‘IW HUM WU HillHll' am; 1000 ll (DLDN MERETS 0F DIRECT PRIMARY ELECTIONS Tuesis. for Degrees of M. A. Eugene Bradley Eiliott 1.926 k J 9,, , ,V I“, L - . \‘ ,. _ . ’1 l H I l H l l H l l l SLt'b’l-"fl (.7 ‘2' 3...: 3 1293 00594 8397 ‘ 7 (/11; .{g ‘sfiicyéa ”.555, J L " b; } .v'. .. c “,3: .. .~ 3 z .. " al-MAV " i . l‘ ‘ ‘ .- _ 0 .1 \( 3m? v3.52, :W‘W. - - #Aw ‘ ‘ \. ' rt ‘0‘ . " ' It} ' n " 'rl" ._ '.‘ ' ’ .L. g! .I'. 9;??? agr'r‘ - ’73.?‘t‘53‘9 '1 “fr-Q“ . .711 .1 ‘ , H'Tr" t..- . .‘I .‘ ' (5.3? ”In . w v ° '- .3551 ‘ . . M, V ‘i:.'.’ Ir', 3“ _ ' Cs: . '3); . “ g -P_ t , I ' 5 ‘ p. \ l \ \. l 2 y 9 I ' l MERITS OF DIRECT PRIMARY ELECTIONS Thesis for Depree of M. A. Eugene Bradley Elliott l 9 2 6 MERITS OF DIRECT PRIMARY ELECTIONS Out of the period of rampant one party control which folloved the Civil Jar came the necessity for more rigid supervision of politics by the peOple. The extra— legal device, the party, was driving with a free hand and the admonition of Washington not to allow parties to gain control seemed like a warning of grave danger which was being realized §n grim reality. As early as 1866, California passed voluntary laws which were laws offering the state's assistance to any primary, party convention, or voluntary association to put down fraud. These laws very naturally aimed at the primary of the party asking for state assistance. ’ A month later, April 1866, New York passed a mandetory law which soueht to guard the conventions of parties apainst bribery and intimidation of delegates. Before 1880 the laws of Uslifornia and New York were revised and made somevhat more mandatory. In many counties more supervision of primaries Pridu- ally deveIOped. In a few other states laws apainst bribery and fraud were passed. 1. American Party Systems Ch. 9 Charles 3. Merriam 2. Washington's Farewell Address 3. Primary Elections Ch. 1 & 2. bharles S. Merriam asses By 1890 half of the states were recognizing the rieht to resulete the party primary althoaeh ren- erally the :erty Has to bear the expense of coniuctin? the primary. In some states the law was voluntary as was the case in California. In other states the la: was mandatory. Some states hwd lacal prim;ries while others covered the entire state. The next decade 1890-1900 sax Many changes in resard to party resulation. With the advent of the Australian ballot, the party necesserily rained a le- gal status, that is; all parties polling tJO per-cent at the last seueral election could nominate officers and have their names placed upon the ballot .hich was printed by the various local Povernments ruther than by the partieS. During this period many cities, counties and states confined the primary sith legal regulations and the general tendency for states to assume the exhense of the votins develoyed. From merely regulatory laws the step to the direct primary was small and many states took up the new ideal, of greater power to the voter, with the Openinp of the new century until twenty-six years later we find approximately three- fourths of the states rith a direct primary. How the cry arises, whither are we going? 1 An editorial in the Kalamazoo Gazette states that with- in five or ten years the.big fight will come on Whether or not the direct primary has failed. From many other 2 quarters come the pleas of those who would return to the old convention system. Both sides of the question must be dealt with in order to arrive at an unbiased conclusion. The criticisms of the direct primary will 'first be reviewed. One of the outstanding individuals who is Opposed to the direct primary is Robert Lansing, former 3 Secretary of State. Writing in the Independent he la- ments the downfall of politicel parties and traces the final downfall to the direct primary. He urges that this was brought about by the political party breaking awey from principles,going to issueSIend the only remedy would be a return to the convention with principles predominat- ing. 4 John Godfrey Saxe sees the direct primary con- trolled by the machine as easily as wes the old conven- 5 tion system. The primaries of 1926 in Pennsylvania have 1. Kalamazoo Gazette 7/9/25 3. Lansing State Journal, 1/18/26 Literary Digest 7/10/26 pp. 10-11. here many duo- tations are given, pro end con, from vurious news- papers. 5. Independent 4/12/24 4. State Service 1917 5. Labor 6/26/26 P.1 well borne out the observitions of Mr. Saxe. Imogen B. Oakley pictures the direct primary in lennsyqunia as a political farce. The machine con- trols through the "Voters Assistance Clause". This statement of Mr. Oakley's is very sienificent since it was made in 1935. As Mr. Oakley has had intimate con- nection with the working law his criticism should be carefully considered with the previously mentioned pri- mary elections of 1926 in Pennsylvania. George H. Moses, Senator from New Hampshire Opposes the primary on the ground that it is too eXpen- sive. This point will be taken up more in detail in the body of the thesis. 