JF 
 
 1023 
 
 Bz 
 
 UC-NRLF 
 
&M1 
 
 *wm 
 
 RLV'jHr 
 
 •z/vkw-- 
 
THE DEFEAT OF PARTY DESPOTISM 
 
 Re-enfranchisement of the Individual Citizen. 
 
 AN ARGUMENT FOR THE RESTORATION OF 
 
 MAJORITY ELECTIONS, PRESENTED TO THE 
 
 MASSACHUSETTS REFORM CLUB, 
 
 BOSTON, OCTOBER 2, 1886, 
 
 LEONARD WOOLSEY BACON. 
 
 Published by request of the Club. 
 
 BOSTON : 
 
 Press of Rockwell and Churchill, 39 Arch Street. 
 
 1886. 
 
THE DEFEAT OF PARTY DESPOTISM 
 
 Re-enfranchisement of the Individual Citizen. 
 
 AN ARGUMENT FOR THE RESTORATION OF 
 
 MAJORITY ELECTIONS, PRESENTED TO THE 
 
 MASSACHUSETTS REFORM CLUB, 
 
 BOSTON, OCTOBER 2, 1886, 
 
 BY 
 
 LEONARD WOOLSEY BACON. 
 
 Published by request of the Club. 
 
 BOSTON : 
 
 Press of Rockwell and Churchill, 39 Arch Street. 
 
 1886. 
 
\f> 
 
 <& 
 
 * > 
 
 
 ' 4' 
 
 G-' 
 
 & 
 
Fellow- Citizens of the Reform Club : — 
 
 In laying before you a plan for the defeatfof party despotism 
 I have the great advantage of being assured of your interest in 
 the object proposed, and thus of being relieved of the burden of 
 a large part of my argument. / That party despotism exists, and 
 is not much more tolerable for being nominally vested in two 
 parties instead of one ; and that it exists as a continual mischief 
 and formidable peril to the commonwealth,^- these are propo- 
 sitions which, as a society for political reform, you will be ready 
 to admit without protracted discussion. It is substantially true, 
 and is growing every year to be more absolutely and exclusively 
 true, that the American citizen is shut out from any effective 
 share in political affairs, from municipal to national, except by 
 virtue of his membership in, or his subserviency to, one of two 
 great extra-constitutional and extra-legal organizations. Inde- 
 pendently of his relation to one of these great combinations, the 
 citizen is not only practically excluded from official functions, but 
 even his freedom as a voter is narrowed down so near to the 
 vanishing point that the exercise of the voter's franchise is getting 
 to be more and more neglected, as an act merely formal and 
 futile. And, to the great detriment of the republic and the degra- 
 dation of its political life, this neglect of political duties tends to 
 become more and more general among those classes of citizens 
 who, by reason of superior intelligence and independence and 
 conscientiousness of character, are the least likely to move in 
 subserviency to the requirements of a party organization. 
 
 There are simple souls, no doubt, who will consider all objec- 
 tions to the supreme domination of parties to be completely met 
 by asking, What, after all, are parties, but the people themselves 
 dividing naturally, according to the opinions or predilections of 
 each individual, on important questions as they emerge? What, 
 then, is the success and domination of the greater party but the rule 
 
 312652 
 
of the majority of the people ? These are apt to be old-fashioned 
 people, whose guileless notions have come down to them from 
 earlier ages of the republic, and who do not know that a pai;ty in 
 modern America is an entity as real as an army ; that it is a cor- 
 poration in every respect except this, that it is neither recognized 
 by law nor responsible to law ; that the Republican party and the 
 Democratic party, bating the matter of a charter and the ques- 
 tionable privilege of suing and being sued, are as individual, as 
 actual, as personal, as the New York & New England Railroad 
 Company. £lt is hardly necessary to spend time in refuting the 
 obsolescent notion that the party comes into existence with political 
 exigencies, and then ceases until it is reanimated with the return- 
 ing need. I am speaking to those who are better informed, — 
 who are aware that the organization which dazzles the world at 
 election time with its torches and fireworks and its more than 
 pyrotechnic eloquence, does not cease when the election is over ; 
 that not more diligently are the campaign torches and other 
 properties laid away, with such of the jokes, anecdotes, and 
 metaphors as will keep, to be furbished up and brought out again 
 at the beginning of the next campaign, than the organization 
 itself is put into complete repair and kept in sufficient activity to 
 prevent it from rusting. The party is not an annual, dying at 
 the root and springing again from seed. It makes a woody stalk, 
 — yea, it becometh a tree ; and very queer are some of the birds, 
 of strange and not beautiful feather and of cacophonous note, 
 and not in the least delicate in their taste for carrion, which come 
 and make their nests in the branches thereof. It is an 
 organization that can be maintained only by a martial severity 
 of discipline towards mutineers and deserters, at the first 
 symptoms of disaffection or independent judgment, shooting 
 them politically dead on the spot; but paying for professional 
 services with such rewards as it has to dispose of. For profes- 
 sional services it must have. Notwithstanding all the volunteer 
 and amateur service that is rendered during the excitement of an 
 election " campaign," so vast and complicated a machine as a 
 political party needs a great amount of skilled and professional 
 labor, and must be tended, even when it is idle, by experts who 
 give their whole time to it, and who are possessed with the mis- 
 
taken idea that " they must live." The parts of the machine are 
 geared together with immense ability, — a system of wheels with- 
 in wheels. The outer periphery is made up of the large multi- 
 tude of voters, who, by force of conviction, or of interest, or of 
 tradition, or of mere habit and inertia, are accustomed to call 
 themselves by the party name, and to vote its ticket with more or 
 less regularity. Within this is geared the circle of amateur par- 
 tisans, who so far identify themselves with the party's affairs as to 
 frequent the nominating caucus. A still smaller and interior 
 circle is the ring of professional politicians, who give their whole 
 time to politics, and, in one way or another, make their living out 
 of it. And, in the inmost centre of all lies coiled the boss, who 
 makes the whole go round. The small residuum of liberty that 
 is left to the individual citizen at the ballot-box is to decide be- 
 tween two such organizations and their candidates. And even 
 this apparent liberty is sometimes rendered nugatory by the 
 operation of that well-known principle that "where combination 
 is possible, competition is out of the question." The fact is not 
 infrequent, and tends to become more and more common, that the 
 two ostensibly hostile parties are really managed in collusion. 
 These fierce contests, waged with such a show of intense ani- 
 mosity, are managed on both sides, if not by the same men, at 
 least by men who have a perfectly good understanding with one 
 another. It is responsibly asserted by a respectable writer, 1 as a 
 thing " perfectly well understood, that in the State of New York 
 the same set of men manage both the parties." 
 
