case no candidate receives a majority of first choices, the lowest candidate is dropped and his second choices are then distributed. This plan has been approved

« ForrigeFortsett »