5 J. N. Wadsworth believes the machine and boss can control the primary as easily as the convention and he deplores the fact that the direct nrimery is leading us into legislation by bloc instead of the party system. fiilliam Allen white sees the primary as detri- mental to the develOpment of leadership. The convention was recognized as a place where leaders were Piven a chance to disnley their abilities as leaders of their fellow men. 1. Atlantic Monthly, June 1925 2- Ind- Oct. 25. 1924. Vol. 113 P. 503 5- Ind- Oct- 25. 1924. Vol. 113 P. 505 4. Ind. J1.5, 1925. 1 O.K. Davis thinks the direct primary is des- troying our political institutions and substituting direct action by the masses who are inferred to be be- low the ability of choosing officers. Mr. David Lewerence sees the investigation be~ ine conducted by Congress of the Iennsylvenie primaries, a bi-pertizan attack %n the whole primary system. Senator Reed of Pennsylvani: thinks the pri- mary system at fault rather than corruption in the 1926 primaries of his state. Senator Reed is also quoted as saying, "Conditions were not worse in Pennsylvania than in any other state and if the lid was taken off of any other state the same stench mould so up". Not only these men referred to but many others are Opposed to the direct primary for various reasons. These arguments dFdinSt the primary system will be dis- cussed first, then the areuments favoring the direct primary system Will be reviewed and a conclusion drawn. First among the defects of the direct primary system is the loJerine of party responsibility. Vriters writing on either side of the controversy recognize that party responsibility is greatly lessened by the direct 1. Ind. April 12, 1924 2. Literary Digest, June 86, 1926, F.7 3. Lansing otate J1. July 2, 1926, morning edition 4. Literary Disest July 10, 1926. P. 10 1 primary. Dr. Arnold Dennett Hall devotes an entire treatise, "The Direct lrimery and Party Responsibility in Wisconsin". Dr. Hall's outlines party responsibility as a development of the pirty system based on two per- ties or in states where one party predominates the two actions of that party. Since the party is extra con- stitutional no provision was made in the national con- stitution for the nomination of the perties' officers. The state constitutions folloving the example of the national constitution did not prescribe how the offi- cers should be nominated or to even regulate nomine- tions until the early party of the twentieth century and the advent of direct primaries. The influential men of a party nominated certain men, for various reasons, to leed the party and thus avoid a scstt.red vote which would split the party followers in the election, giving the Opposite party the power. if then s party of necessity nominated men the party was responsible for the sets of these men and in turn the men nominated were responsible to the party. The contention is that the peOple now nomin- ate the party officers and these officers ahen elected l. Annals of the em. Aced. of Pol. & doc. Science, Vol. 106, P. 41. are not reSponsible to the party through nhich they en- tered office, but to the peeple who nominated and placed them in office. If the party interest runs counter to the interest of the constituent of the officer he will favor his constituent. Strong party men who believe a reSponsible party system is the best means for governing a democ- racy are greatly alarmed by the direct primary system and its undermining of party responsibility Hhich offi- cers feel tovnrd the party. Exemples of this are seen in the trentm~nt of certain party issues by the members of Congress from some of our mid-western states who were chosen by the direct brim ry method. 7 he doctrine or theory that on many issues public opinion Can not function because the proolem lies outside the rinre of public thinhins r at least lies out- side the ranye of possibility of the public painine ex- pery kno;ledge on the subject is sound. it is on this that "-irty men tuite senorilly have a reel foundation for their attitude toward the ngrty. The second reason sener;lly put forward by Opponents of the direct primary is that voters do not stay by their party at the primaries. For instance in 1. Report of Senator Norris, Uongressionel Record, April 13, 1934. l the hichisen primaries of 1934 many democrats left their party to vote for a member of the Opposite party who mes considered a weaker csndidate then their own. Their out- standing min fies not having strenuous competition because Michieen is e one party state and the bis fieht comes in the primary of the lending firty end not in the primari- es of the weaker parties. In votins for the weak candi- date of the predominute party the theory is that could this week candidate min in the primaries, then in the election the strong candidate of the weaker party may win. In the election the members will rally around their own lender securing many votes from the predomin- ate party for their strong candidate. This argument assinst the direct primary is also valid and legislatures have endeavored to cope with the situation. The Hichieen leeisluture of 1924-1925 failed to pass