 Briefly stated, the fact is this : Our democratic government, 
 while still maintained as to all its legal forms and titles, as the 
 forms of the Roman Republic were maintained under the Caesars, 
 has undergone a revolution, and we are governed by an oligarchy 
 of professional politicians, or at best by two oligarchies holding 
 power alternately. 
 
 Since, then, in the development of our institutions we have 
 come to be under the government of a self-constituted, but 
 thoroughly and powerfully organized guild of professional poli- 
 ticians, it would be no small satisfaction and relief if we could 
 have assurance of the high and honorable character of the pro- 
 
 1 Mr. Albert Stickney, in Scribncr's Magazine, July, 18S1, p. 357. 
 
6 
 
 fession. What is the character of the American citizens who 
 devote their time to politics and make their living out of it? 
 There is no exaggeration whatever in saying that the profession 
 of politics, as a means of livelihood, is, in the estimation of the 
 public generally, a disreputable profession ; and that is practi- 
 cally equivalent, in the long run, to saying that it deserves to be 
 held in contempt. Put any set of men for a course of years 
 under the ban of public odium, and, however honest they maybe 
 to begin with, unless they are lifted up by a spirit of martyr- 
 dom, they will by and by begin to deserve it. Gradually honest 
 men will quit them, and rogues will join them. Let any class of 
 people be habitually suspected as thieves, and before long they 
 will begin to steal. Now there is no mistaking the popular sen- 
 timent as to the character of the professional politician. It is a 
 feeling of detestation. No point made by a public speaker is 
 more sure to "bring the house down" than a point well made 
 against this whole class — as a class. Probably, since slave- 
 dealers ceased to be a class among us, no name of any craft is so 
 generally odious to the people as that of professional politicians. 
 Consequently, once started in that direction, the whole business 
 tends swiftly downward to lower and lower levels. 
 
 If it is a wonder to any that the noblest functions of citizenship 
 should tend to become so debased, some of the reasons of it are 
 not far to seek. We have seen that, by that law of differentiation 
 so justly stated by the evolutionists, as society becomes more 
 complex and highly organized, the business of managing politics 
 inevitably falls into the hands of trained experts, giving their 
 whole time to the business, and taking their pay out of it. Now 
 it is not only that many of the operations of this profession, 
 especially in its lower ranks, are not particularly ennobling, but 
 that its payments are made in the form of chances for office or 
 for perquisites. The consequence of this method is that the 
 gambling element in society is attracted to politics as a business. 
 I know it is alleged that it is not exclusively so ; that there are 
 resources of no such precarious character on which those who 
 serve their country in the lower grades of the profession may rely 
 with some measure of certainty ; that there are great and wealthy 
 and not ungenerous corporations, too patriotic, too sensible of 
 
the importance of having the State and the country properly 
 governed, and too grateful for timely services to their own and 
 the public good, to allow even the humbler laborers who help to 
 " fix things " in the caucus or the canvass to suffer for lack of daily 
 food, or yet of necessary drink. But not even thus is the profes- 
 sion lifted up to such dignity that a wise man is pleased when he 
 learns that his son has chosen it for a vocation. 
 
 It is only a converse of this fact that the meaner elements of 
 society are attracted into politics as a profession, to say that good 
 and honorable men are repelled from it ; and so the matter goes 
 from bad to worse. I might quote, in confirmation of this state- 
 ment, some discouraging words from President Woolsey, and 
 some less despairing expressions from my beloved and brilliant 
 friend, the late Prof. Diman ; 1 but it is better to cite the testimony 
 of some of the warmest friends of America on the other side of 
 the sea : as when Thomas Hughes declared it as a general fact, 
 notwithstanding the multitude of exceptions, that "in America 
 educated men take no interest in politics ; " or when John Stuart 
 Mill says that in America " the instructed minority " stand aloof 
 from political affairs ; and adds the strong and sweeping state- 
 ment : "Political life is, indeed, in America a most valuable 
 school, but it is a school from which the ablest teachers are ex- 
 cluded ; the first minds in the country being as effectually shut 
 out from the national representation, and from public functions 
 generally, as if they were under some formal disqualifications." * — ^ 
 Doubtless we can find some exceptions to this statement ; but they 
 are exceptions still, and they are growing rarer as the country is 
 growing older. We might even point to one branch of the public 
 service, the consular and diplomatic, and prove by the names of 
 Irving and Bancroft and Wheaton and Motley and Hawthorne, 
 that we have a place to which such men are not ineligible, and 
 that this place is almost anywhere not within 3,000 miles of a 
 ballot-box or a primary meeting. We might even point with 
 exultation to the recent demonstration that an American is not 
 necessarily excluded from rendering his country effective service, 
 — that is, in foreign parts, — by the mere fact of his being the 
 foremost scholar among poets, and the foremost poet among 
 
 iln their Phi Beta Kappa orations at Harvard, in 1875 and 1S76. 
 s On Representative Government, p. 157. 
 
8 
 
 scholars, since Coleridge, not to say since Milton. But, after all, 
 the general fact remains, and Mr. Mill and Mr. Hughes were 
 right. 
 
 But the mischief is far deeper and more dangerous than the 
 diagnosis even of these experienced and thoughtful observers had 
 perceived. It is not only the educated classes that are withdrawn 
 from politics, but, to a portentous extent, the honest, intelligent, 
 industrious population of all grades, finding the effective control 
 of political affairs to be held in the tight grasp of men in whom 
 they have no confidence, are lapsing into a despairing indifference 
 and inactivity, from which they are roused only by the application 
 of some violent stimulus, or by the excitements of some sharply 
 contested canvass. All but the devotees and obsequious servants 
 of one of the two party machines find themselves left out from 
 public functions, and, apparently, of no account in the affairs of 
 the parties. There remains to them the option of voting for one\ 
 or another of two candidates whose names are dictated to the pub- 
 lic by the oligarchy of professional politicians. Is it strange that 
 the option between the two should begin to seem of no such im- 
 portance as to justify the trouble of going to the polls ? Is it 
 strange that thoughtful and intelligent citizens outside of party 
 lines, disgusted with the tyranny which shuts them up, in the act 
 of voting, to a choice between the representatives and instruments 
 of two unworthy combinations, and tired of being bullied into 
 voting for men whom they do not approve by the threat, " You 
 had better vote for our man, or you will have to put up with a 
 worse one," should fall into the mistake — wrong and fatal as it 
 is — of neglecting to vote at all, as being an act ordinarily without 
 significance or use ? Says one thoughtful and serious writer : 
 " Year after year we go through the empty form of placing in a 
 box a list of names of men we do not know, put into our hands 
 by men whom we do not respect." ' A former president of Har- 
 vard College declared : " I always feel, when I put my hand to 
 the ballot-box, that I am being used by somebody, I know not 
 whom, for some purpose, I know not what." 2 
 
 1 Mr. Albert Stickney, in Scribner's Magazine, 1S81, page 577. 
 
 2 Quoted by Mr. Josiah P. Quincy, in an instructive essay on " The Protection of Majori- 
 ties," p. 65. Boston, 1876. The title of the Essay is worthy of the attention of those who are 
 studying the subject of " minority representation ; " and suggests the question whether this 
 ubject, interesting as it is, may not well be postponed until some provision is made for the 
 epresentation of the majority. 
 