a law compelling a voter to stay by his party in the primaries. It is doubtful if the courts would recognize the validity of such a law, were it anSed, for certainly it is s decided infringement of personal liberty not to be allowed to vote for whom one chooses. It is true that the non-partisan ballot would avoid this but those favoring political parties would not think of ueine the non-pertisen ballot and there is evidence from the Minnesota legislature of 1. From observations and conversations with different peOple in the fall of 1924. l 1916 that the non-partisan ballot would not prove success- ful with large groups. A third defent 2f the direct nrimary is the ex- treme length of the ballot. In the larger states, espec- ially new York, the primary ballot is of great length. It is in the larger states an imoossible task for the aver- age voter to know even a major number of the men seeking his vote. During the Michigan primaries of 1924 several peOple were asked if they were able to set authentic information resardine candidates for the various offices. Fractically the only information would be a biased account by some particular creed or faction. This is not a reflection on the desire of a voter to learn what he can but it is impossible to find the time and means to secure the information concerning fifty to three hundred men. A further proof that voters do not know thegr candidates is found in an act of the State of.Michigan which provides for the chaneing of the order of candi- dates' names on the primary ballot. It has been found that the first and last name have decided advantages over those names falling between. . Annals of the Am. Pol. & boc. Dci. Vol. 106, P.90 a. Article by Dr. Karl 5. Geiser in the Annals, Vol. 106, P. 32 3. House Act 192 State of Michigan. .LU. This defect is outstandins in the direct pri- mary because the average voter cannot ascertain when to best nominate for the multitude of minor offices. Un- doubtebly the old convention system was able to give some attention to minor offices, at least the minor offi- cers could be kept in line with those hisher in authori- ty. Thus we find those desiring a return to the old system again have legitimate grounds unon which to base their argument. A fourth defect and a reason given by many for the over-throw of the direct primary is the eXpense. It is argued and rightfully that in one narty states the choice is really made at the primary, the election fol- lowing being an added burden of exnense. The expense to candidates is also ursed by many as being much greater under the direct nrimary plan, it beinp necessary for the candidate to largely finance his ONn cemoaisn. It is readily seen that a personal letter to each voter in a state the size of Ohio would run into thousands of dollars. One letter wauld not be enoush for it should be folloJed by others. 1. Not borne out in kenn. Erimeries of 1926. See IILabor" June 26, 1986, 1.1. 11. In the rennsylenia primaries of 1986 watchers, which are lesal under the rennsylvanie law, were paid $12.00 a day. According to Governor Finchot's lieuten- ant 49,490 watchers were employed by Vere end lepper 2 forces. This primary is known as the £5,000,000 primary so it is very evident that much money cvn be spent in 5 the primary. It is to be observed that much money was contributed to the fennsylVHnia cemnnign. Vere is quot- ed as contributing $71,455 out of $604,905; Eepper $125,000 of $1,086,429 and Pinchot $45,707 out of $195,102. As the job these men vere serkins curried e snlnry of but $10,000 a year even the amounts nemed seem out of all proportion. Some have maintained that erinary eXpenses should be limited but it is hard to say just how much should be eXpended for the nrOper norkinp out of a competitive direct primary so that the reoele mZy be proberly informed. In fact the industrial group m~y find it imperative to Keep some very socialistic lender from securing office in order to protect their large holdings. go far it hes not been considered the best policy to heve the state beer the eXpense of the indivi- 1. Literary Digest, June 26, 1936 2. Literary fiisest, July 10, 1936 P. 10 5. Literary Eisest June 26, 1936 P. 5 4. Literwry wisest, June 36, 19:6. 1. 7 dunl's advertising in the primary. Certainly the party could not from the very nature of the case pay the ex- penses of those seekins to secure the nominetion. Ihere is much that own be siid in favor of the state bearing the expense of advertising the candidates. However, so many people would probably attempt to seek the nomine- tion that the plan would not pnave feasible. In cluse connection with expenses comes the influence of advertising. There serms to be a general tendency for people to believe everything they read, hence it is said by those who do not favor the primary system that the wealthiest candidate or the machine candidate can buy the most advertising ypece and thus influence the greater number and incidentally secure the largest vote at the primary. it is relatively easy for the mechine to choose its candidate and then con- centrate on him, thus thwarting the aim of the direct 1 primary. Those Opposed to the direct primary system infer that this would not take place in the convention system. this argument for doing hUJy ;ith the direct primary hardly has enoush real truth in it to be Horthy of great consideration for it has been shomn under the 1. "Labor" June 26, 1936. 1.1 Col. 7. F“ ‘1 convention system that money and the machine easily controlled nominations. Since it is a recognized fact that one Of the outstandins reasons for seekine wealth is love of power and the ability to demand power the wealthy candidate for an office has an advantaee over his competitors whether he is running for Office on his own initative or as the choice of his party. The sixth argument which is given by the Op- position is that party leadership is destroyed and is directly Opposed to the areumeng that the machine still controls. As Charles S. Merriam points out, if the ma- chine still Operates then also does party leadership. Therefore, if we have one, we have the other, according to their own areument. Vlose students of party affairs, however, must face the question. Did we have reSponsible leader- ship under the convention system? Could the poeple at any time say that, that man or that this man was reSpon- sible? if one is honest with himself he vould certainly have to admit that party leadership under the convention was rather varue and certain acts did not please the people. 1. Kalamazoo Gazette, July 9, 1925 (Editorial) 2. Annals of the em. head of Pol. & Doc. Dci. Vol. 106, P. 6 14. Taking all things into consideration it is pro- bable that leadership may as easily be develOped under the direct primary as under the convention. Many men have been nominated by the direct primary who have shown decided abilities at leadership. Jilson in New Jersey, Borah, Lowden, Uummins, and others are examples. If leadership has been stifled it is due to causes other than the direct primary. The seventh argument is that few peOple vote at the prinaries. On first thought this arsument seems to contain much truth. Further analysis will reveal, however, that three situations exist which play an im- portant part in the final outcome. First: Uertainly a greater number of peOple cast their Opinion under the direct primary than would be possible with a few delegates at a convention. It may also be shown that many delegates vote very blindly in the convention. Secondly: PeOple not knowing the qualifica- tions hesitate to vote at all, thus no harm is done. More will be said of this phase in connection with the short ballot. The third point which must be taken into con- l5 sideration is, what the statistician terms "sampling". The illustration freiuently used is that if it is de- sired to know the averape freight of a thousand men only one hundred chosen at random :ould actually need to be measured. The average of the one hundred would be approximately that of the thousand. Thus it follows when the rule is applied to the ballot if forty or fifty percent of the voters vote the result would be very little different if one hundred percent voted. The voters vote at random and as they please, therefore, it does not follow that the result would be materially different if all voted. 5he only reason why ”sampling" would work imperfectly would be the case of the machine or faction being able to control blocs of votes so as to thwart the principle of random votinp. These seven reasons are the principal ones given by those who would discard the direct primary. Some have much truth in them and show real defects of the primary, others have merely a semblance of truth and, therefore, are not justified. Just as there are prominent men denouncins the direct primary so there are outstanding men who believe in the primary and who have ans ers to the l6. arguments of the Opposition even though admitting that the direct primary has many faults. Hever-the-less they believe the direct primary is a step forward and the idea of the people nominating their own officers is reaching unaard to the ideals upon which this govern- ment is founded. Governors, the type of Alex Groesbeck and Al omith are heartily in favor with the theory of the direct prim ry. The Annal: for 1985 gives a list of fourteen governors who replied to a questionnaire, then were in favor and fOur Opposed to the direct primary. In referring to the attitude of the governors in gen- eral on the question of the direct primary it may be Only fair to state that their attitude may be bivsed due to the fact that they were in most cases nominated by the direct primary and their position was stronger because of that fact. Governor Groesbeck of Michigan in running for the third time ?ould probably have had a much harder time to secure his nomination before a machine controlled convention due to the efforts of many leaders who would like to cause his downfall. The idea of passing offices around is not economic nor does it make for good government. If good reliable men get in they should be retained as long as possible. 