9 
 
 The practical question which demands our study, in view of 
 these abuses, may be stated in either of two forms, which are the 
 same in substance and effect : Either, How can the individual 
 citizen be restored to his political rights and powers ; or, How 
 can the intolerable oligarchy of professional politicians which now 
 avails to defeat the individual citizen of any power but such as 
 he may exercise in subordination to itself, be thrown down and 
 broken up ? Either of these two involves the other ; reenfranchise 
 the-individual citizens , and wheney^r_it_is neces sary ^hey_jwjU 
 smash the machine ; smash the machine, and honest citizens will 
 come to their rights again. 
 
 i. The common answer that is made to the, respectable citi- 
 zen who complains of the tyranny of the party system, by means 
 of which the control of pubTIc~arlaifs"Has been usurped into un- 
 worthy hands in the caucus and behind the caucus, is made in 
 the form of an apparently overwhelming retort: " If you want 
 a different class of people to go to the primary meetings, why 
 don't you go to them yourself and take your friends, instead of 
 staying at home and writing grumbling letters to the newspapers? 
 Who is to blame for the fact that there is nobody at the primary 
 meeting but the ring and the ringleader and their retainers? 
 Who is to blame that the respectable and intelligent and educated 
 citizens are not there, except the educated and intelligent and 
 respectable citizens who stay away? We would like nothing 
 better than to have you come. Why don't you come ? " And 
 the question sounds so plausible and is pressed by the party 
 managers and their newspapers with a smile so " childlike and 
 bland " as sometimes to deceive the very elect ; who, being drawn 
 thus to the primary meeting, find, to their innocent amazement, 
 that the primary meeting is not primary at all ; that there are 
 other meetings prior to the primary — meetings to which they 
 are by no means invited — by which it is predetermined what the 
 primary meeting is to do ; and that somehow or other it invari- 
 ably happens that there are enough people at the primary meet- 
 ing of the right way of thinking to make sure that the program 
 determined on by the professional gentlemen at the meeting 
 which is prior to the primary shall not be seriously departed 
 from. The respectable and conscientious citizen returns home 
 
10 
 
 in a pensive mood from his unwonted evening at a tavern or 
 club-room, and employs the remainder of the sleepless night in 
 an endeavor to foot up the net results of his truly missionary 
 undertaking to elevate the character of the primary meeting. 
 
 He finds, first, that he has advertised himself as owing alle- 
 giance to the party ; and, secondly, that his vote and personal 
 influence are claimed as pledged by his presence at the caucus to 
 the support of some scoundrel nomination which he went there 
 purposely to oppose ; and it is gradually borne in upon his medi- 
 tations in the night-watches that if he shall balk, or threaten to 
 bolt, he will at once be charged with being a traitor who came 
 into the caucus intent on playing the deep little game of " Heads 
 I win, tails you lose," and that he may consider himself to be let 
 oft' very easily indeed, in his reputation and business, if he suffers 
 nothing worse than to be denounced among all stanch and loyal 
 members of the party by some disagreeable nickname beginning 
 with a letter M. Can we seriously blame the respectable citizen 
 if he falls into the habit of absenting himself thereafter from such 
 meetings, and if, to the appeal of the professional gentleman 
 who manages his ward, and who says to him, "You are respon- 
 sible for the corruption of our politics ; my dear sir, why don't 
 you attend our primaries?" he makes reply only with the silent 
 eloquence of an injured and reproachful look ? 
 
 2. Another answer which is very obvious and plausible is 
 this : " If bad men combine, then let good men unite in a counter- 
 combination. Unite in a new party, or at least in a new organi- 
 zation of some sort, which shall aim to take the domination out 
 of unworthy, corrupt, or selfish hands and control it for good and 
 honorable ends." And that this answer is not wholly futile and 
 unpractical there is more than one illustration in American his- 
 tory — the best of them, perhaps, the story of the Philadelphia 
 " committee of one hundred." But I have no doubt that those 
 who have had even a successful experience with this method will 
 tell us that it is (i) of most doubtful issue, like the opposing of a 
 veteran regular army with an insurrection of raw volunteers ; (2) 
 that it is enormously costly, demanding, to a certain extent, the 
 paid professional work without which no political organization 
 will run except for a very little while ; consequently (3) it is only 
 
11 
 
 in the greatest extremity, when abuses become absolutely intoler- 
 able, that men can be induced to resort to it ; and (4) as soon as 
 it begins to be successful it tends to become corrupt, like the 
 parties which it has superseded. Evidently this is no sufficient 
 solution of our problem. 
 
 3. Another answer, and the one on which society seems to be 
 settling down as the only practical one, is to take the nominating 
 caucuses of the two parties under surveillance of the statute law ; 
 providing whatever safeguards it is possible for legislation to 
 devise, against fraud and corruption in the management of a 
 matter which hitherto has been wholly extra-constitutional 
 and extra-legal. This experiment is now on trial in several of 
 the States, among them in Massachusetts. 
 
 Let it be fairly tried and judged by its fruits. But there are 
 serious objections to it at the outset. Instead of mitigating the 
 power of the two dominant parties, it aggravates it to a perilous 
 degree, enabling these to intrench themselves in the statute-book ; 
 giving them, for the first time, recognition before the law, with- 
 out corresponding responsibility to the law ; seeming to give the 
 citizens, so far as they are partisans, power over the machine, but 
 really confirming the machine in its power over the citizens ; and, 
 finally, completing the practical disfranchisement of the individual 
 voter, by shutting him up, more hopelessly than ever, to a mere 
 option between the two machines. It is seriously to be feared that, 
 even if it brings us some measure of relief from the open and 
 impudent frauds common heretofore in the nomination of candi- 
 dates (and whether it succeeds in so much as this does not seem 
 to be demonstrated yet by the experiment), the good that it may 
 do will be offset by the dangerous revolution of setting up the 
 party organizations as a part of the fixed legal machinery of 
 government. Perhaps no amendment to the constitution of state 
 or nation has ever been attended with graver consequences than 
 are involved in this little measure of adopting the party machines, 
 even thus indirectly, as part of the mechanism of the government. 
 