1. The Annals of the am. ecad. of Pol. 50c. 5ci. F. 53-62, Vol. 106 17. l Congressman Borah gives at sreat detail and in no uncertain terms his sanction of the direct pri- mary system and looks upon any attempt by men to des- troy it as a menace to grue democracy. Denator Norris of Nebraska believes in the direct primary and has written upon the subject. In concluding one treatise he says, "A citizenship that is sufficiently intelligent to vote a Penrral elect- ion Hill never surrender to others the right to name the candidates of that election". To Qharles 5. merriam the direct primary has many desirable features and the public will con- tinue to improve the direct primary until its florst faults hLve been ironed out and it becomes a workable institution. Further mr. Merriam sees the root of dissatisfaction going deeper than nominating iystems. To tuese nines might be added others who champion more rights for the masses, however these names will serve to rive some idea of how others feel in regard to the direct hrimary. The points as given by the Opposition will be taken up from the ample of those favoring the direct election. 1. Gonsressional decord, April 12, 1934. 2. The annals, Vol. 106, F. 7 3. american garty Dystems, 9.8. Merriam, Ch. 9 4. Literary JJisests June 36, 1936 and July 7, 1926 discussions for and spainst the nrim-airy systems are wuoted from many sources. 18. Those NhO favor the direct primary clearly recoenize that party res‘onsibility is lessened end a man nominated by the people is much more reseonsi- ble to that people than to the rarty to which he be- lOnes. many peonle see in the limerine of party res- ponsibility, the dOJn full of the party system and a rise of bloc lesislation. Inerefore, these would seek a method whereby the people may nominite and party res- ponsibility retained. Others, line uenator Dorah, would throw over party responsibility and in its place raise up individual reaponsibility backed by a reSpon- sible people. This idea of uenator Borah's has much of idealism in it and would perhaps cork in a very des- irable fashion if neonle would not seek for personal aggrandizement rather than social welfare. It may even be an ideal which we are eagerly reachine toward and which is nearly nithin our erase. it is on this point that weople are divided and is in reality the crux of the whole primary problem for the party sys- tem has so Prounded itself in the thinkins of democ- ratic peOples as to be almost the only method of se- 1. Consressional Record, April 13, 1924. l9. curing government. Most of the states Operate on the plan of the closed primary but so far no plan has been devised for maintaining party alignment and apparently it is an in- herent right for a voter to vote for whom he pleases re- gardless of party affiliation. The fact that party alignment can not be main- tained is clearly a defect of the primary if the party should be considered to be finally the ideal method of government. Many laws have been passed to compel party alienment. The challenge is sometimes used but a man can very easily evade this. There have been other attempts to pass laws compelling party alignment, for example: In bouth Dakota under the Richard's primary it was pointed out by the Attorney General when party alignment was trying to be enforced, "A voter who was a democrat yesterday may legally be a Republican to- morrow". It may also be that in actual practice the party pledge is not violated to the degree that would seem possible. If the voter were concentrating on a few officers in either party the necessity to stay by one's party would be more prevalent and the desire to l. The Annals of Am. fol. & Doc. Dci. Vol. 106, P. 201. 20. change to the other party at the primary would prove a hazardous undertaking for one's true Opinion. That the ballot is too large for the range of ordinary consideration on the part of the average voter there can be little doubt. Many who believe in the ba- sic ideals of the direct primary feel that the short ballot would cure many of the ills now observed in the pOpular system of nominating. The short ballot would do three things. First: The number of candidates running for office would fall within the voter's power to leain of the candidates' qualifications. frofessor Merriam sug- gests that even the old convention system would be rid of many of its faults with a short ballot and he is convinced that the road of the direct primary would be much easier to travel. Decond: If only the officers indicate were chosen by the peonle it noxld mean a higher type of officer for more responsible positions as these offi- cers would be responsible for the lower officers whom they appoint. If the privilege of appointment were misused the State could very easily make these minor 1. The Annals Vol. 106 B. 7 21. offices civil service appointments which would place them out of the range of the Spoils system. As a third item the short ballot may develop an assembly-manurer plan after the manner of our coun- cil-manager plan in many cities. This system ;ou1d put thelstate on a business basis. A1though there are rea- sons why this plan may not deve10p there appears at present a great tendency toward greater concentration. In answering the eXpense of direct primary elections it may be said that should the end of sood government be accomplished then no eXpense is too great In speaking of the 1926 Pennsylvania primaries it is interesting to note that the hiring of "watghers" at $10.00 a day was not in violation of any law. It was largely due to these "watchers" that the huge sums were piled up. Lrimaries like the 1936 Iennsylvania and Illinois primaries seem to be only for rich men. The Norfolk, Virginian-Filo: recognizes that rich men have a decided advantase any place in politics, but thinks the direct primary has been more favorable to the poor man than the old convention. As an example it gives Brookhart of Iowa. 1. (a) The peOple generally hesitaie to give great power to a few (b) "ould remove the politician 2. Literary Digest, June 26, 1926 P. 6 5. Literary Digest, July 7, 1926 P. 11 (Y) (c O l senator Norris says, "I am satisfied the dir- ect primary has been instrumental in puttine more poor men into office than the convention system". ) >4 The Newark News says, "The convention would have been easier and cheaper for the rich men", in Speaking of the primaries in Pennsylvania for 1936. 0 John M. Baer cartoons the situation well for he shows that inside the closed doors of the con- vention the peoples' voice is seldom heard but with the megaphone of the direct primary, the voice of the people is readily heard. If money then is to be spent it is Poing to develop much less graft if it is under the search-lisht of public Opinion. A Pennsylvania primary where money was used without stint may shock a great nation but out of it will come a more intellisent and moral public Opinion which Jill make similar graft harder to carry out. The two arguments that the machine that the machine controls the direct primary and that the dir- ect primary destroys leadership need scarecely be 1. The Annals, Vol. 106 P. 26 2. Literary Digest, July 10, 1926 I. ll 3. Labor July 51, 1926. P. 4 -'_\'J ()3 answered by those desiring to further establish the direct primary. As has been pointed out these argu- ments are in Opposition to one another. That the machine has been able to control the primaries in some places is not doutted but that leadership is destroyed stands on very weak foundation, for, we will have leaders regardless of systems. Lenders are made of material which trumples down environment although the direct primary may be a serious obsta- cle in the path of the party boss who JlSheS to balley-hoo voters for personal Reins. Again, if the direct primary does not in- terfere with "bossism" why are party men and party bosses pointing out this es en outstandine meekness of the direct primary? Ihe very fact that the party boss argues that the direct primary is a failure is proof sufficient that it is a tremendous success. The argument that few vote under the direct primary has already been answered in the criticism of this when considered under the Opposition ersuments. If it is considered hirhly desirable to set out near- ly all the electorate then let issues be cleen cut and 1. Labor, June 26, 1926. P.l 24. concise. People will vote on issues or candidates when they lie within their comprehension and power of analy- sis. As stated before the short ballot does much to make the direct orimery concise and possible of compre- hension. Before drawing final conclusions it will per- haps be well to review a few of the more important reme- dies which have been given as possiole cures for the ills of the direct primary. Elaborate systems for securinp.the choice of voters have been made. These are generally from the FrOportionul Representation Lee ue and the Hare system is outstanding. The Hare system was used in Michigan at Kalamazoo but was declared illegal in a decision handed down by the Michigan.Supreme Court, beptember 30, 1920. Although the Hare system which is very ela- borate, involves a first and a second choice. Jhile it is extremely doubtful if it is ever used to any extent because of its unwieldliness. Another system much like the Here plan is the Preferential vote, where first and second choice is made. This system is elaborate and hence hard to 85. use. Another serious defect is that voters do not actu- ally register their second choice. Idaho, Indiana, North Dakota, Louisiana, flashineton, and Hisconsin have used the plan only to discard it. In the Richards' plan in South Dakota much is made of the "Paramount Issue”. This is a statement of the party's platform in eight words. When we find plat- forms lixe "Patriotism, Progress, PrOSperity, Honesty, Economy, Law and Order", being given we wonder what might not be put in. From this it is easily seen hon absurd it is to compel a statement of platform. In 1921 the Richards' Primary was changed somenhat by the legislature of fiouth Dakota. This system is also very complicated and will probably never become at all uni- versal in the United States. The pre-primary conventio: has been favored by many as a means of articulating party reaponsibili- ty, with the direct primary. Schulyer C. Wallac: dis- cusses the pre-primary convention; going into detail with regard to the exact procedure in the various states. In speaking of the pre-primary convention, 1. The Annals, Vbl. 106 s. 164 2. Lansing State J1. February 4, 1926, January 12. 