 I need not pause to speak of the various expedients of cumu- 
 lated or restricted voting, minority representation, and so forth, 
 which have occupied the attention of publicists so largely, in 
 
I 
 
 12 
 
 various countries, for several years. They have too slight and 
 remote a bearing on the main point of this argument. 1 
 
 I hasten to speak of the one hopeful remedy for that intolerable 
 despotism of the party machines by which the political liberty of 
 the citizen has been practically nullified, and the interest of the 
 States and of the nation imperilled. This remedy I find to con- 
 sist, not in the introduction of any novel device of polity, how- 
 ever ingenious or however approved by great names at home or 
 abroad, but in the return to a practice and principle known to the 
 best and purest ages of American liberty, — a practice and prin- 
 ciple characteristically and historically American, though now, 
 within two generations, become obsolete in nearly all the States, 
 as well as in national politics. I mean the practice and principle 
 of ^ lajority j j,ff.€TlpNS, instead of the delusive, un-American, 
 JBritish tradition of plurality elections. By what acts of political 
 intngue^by what conspiracy of two great parties to rid them- 
 selves of all danger of interference from a third party, by what 
 indolence and judicial blindness of the people, it has been brought 
 to pass that this invaluable protection of the rights of the citizen 
 has almost everywhere been abandoned and lost, it might be long 
 to tell, though it surely would not be uninstructive. 2 
 
 It is the majority principle in popular elections which would 
 compel the parties and their leaders to count the scattering vote, 
 and not only count, but weigh it, even when being laid in the 
 scale it suffices to turn the balance. Plurali ty govern ment means 
 minority gnvprnmat^lwayg and everywhere. It is the majority 
 principle restored which can reenfranchise the individual, which 
 can wrench from the double-handed tyranny of these two insolent 
 hierarchies of intrigue the sceptre of their allied despotism, — these 
 two Frankensteins of our own making, which hold their power 
 
 1 In his arguments in favor of " Proportional Representation," Mr. Buckalew, of Penn- 
 sylvania, is careful to conciliate the party interests by showing that his plan will not 
 disturb the supremacy of the caucus. It is only a plan to enable parties to " represent 
 themselves." See his " Proportional Representation," pp. 73, 74, 14S. 
 
 The fatal defect of all these schemes, with reference to the difficulties which we are study- 
 ing, is that they apply only to plural elections, — to the choice of representative assemblies. 
 They have no application to the choice of administrative officers. But good administra- 
 tion is four-fifths of {food government. 
 
 2 For a contribution towards this unwritten chapter of political history, see Appendix I., 
 The Rise and Fall of Majority Government in Massachusetts. 
 
13 
 
 over us, each of them by threatening us with the other one, con- 
 fronting the helpless citizen with a choice of evils and bullying 
 him into voting for an unworthy candidate, under penalty of being 
 put under subjection to a worse one. It is the principle of ma- 
 jority elections that is to empower the thoughtful, conscientious, 
 and unpartisan voter, when the two parties come impudently 
 urging him with their inexorable alternative, "Take our man or 
 the other; there is no further choice for you ! " — to defy both 
 parties by the might of the scattering vote and say to them, V 
 " We will take neither horn of your villanous dilemma ; we will 
 defeat both your candidates. Now go back to your caucus-rooms, 
 and give us nominations fit to be voted for ! " 
 
 For there will be caucuses and nominations still. The return 
 of the republic to its original holding ground in majority govern- 
 ment, from which now these many years it has dragged its an- 
 chors, will not supersede the reasonable and salutary functions of 
 parties and party councils. It will only take from these their ab- 
 solute and domineering power. But will not the caucuses and 
 conventions still have power enough, in the name of reason, when 
 the two parties no longer hold undisputed between them the 
 complete control of all national, state, and municipal affairs, sub- 
 ject to no limitation but those imposed by their mutual rivalries 
 or mutual collusions ? And is the caucus likely to use its power, 
 still formidable, less wisely and conscientiously for knowing that 
 the nominations and projects of both parties — not of one or the 
 other only — are subject to be reviewed and negatived by free 
 citizens at the polls? — that, unless, between them, nominations 
 are made which command the general respect of the citizens, the 
 election day itself will be converted, under the operation of a 
 well-devised majority election law, into a great nominating con- 
 vention of the whole body of citizens, acting under the strongest 
 sanction and protection of law, for indicating the candidates who 
 are to be voted for at a second balloting ? The individual citizen, 
 the scattering vote, will have come to its rights again. And, as a 
 general rule, it is the intelligent and conscientious vote that scat- 
 ters ; the ignorant and thoughtless vote is cast in blocks. 
 
 How would such an election law operate ? It would begin oper- 
 ating long before election day, in the very earliest whisperings over 
 
14 
 
 the question of the party nominations ; and when the convention 
 met — no matter how unscrupulous a convention, of no matter 
 how dominant a party — it would be overshadowed by the awful 
 consciousness that its nomination was subject to the veto power 
 of the people. If, notwithstanding, the managers of the dom- 
 inant party should venture to nominate an unfit candidate, the 
 voters of the party would vote him down on election day without 
 the slightest fear of thereby giving the election to the opposite 
 party. There would be no election on that ballot. But there 
 would be a nomination. For the defect under which the old 
 Massachusetts law failed would be remedied by a provision restrict- 
 ing the voters at the second ballot to three candidates receiving 
 the highest number of votes at the first ballot; and at the third 
 ballot, if a third should be required, reducing the number 
 of candidates to two. For lack of such a provision under the 
 old law, the attempt to elect so often resulted in an interminable 
 dead-lock, that the people, out of mere impatience, abolished the 
 law instead of amending it, and so permitted the two great 
 parties for a few years to crush the third party, until at last the 
 third party grew big enough to crush them both. Under a well- 
 devised majority election law, the dead-lock could never outlast 
 three ballots ; and it is simply reasonable to expect that the salu- 
 tary influence of the law upon nominating conventions would 
 result in such nominations as might, in ordinary circumstances, 
 win a majority at the first trial. 1 
 
 In the meantime, while waiting for his reenfranchisement, let not 
 the unpartisan citizen, however debarred from political functions, 
 make the mistake of thinking himself wholly excluded from politi- 
 cal power. On the contrary, no small measure of influence still 
 remains with him, if he did but know it. If he is impotent in 
 public affairs, it is simply because he thinks himself so. Like 
 Christian in the "stinking dungeon" of Doubting Castle, he 
 may be quite unconscious that the key of the situation is in his 
 own pocket. He supposes, as the public in general suppose, 
 that the persons who control the policy of a political party are 
 its stanch and constant adherents ; whereas this is the one class 
 
 1 The objections that have been brought against the proposals of this address are con- 
 sidered in Appendix II. 
 
15 
 
 of people who have no influence with the party at all. They 
 can go to primaries ; they may even send delegates to conven- 
 tions, provided they don't send too many ; but behind the caucus, 
 behind the convention, is the ring, and behind the ring sits en- 
 throned in awful majesty the boss. But behind the throne is 
 another power, the measure of which is only beginning to be 
 understood. Whether they know it or not, whether they like it 
 or not, the policy of boss and ring, and all their hierarchy ot 
 professional and amateur politicians, is determined in the long 
 run with the inexorableness of a Calvinistic predestination, by 
 two classes of people whom they all detest : first, the voters 
 whom they hope to gain ; second, the voters whom they are 
 afraid they will lose. The voters whom they are sure about, 
 either way, have no influence with the party. The man who 
 does not venture to call his soul his own is not counted as having 
 any soul. The man who grumbles and scolds about the nomina- 
 tions and threatens to bolt, but always turns up on election day 
 with the regular ticket in his hand, is of even less account. 
 The man who has once actually bolted, and is likely to do it 
 again, may be disliked, may be abused, may be vilipended under 
 cacophonous nicknames ; but he is sure to be very respectfully 
 considered in the secret councils of one party, and probably 01 
 both. The policy of a party, thus, instead of being determined 
 by the character of its leaders, or the character of its rank and 
 file, is determined by the character sometimes of its guerillas, 
 sometimes of its bummers. If there is a party of great moral 
 ideas, quite secure of the respectability vote, but holding many 
 voters of the opposite class by an uncertain tenure, these latter 
 will control the party until the decent people resolve that they 
 will be uncertain, too. If there is a party strong in the unswerv- 
 ing adhesion of great masses of ignorant and reckless voters, and 
 depending for its chances of power on the accession of men of 
 conscience and public virtue, that party, in spite of its instincts, 
 in spite of its traditions, will gravitate toward public morals and 
 upright administration,while all the world looks on and wonders 
 why. 
 
 No, no ! In the long run, it is the meek that inherit the earth, 
 after all. The pomp and glory of the party leader and the boss 
 
16 
 
 are only a vain show. The uncrowned king turns out to be the 
 quiet citizen who looks serenely out of window upon the strife of 
 parties, and then goes to drop his casting vote into the ballot-box 
 without a tremor of hesitation, even though (to borrow the 
 phrase of a great citizen of Boston) he may seem to be sacrificing 
 the interests of the next election to the interests of the next gen- 
 eration. 
 
APPENDIX I. 
 
 THE RISE AND FALL OF MAJORITY GOVERNMENT IN 
 MASSACHUSETTS. 
 
 Considering the fundamental importance of the question of the 
 mode of election, and the variance of usage between England 
 and France and among the American States, it is surprising how 
 difficult it is to find any history or discussion of the subject. In 
 the voluminous literature of" cumulative voting " and " minority 
 representation" I have failed to find any allusion to it. The 
 most important observations on the subject that I have met with, 
 after considerable inquiry and search, are a few paragraphs in 
 Cushing's " Law and Practice of Legislative Assemblies," 
 §§ 1 26-131, and Appendix IV. After stating the common law of 
 England, according to which " the term majority embraces what 
 is denoted with us by the word plurality" the author continues : 
 " In this country, however, the principle of majority, or absolute 
 majority as it is sometimes called, was early introduced into the 
 law of elections by the colonists of New England" (§ 127). 
 And in some of the States, notably in Massachusetts, it was in 
 force by common law and usage, quite independently of any con- 
 stitutional or statutory provision. " Indeed the majority principle 
 is so essential and fundamental in Massachusetts, that it prevails 
 in the elections of all private corporations and associations, as 
 well as in those of a municipal character" (§ 128). 
 
 It is much to be regretted that this author found it M foreign to 
 his purpose to consider" the question whether " the diversity 
 among the States in the mode of determining the result of an 
 election maybe the source of corresponding diversities in political 
 character and history." "It would be interesting, doubtless, to 
 know what was the origin of this difference, whether it was 
 accidental or intentional, — if the latter, was it the purpose in 
 view in the establishment of the majority- principle in some 
 States to secure greater permanence and stability in the adminis- 
 tration of the government? — or was the plurality principle main- 
 
18 
 
 tained in others for the purpose of preventing and destroying the 
 influence of third and other minor parties ? — or, whatever were 
 the purposes in view, have these purposes been effected ? These 
 are questions which do not probably admit of a satisfactory 
 answer" (§ 130). 
 
 Much light, however, is thrown on these questions by the study 
 of the recent political history of the States in which the majority 
 principle once prevailed, and is now abolished. The debates in 
 the Massachusetts Constitutional Convention of 1853 give sufficient 
 indication of the motives of the change which that convention 
 refused, but which was brought about two or three years later by 
 another process ; and the subsequent political history of the State, 
 compared with its earlier political history, would show how far 
 those motives have been satisfied by the result. It is obvious in 
 the debates that the two motives that impelled, at that time, 
 towards the rejection of the immemorial, fundamental, and char- 
 acteristic principle of the New England republics were these : 
 I, the popular impatience at the interminably long contests of 
 election, resulting sometimes in the final failure to elect at all ; 
 and, 2, the disposition of the two great parties, both of them com- 
 mitted to the same side of the pending questions about slavery, 
 to extinguish the strong anti-slavery sentiment which was making 
 itself heard through a growing third party. From the able and 
 protracted discussions I transcribe some words of a few of the 
 leading speakers in favor of the maintenance of the majority 
 principle : — 
 
 Amasa Walker. — I do not know that it will be said, but I 
 am sure it will be felt or thought, by some that by the proposed 
 change we will get rid of third parties. And what shall we get 
 instead of third parties? We shall get, instead of third parties, 
 founded on principle, factions struggling for power. ... In 
 all States where this [plurality] principle obtains, politics become 
 a raffle, the contest of parties and factions a scrub-race, in which 
 the one who gets the first start is likely to come out best. 
 The majority rule gives every man his full power, so that a man 
 may be a man under any circumstances whatever ; so that at the 
 ballot-box he may be not less than a full man, and his vote have 
 its full effect, either for a candidate or against him. How is it 
 under the other system? A. man may be of some consequence 
 by his vote, or he may not. If he belongs to a third party, which 
 