1936. Also Detroit News, January 10, 1926. 3. The Annals, Vol. 106, P. 97. In! 26. which is often because of the primary law, informal he says, "If the convention is held before the primary, there is a strong probability that some action formal or tacit, will be taken with reference to party nomin- ees". This means that generally the direct primary would be but an automatic ratification of the machine's choice where the machine Operates in either a mandatory or informal pre-erimary. It is true that this would preserve party responsibility but destroys the aim of the direct primary. In 1922, in Michigan, the Demo- crats by a ore-primary conference, were able to suc- cessfully band together to nominate Woodbridge N. Ferris who was later chosen as Senator in the elect- ion. In NeN York State the designee of the machine apparently has had no great difficulty in being cho- sen at the primary election with only tacit agree- ment before hand. Much was made of the attempt of Highland Park, Michigan to stage a pre-primar;. Here five organizations, the Highland Park W'omen's Club, the Exchange Club, Kiwanis Club, Trinity M.E. Church, and the Highland Park League of women Voters stood behind the pre-primary. There was no effort to do 1. Detroit News, anuary 10, 1926. ‘7 I. . away with the primary but the pre-primary was called to arouse interest. It was the plan for the Various organizations to hand in the names of nominees and when the primary vote was taken there were to be six 1 nominees chosen from thirteen aspirants. Although the pre-primary was Fiven much credit for the heavy vote at the primary, the old Hackett-Good feud play- ed an important part. The greatest weakness in maintaining the Highland Park tyne of pre-primary would be the lack of interest on the part of organiza- tions. also the question may be fairly asked, Has any organization, whether Food or bad, the rieht to put forxard nominees? If it is right for a club then it is riPht for the party machine. It is to be ob- served that the pre-primary convention Operating in a mandatory manner could make the direct primary but a farce. The use of the pre-primary in nation wide politics is rather distant in the estimation of Professor William munro due to the difficulty of a- 1. Detroit News, February 28, 192 8. Ind. J1. 5, 1925. 28. mending the national constitution. In order to get con- certed action in all the states the amendment Hould be necessary. There does not seem to be a very great de- mand as yet for mationel direct primaries. If the tvo party method of governing a demo- cracy is ideal then the pre-primury.offers the best so- lution to the problem at the present time. The pre- primary will, in many ces.s, prove to be the nominat- ing force nith the reonle merely giving formal assent. However, should the people desire, the machinery of government is present for them to nominate their own officers unless through continual neglect the pouer became void. Had the yrs-primary ides been conceived be- fore the direct primiry ides, it is possible that it mieht have been used very successfully in the evolu- tion of greater poner to the peonle. Coming after the direct primary, hovever, it probably will not nrove very successful. Perhaps the direct nrimtry laws were evol- ved before the time was ripe and they are too ideal- istic for this period in national termination. But will the peOple see their shins thrown idly by uhen they well know the faults xre due to the idealism of the sys- tem rather than the fundementel theory? Ideally it is greater to put reenonsibility upon the individual candidate and upon the Voter ratder than to have it lodsed in the remote norkines of a nerty organization. The officer who can put aside party, who Can put aside cliiue, who can put aside selfish inter- ests is after all the ideal officer for which republi- can forms of government must have to represent the people. The voter who views society instead of self is the only voter fit to inherit e democratic govern- ment. Although the party system has always gone hand in hand with a democracy in large nation states never- the-less there is nothing intrinsic in a party which muhes the purty all powerful regardless of the peeples' ability. The struggle of more power for the people has been long. Wars have been fousht, men have died, and women have fled from their homes in order that the peOple mipht rule themselves. Although there is a 50. tendency to Keep men in office longer and that is very right, the peeple Wish to say who these-men are to be who shall rule them. The "Direct Primary Election" offers the only solution and should be regarded as a necessity which should be improved rather than to be replaced by the old convention. 