19 
 
 is in the minority, then he comes up to the polls with the cer- 
 tainty that his vote has no weight whatever ; that it can have no 
 effect on the final result. He may vote according to his convic- 
 tions of right, in order to bear his testimony against wrong ; but 
 so far as any political effect is concerned he might just as well 
 not vote at all. He finds himself a political cipher unless he 
 will resign his honest convictions, and join one of the two great 
 struggling parties. All that is left to him, under the plurality 
 system, is the miserable alternative of " choosing between two 
 evils." Ought any man voluntarily to place himself in a position 
 where he must choose one of two evils, or be politically annihi- 
 lated ? Ought we to present a Constitution to the people which 
 destroys individual independence and power, and makes the 
 people the tools of caucuses and conventions, bodies not known 
 or acknowledged in our State or national constitutions? . 
 I believe, if we were to examine the history of other States, we 
 should find that political demoralization has always followed the 
 adoption of the plurality system. It must follow as a matter of 
 course, if I understand the matter, for it destroys the moral 
 element of politics. (I., 123, 124.) 
 
 Mr. Calhoun, in a large posthumous work lately issued, main- 
 tains, with his usual clearness and force, that this great system of 
 caucuses and conventions which has grown up in our politics was 
 never contemplated by the framers of the Constitution, and that 
 such conventions do, in fact, thwart the original design and inten- 
 tions of that instrument. Of the truthfulness of this view T of the 
 subject there can be no doubt. This convention or caucus system 
 was never anticipated. Commencing in small beginnings, the 
 system now pervades the Union, overrides the Constitution, gives 
 law to the nation, and an entirely different character to the gov- 
 ernment from that which was originally intended. With the 
 growth of this caucus system has grown up the plurality system 
 in elections. Majorities were found to stand in the way of 
 political managers. They must be got rid of. Under the lead of 
 wily politicians one State after another has been induced to pro- 
 vide that a plurality may elect, at least in regard to national 
 officers, and the majority has now ceased to be the governing 
 power in this republic. What do we find as the result of this 
 state of things? We find that our national politics are corrupted, 
 that the few govern the many, and that the people are at the 
 mercy of the politicians. . . . if that gentleman should live to 
 old age he will see the greatest struggle that was ever made in 
 this country to get back to the true democratic principle of the 
 rule of the majority. (I., 207.) 
 
 Benjamin F. Hallett. — As a politician, I would be in 
 favor of the plurality system, as the more expedient of the two ; 
 
20 
 
 but as a propounder of organic law I am opposed to it. The 
 question in my mind, therefore, is whether I am acting here 
 as a politician, or, as far as I may be able, as a statesman. . . . 
 In looking at the fundamental principles of our Massachusetts 
 government I find that the two earliest principles engrafted on it 
 were the majority principle in all the forms of law, and the 
 representation of towns. This goes back to the year 1631, and 
 runs through your political history from thence until now. (I., 
 150.) If I were going to vote in this matter merely as a politi- 
 cian, so as to cull a plurality party out of all the three parties in 
 the Commonwealth, I would go for this ; and it is a strong 
 temptation to do so, because, I confess, I want to get rid of that 
 third party. (II., 359.) 
 
 Benjamin F. Butler. — ... When he told us that twenty- 
 five States had adopted the plurality rule fully, and then that the 
 government, the whole government of the country, in making a 
 president, had passed into conventions, did it occur to him that 
 the plurality rule was the cause? Did it occur to him that the 
 great majority who have gone for the plurality rule are those that 
 make the presidents, and that this caucus system has grown up — 
 where, sir? Where did it originate — where is the hot-bed of 
 it? Where is the beginning of national conventions, if you 
 please ? . . . Did they originate where the majority principle 
 prevails ? No, sir ; but they originated in New York, where the 
 plurality rule prevails. The old sticklers for plurality are there, 
 from beginning to end. Is it not a matter of history that national 
 conventions commenced from New York caucuses, from the men 
 who have always lived under a plurality system? ... If I 
 thought the plurality rule would kill a third party, as a politician 
 — and I am not speaking in any other sense — I would vote for 
 it with both hands up. (I., 216.) 
 
 Henry Wilson. — As a politician, I should agree with the 
 member for Wilbraham (Mr. Hallett) , that it would be for my 
 interest, and the interest of the men with whom I act, to have a 
 plurality rule in this Commonwealth. Before three years pass 
 away I venture to say that those gentlemen who think now that 
 this system is to blot us out will find they have not won by it. . . . 
 I oppose the plurality system because I believe it tends to de- 
 grade the politics of the country, and to demoralize the politi- 
 cians of the country. It has increased the power of the caucus, 
 the convention, party organizations, great combinations, great 
 interests, and the influence of political leaders ; and it has di- 
 minished the power of the people who follow their higher and 
 better sentiments. . . . Everything that is progressive, that 
 carries us onward in the career of democratic progress, springs from 
 
21 
 
 the higher and nobler sentiments of the people who follow their 
 own ideas, rather than the demands of combinations of interest and 
 ambition. I put it to gentlemen of the convention to say if it be 
 not a " fixed fact" that very many of our best men — men who 
 are guided by ideas and sentiments, men who follow their moral 
 convictions rather than the banner of political strife, men who 
 want good government and good public officers — do not attend 
 political caucuses and conventions. Now, sir, if you adopt the 
 plurality system, what will be its practical effect upon these men, 
 upon whose moral instincts, liberal tendencies, and unselfish 
 action the best hopes of the country rest? Under our majority 
 system the political leaders and active politicians who go into 
 caucuses and conventions know there is a moral power at home, — 
 that if they outrage that moral power by putting up an un- 
 worthy candidate, or by endorsing an unsound principle or adopt- 
 ing a selfish policy, when the day of election comes the 
 mechanic and the farmer — the men who do not generally meddle 
 with political affairs — will come up to the ballot-box and will 
 checkmate their policy, defeat their candidate, and arrest them 
 in their career. The majority system gives the men of principles, 
 ideas, and sentiments the power to resist the schemes of party 
 leaders, and to make them feel, whenever they enter the caucus 
 and the convention, that they must not outrage the higher senti- 
 ments of the best men of their parties. Now, sir, adopt the 
 plurality rule in all your elections and you make the caucus and 
 the convention omnipotent ; you give full sway to the political 
 chiefs who are controlled by interest and ambition. The whole 
 tendency of the system is to debauch the public sentiment of the 
 country and to enthrone the omnipotent power of the caucus and 
 the convention. 
 
 Politicians go into the caucus or the convention prompted by 
 ambition and interest, adopt their own schemes of policy, and 
 when the day of election comes, and the men who are governed 
 by their higher and better sentiments assemble around the ballot- 
 box, they are told that they must take the " choice of evils," — 
 that they must vote for a candidate they know to be unworthy ; 
 whose '' nomination was not fit to be made," — or his and their 
 political opponent will be elected. They know the contest must 
 be then and there decided. They feel the pressure. They pause, 
 hesitate, yield, vote for a candidate they know to be unworthy, 
 and go home degraded in their own eyes, and more ready to yield 
 again to the demands of the caucus and the convention. The 
 whole machinery of caucuses and conventions, in this country, is 
 one of the worst features of our democratic institutions. The 
 majority system gives the people the power to checkmate their 
 influence ; the plurality system lets them have free course and be 
 glorified. Sir, I have had, during the past fifteen years, some 
 
22 
 
 little knowledge of caucuses and conventions, and the more I 
 have seen of the managers of caucuses and conventions the less 
 I think of them. The more I see of caucuses and conventions, 
 of the strifes of political life, the more I turn to the unbiassed will 
 of the people with hope and confidence. I am a party man ; but 
 the more I see of politicians the more ready I am to concur with 
 the man who said that the more he saw of others the better the 
 thought of himself. (I., 161.) 
 
 APPENDIX II. 
 
 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 
 
 The writer of this pamphlet highly appreciates the advantage 
 of having drawn upon his argument the public criticism of the 
 press, and the private criticism of some of the gentlemen who 
 listened to it with such kind expressions of interest at the dinner 
 of the Reform Club. These criticisms enable him to answer in 
 advance some of the objections that are likely to present them- 
 selves to readers of the pamphlet. Some of the more important 
 of them are here transcribed : — 
 
 (jFrom the Boston Herald.) 
 Dr. Leonard Bacon's supposition that in the substitution of the 
 plurality system for that of the majority in the election of candi- 
 dates to office he has found a cause of the degeneration of politics 
 will hardly bear examination. The majority system was aban- 
 doned because it created embarrassments which were not com- 
 pensated by anything gained in the interest of minorities. It still 
 exists, as regards the candidates for the executive State offices in 
 Dr. Bacon's own State of Connecticut, and in one case there, of 
 recent years, it has given the governorship to a candidate who had 
 a much smaller vote than his leading opponent. We have never 
 heard it claimed that it had improved Connecticut politics in any 
 way. 
 
 I am glad to explain that my argument is not in the least de- 
 vised " in the interest of minorities," but in the interest of the 
 majority. Under the present system a minority contemptibly 
 small in number succeeds in a multitude of cases in overruling 
 
23 
 
 the clear and positive wish of the great mass of the people, and 
 in placing in offices of honor and trust, men whom the majority 
 would gladly exclude, but cannot except by electing men still 
 more objectionable. If there are those who doubt that it is a 
 common thing for a candidate to be sent to Congress whom not 
 a hundred men in his district would have named as a suitable 
 man, the instances to prove this can be cited until no room re- 
 mains for even the affectation of doubt. I am not concerned at 
 present for the " representation of minorities." That can well 
 afford to wait until we have contrived some way of giving the 
 majority a chance to be represented. 
 
 The case of Connecticut illustrates the working, not of the 
 method proposed, but of the plan of throwing the election, when 
 there is no choice by a majority of the people, into the hands of 
 a rotten-borough legislature. 
 
 {From the Boston Advertiser.) 
 
 Dr. Bacon's prescription is not a new one, and its use hereto- 
 fore has not been always satisfactory to him or his independent 
 friends. As illustrated in our caucus system it has time and 
 again given rise to independent heart-burnings. He will doubt- 
 less claim, however, that his remedy has not yet been fairly tried. 
 He wishes to see it applied to popular elections, open to voters 
 of all parties and shades of belief. If, in such an election, an 
 obnoxious man is a candidate, he can be defeated by the votes of 
 those who hold the balance of power under the majority rule, 
 without bringing into office a rival who may be equally offensive. 
 This process can then be indefinitely repeated, until some man 
 who is satisfactory to the dissenting voters receives the party nomi- 
 nation. 
 
 There is a theoretical advantage in this course, but its practical 
 merit is by no means certain. It may result in giving to a small 
 number of voters a controlling power to which they are not fairly 
 entitled. By this device a few men may succeed in bending the 
 will of a great body of men to their own views, and in effect sub- 
 stituting the rule of an oligarchy for that of a democracy under a 
 form of 4k majority election," which is, in substance, a vain pre- 
 tence. 
 
 It may result, furthermore, in a series of vexatious canvasses 
 and elections which will make practical men sick of the very 
 name of popular sovereignty. Perhaps these and attendant ills 
 may not follow the adoption of this plan, but a candid man will 
 admit that they are to be feared. 
 
24 
 
 If we were to judge of the future by the past our confidence in 
 this remedy would not be increased, judging, at any rate, from 
 the final issue of its trial in Maine. The memory is yet fresh of 
 the contested election of 1879-80, when Governor Garcelon made 
 his canvassing board a bad copy of his Southern models, and 
 when a dictatorship was thrust upon General Chamberlain to 
 save the State from anarchy. After this sufficient experience 
 people in Maine were well content to exchange the remedy of 
 Dr. Bacon for the " delusive, un-American, British " abomination 
 of plurality elections. 
 
 The objection, u this process can be indefinitely repeated," " in 
 a series of vexatious canvasses and elections," applies undoubtedly 
 to the old law of Massachusetts, under which, in the attempt to 
 choose a Congressman, a dozen or a score of futile ballotings 
 would be taken, and the district go unrepresented at the end. 
 [Instances like this were quoted in the course of the debates in 
 the Constitutional Convention of 1853.] Neither this objection, 
 however, nor that drawn from the Maine incident, has any perti- 
 nence, I think, to the present argument. 
 
 {From the Boston Post.) 
 
 The remedy is hardly complete, for it is apparent that, should 
 the partisan forces be persistent, they could eventually compel a 
 ballot as between the two principal candidates substantially as in 
 our present system. What might be gained would be a larger 
 opportunity for discussion in the light, also, of the protest made 
 in the early ballots. The disadvantages would be found in the 
 complexity and increase of machinery and the burdens of repeated 
 ballots. It may also be doubted whether the result would not 
 prove that the longer the contest the greater the opportunity for 
 manipulation and election wire-pulling. Certainly a change so 
 radical requires much searching discussion before acceptance. 
 