1 As Doctor Merriam stated under any system the short ballot would be of great benefit and it is nearly a necessity for the successful operation of the direct primary. It would mean more power and reSponsibility to a few which would mean men of high- er caliber would gravitate to these positions. With the best possible man in office and these men direct- ly responsible to the peOple a government certainly could never go very far from governing the people rightly. The short ballot would make it possible for the voter of average ability to secure information concerning the candidates and issues. No matter what systems may come or go, the onward trend of government is more power to the aver- age individual citizen. To go back to the convention system would be to take power from the people and l. The Annals of the Am. Doc. of £01. & Soc, 8010 V01. 106, 1070 hence obstruct the onward progress of government. Re- gardless of parties, eXpense or the will of party boss- es, the people will never see their power curtailed in any major attempt although here and there direct pri- maries may be abolished. Just as people formally ar- gued that the direct election of Senators would break down the representative form of government, so do peonle argue that the direct primary will eventually break down.the American Republic from a governmental stand point. The ideal is greater power and resnonsibi- lity to the individual officer and the individual voter and toward that ideal we must aim in our most idealistic moments. BIBLIOGRaPflY Nominating Systems Charles a. Merriam Ph.D., L.L.D. Direct Primaries Charles nettleborough, Ph.D. Removable Obstacles to the success of the Direct Primary H.W. Dodds, Secretary, National Municipal League. "Why I Believe in The Direct lrimary". Senator George H. Norris. Defects in The Direct Primary Karl F. ueiser, Ph.D. The Direct Primary and Party Responsibility in disconsin. Arnold Bennett Hall J.D. Opinions of Public Men on the Value of The Primary William 3. Hannah, Librarian, H.Y. State Library Reform of Presidential Nominating Systems P. Onnan Ray, Ph.D. Party Platforms in State rolitics Ralph S. Boots, University of Nebraska Non-Partisan Nominations and Electiins Robert Eugene Cusqman, Th.D. lre Primary Conventions, Schyler T. Wallace. PrOportionnl Representations in the United States 0.5. Hoag. Prevention of Minority Nominations for State Offices in the Direct Primary Benjamin H. Hilliams, Ph.D. I! .II |‘ The California Direct rrimery Prof. Victor J. Jest The Direct Primary Law in Maine and How it Has Worked Orren vnelmer Honnell, Ph.D. Operation of the State-Hide Direct trimary in New York State. Louise Overacker, M.A. The Workings of the Direct lrimsry in Iowa Prof. Frank E. norack The Operations of the Richard's Trimsry Clarence A. Berdnhl, Ph.D. The Operation of the Direct Irimsry in Indiana Frederic H. Guild Digest of Trimery Election Laws Charles Kettleborough, Ih.D. The fore-going references are to be found in The Annals of the American academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 106 IE. 1 — 274 Magazines, papers and periodicals. Kalamazoo Gazette. Literury Digest Lansing State Journal Labor Independent State Service atlnntic Monthly Additional boons and writings. American Party vystems. Charles S. Merriam Washington's rerevell Address :c'rimary Elections. C. $.l1ermam. J4. ‘V “in “55.219: W- ‘ 7?- ”Rs? f o '- ‘ ‘ u ‘ vc’ I . V 7 .‘ _ . V',‘ L .I* -.~, D'- ' .- I . 5:1 ";§$u t. .' . ' : f’fi‘lix} . .‘l‘b'M‘i rt .‘fir ’fiMQ-N' . .‘ . ‘1. 'yfi \' . fit" . "1,347?" ft?!“ éa é‘fi'?‘ ‘7; I 07;." ¢"""3: .1; v A -“-‘_| 0‘ ' ‘fq‘ . , .' ' -‘ . Nth-“'5. A ' ’ 1g 9.2'.-1:‘~5.o,41.7_ ,, "\r' M ‘fl~}1“,‘.’b¢:\""\'2¥u'fh‘ ‘éii ...“',. . 2‘: tci' ‘$:"1‘vV:"£i-fj¢°'w;'.m?. '- '3, ti: .‘ M «w 3.»: {It ' "'1“ W, .fiH ‘ - i¥;¢§'f¥§t‘ 1»; ~ .. r. '3 “as.“ “U x m - Ch, 4". 2‘ ; l J: u, r '.. 933:)? )‘ , . .(' (.I I 7J‘;%5 '5 3&4.“ ' O O "1! . ‘ “‘.'. > a. . . ‘ . . . , ‘. ‘x¢tl'..(g’ fi‘..r‘ I. ‘6 '03.: u\‘ '7». ' _ o r .1. ' 7 > Viqal‘g'} r451.- ? -'~ , ' .. £2" ["fz‘sg‘fli-‘é‘c.’ ‘: . 1.4 g. ‘ . .. ‘ - ‘ 'v' I J . 8- is" ' " u ‘ '4 z . , a“! 6% "". .' "V" J!“ H IL.‘ Y"~"'~“”‘ \ ' “2A.! “, .51.". .‘g V ‘I "-‘|' ‘ . IL.- '.' d'fl‘c "‘ . t?- x. "J'fl't-Q" . ‘7 "o'fi19 W“. f‘kh ' " ‘1' '0’“. I .1 “‘7”: \;_ ~ 4‘ it "‘jufiia- Suzi " t ‘J-'\"\' ’ . 1“ "‘->" - ’?Q "#\~ Dr' ~ * '..‘ -h . " .71...‘ ‘ t ‘ ' ' ~. f w Kr ' -.I 'w‘ ~ g ‘ ‘ J.’ '- . "Li . ' "u. 1‘.‘ “C H 'V" . . . ' ' I w ‘ | I§‘ I 1 u ‘ . . ' I, I H‘ ‘ . | ' - . J x ‘ ‘ . #:199} .[{‘l'- 1‘ . ' ‘ ‘ , ‘1' )."‘?:,{; I" ,. l.‘ , , ’1 ‘5 . x:- (£33.... {,‘}$鑧§x-Y ‘ ‘, ._ '3 , .'~. I b b r: all} Ayzf'll‘\“fi§ . L 5“._.'..,e. ‘3 v. It?) . . L . L" f: :4: 5 I: . ".T 3—. t' g ’ l‘ ' ' ' " . .- . . .5. . i '5. _ f“.b}u#f ; A". .' r 3.: ‘2' '3 .‘, 9“ ‘l ‘ '\ -£\? ‘2 ifitx‘ my ‘ ...%1‘v. , ‘- ‘k ‘4‘.» I' ' 'V.£ %P_" . . l .‘.' ‘ ‘_ 4‘ ' . . J h " f ‘ M ' :‘Vfi ' ..._ ‘ .1135! I . >58 ~ . .r Jr. 3%?“le ‘fmfiv' FT”" ' ‘. ,. . Iv),— -" ICHIGRN STQTE UNIV. LIBRQRIES lllllli ”Hill Ill IIHIIN IN I "HI 9 4 312 30059 8397