 The same objection, which seems to me by far the most serious 
 that is to be brought against the plan proposed, is forcibly stated 
 in a private letter to me from a member of the Reform Club : — 
 
 I am not able to say that I am quite convinced of your remedy. 
 It would seem to be postponing the triumph of the spoilsmen 
 only to the third ballot. Possibly it might lead to a trifle better 
 nominations in certain cases ; but if the two highest were both 
 spoilsmen, or unfit, as is not unfrequently the case, it seems to 
 me the parties can lie upon their oars and wait with the pleasing 
 
25 
 
 spectacle before them of the independent voters having to swallow- 
 one or the other of their nauseating dishes. Meanwhile the pub- 
 lic will be put to considerable expense, be wearied with the pro- 
 longed fight, and the average business man will be inclined to let 
 things take care of themselves, while he attends to his affairs. 
 
 In answering this objection let me assume (what I have small 
 means of judging for myself) the justice of statements which I 
 have heard about the pending canvass in Massachusetts : that the 
 managers of the dominant party in the State have procured the 
 nomination for Governor of a man who is widely felt, both in the 
 party and out of it, to be unworthy of the place. The people of 
 Massachusetts, as a community, do not wish this man to be 
 Governor. Nevertheless it is not unlikely that they will make 
 him Governor, being practically coerced thereto, under an alter- 
 native which they contemplate with reluctance, by a small but 
 highly organized junto of men not generally respected. This 
 despicable gang of tyrants have acquired the power of forcing a 
 large part of the people of Massachusetts to a choice between 
 accepting an offensive candidate, and sacrificing cherished parti- 
 san attachments and convictions of national interest. Under- 
 stand that I am taking this alleged case for the sake of argument. 
 If this is not a true account of the situation in Massachusetts 
 to-day it is a feeble under-statement of the conditions under 
 which American citizens have again and again M been driven to 
 the polls holding their noses." 
 
 Now, what would be the course of events, in this case, under 
 the proposed law? 
 
 i. In the first place the case would hardly occur. There 
 would be no temptation to the boss to secure the nomination of a 
 man whom he did not believe to be acceptable on his merits. And 
 no unacceptable would-be candidate would have any inducement 
 to intrigue or bribe for the nomination. It would be to invite 
 swift and humiliating defeat. The main study of the " practical 
 politician " would have to be, to discover the honest, unconstrained 
 sentiments of the party and the people, and conform himself 
 thereto. He would be compelled to aim at making such nomina- 
 tions as would win on the first ballot. 
 
 2. But, supposing the unfit nomination to have been made, 
 
26 
 
 there will be an immediate movement for a bolt ; and this will go 
 forward with perfect freedom, no man being afraid of hurting his 
 party, or that his party will hurt him ; the only men in danger of 
 getting hurt will be the "practical politicians" who have made 
 the mischief. It is not necessary that the bolt should be carefully 
 organized and concentrated on one candidate. The scattering 
 vote will suffice to defeat the machine without defeating the party. 
 At the first sign that the bolt is growing formidable there will be 
 searchings of hearts and hurryings to and fro among the men who 
 have got up the regular ticket, with proposals to do something to 
 correct their unfortunate mistake before election. 
 
 3. If, nevertheless, the dominant party comes to the polls on 
 election-day, divided between two or more candidates, every 
 voter will understand that the question at this ballot is not on the 
 election of officers, but on the ratification of nominations. The 
 ballot is a nominating convention of the whole people, to nom- 
 inate three candidates to be voted on subsequently. The nominee 
 of the undivided second party will be one of the three, of course. 
 If there are small third and fourth parties these will cast their 
 full vote for a nomination, making thereby all the moral impres- 
 sion to which they are entitled, and yet not losing their right 
 to an effective vote for their second choice at the final election. 
 
 4. After the results of the first ballot have been published the 
 candidate who is clearly in the minority of the dominant party, 
 in ordinary circumstances, unless he is a fool, or unless he has 
 the expectation of large accessions from the minor parties, will 
 withdraw, and the contest will terminate with the second ballot. 
 Severe conflicts of principle, when they arise, will be apt to 
 necessitate a third and final ballot. 
 
 But suppose that, after all, on the final vote, the unfit machine- 
 candidate is successful ? Why, then you are beaten — that is all 
 there is of it. And the Ring has won a Pyrrhic victory. One 
 more such, and it is undone. For it is pretty sure that the party- 
 ring which in two or three successive " campaigns" should find 
 its nominations repudiated at the polls as unfit, by a large, solid 
 and weighty mass of the party, would be compelled either to 
 change the style of its nominations, or else to retire from the 
 management. 
 
27 
 
 One more question : Would not the proposed system tire out 
 
 the citizen by its too frequent demands for his attendance at the 
 
 polls ? 
 
 Answer: (i.) The proposed system is less exacting than the 
 
 existing one. The present system contemplates that the body of 
 citizens shall turn out twice for every election — once to nomi- 
 nate and once to elect — unless the nominating is to be left to the 
 Ring. The proposed system contemplates that the caucus shall 
 be controlled by those who stay away from it ; and that, the 
 nominations having been made with reference to the known de- 
 sire of the people, a single balloting will, in many cases, decide 
 the election. The cases in which two, or at most three, ballotings 
 are required will be those occasional sharp conflicts of principle 
 or character which sufficiently stir the public mind to bring out a 
 full vote. (2.) The citizen is less likely to be impatient at the 
 repeated demand upon his time, than at the demand for the futile 
 and ineffectual use of his time, as now, when he is often sum- 
 moned to a choice of two evils. (3.) When one cannot attend 
 more than one balloting he may choose which one to attend. In 
 many cases he might justly say, let me control the nominations 
 and I care not who makes the election. (4.) Any increase in 
 the trouble of effecting an election may easily be compensated by 
 lengthening terms of office, and so diminishing the frequency of 
 elections. (5.) A short, sharp, and salutary remedy for indif- 
 ference and neglect of duty in citizens might be found in provid- 
 ing that the elector's franchise should be forfeited by habitual 
 disuse. (6.) The inveterate and incurable indifference of citizens 
 to political affairs, if such a condition should declare itself, would 
 be proof of the failure of democratic government. It is toward 
 this condition that the present electoral system is drawing us. 
 
% ' 
 
 14 DAY USE 
 
 RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED 
 
 LOAN DEPT. 
 
 Renewed books are subject to immediate recall 
 
 ->.nt> 
 
 UUAL31979 
 
 
 _REC^LJ 
 
 JUttL2il 
 
 1962_ '10; 
 
 
 W^H963- 
 
 
 ■64 
 
 JM* 
 
 LD 21A-50m-3,'62 
 (C7097al0)476B 
 
 .General Library 
 
 University of California 
 
 Berkeley