Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1889-10-28
THE BALLOT SYSTEM DEBATE.


THE BALLOT SYSTEM DEBATE.
The continuance of the debate concern
ing the California and the Australian cleo
ton systems serves to evolve the truth and
to broaden public intelligence upon one of
the most important subjects before the
American people. The extracts below are
from the San Francisco Chronicle of Satur-
day, and constitute its latest reply to the
RECORD UNION:
The REcoRD-USIoS, in its attempts to create
favorable impression for the Australian ballot
system. misrepresents the California election
law. We do not know that voting cattle are
driven to the polls and compelled to vote as the
boss wishes in this State" On the contrary.
such performance is impossible certainly no
such sight has ever been witnessed in San Fran
CISCO There is no doubt that bosses buy men,
but they cannot make them vote, for the law
guards against that by the 1OO-foot provision.
The RECoRD-UNIoN has not in one jot
or title misrepresented the working
of the California election law
The 100-foot provision of the law is simply
this, as our contemporary can ascertain by
examination of Section 1892 ct seq. of the
Political Code: That no one shall deliver
or receive a ballot, except the officers of
the election, within the 100-foot limit
that no one shall fold or unfold ticket
that he intends to use IN coting within
the limit the italics are ours]; that no
one shall exhibit the contents of any
Asal-o LA l..
within the limit; that no one shall request
another to exhibit or disclose the contents
of ticket that he intends to use in voting,
within the limit that is the 100-foot-limit
law upon which our contemporary places
so much stress, as being superior to modern
systems. We do not pretend to know from
observation how the law is administered in
San Francisco, but we do know that every
where else it is more notorious in the
breach than honored in the observance.
The limit provisions do not prevent the
massing of crowd around the polling
place. They do not prevent or forbid the
interested party from taking a voter by
the elbow and marching him to the ballot
box. At every election of which we have
any knowledge this is done. Moreover,
the dominant party in the district usually
has crowd of henchmen about the polls
who open the way for a voter steered by
one of their number, but hinder and delay
the approach of all others. We do know
that hundreds of citizens have been thus
delayed, often to the exclusion Of their
votes, especially at the time shortly before
the closing of the polls. The law does not
forbid one keeping hold of the hand
of the voter holding the ballot given to
b N, until it is elevated to deliver the ballot
to the Inspector or Judge, and this is a
very common practice. The "steerer" of
voters never loses sight of the ticket put
into the hand of the voter, and he must be
more skilled than Herman and quicker
than the Fakir of silva, who can change
this ballot after the spy or the "steerer"
has fixed his eye upon him. All
we have contended for on this point is
proved by the Massachusetts,, Connecticut,
Kentucky and Wisconsin systems, and
that about to go into operation in In
diana; the voter comes from booth where
he has opportunity to prepare his ballot in
privacy, and goes alone to the ballot-box,
with no person except the election officials
near enough to him to even address him pri-
vately, unless we except the challengers.
We put it to the Chronicle to answer if
such an arrangement, preventing as it
does all crowds about the polls, and
making the ballot absolutely secret, is not
an improvement upon the California sys-
tenn? As a matter of fact, every pro-
vision of the California law concerning the
exposure, delivery, receipt and discussion
OF ballots within the 100-foot limit is dis
regarded at every election in this State,
and men deliver and receive ballots, ex-
pose their contents and solicit voters
openly and in perfect contempt of the law
prohibiting such action within the limit
named. If here and there an offender is
warned by a conscientious officer, he has a
convenient escape by declaring that it is
not his intention to use the ballot exposed
in voting. For it will be observed that
the exposure of ballots is not unlawful
within the limit unless it can be estab-
lished that it was the intention to use the
ballot or ticket disclosed, and this is task
that is more than difficult.
The Australian system cannot stop the pur-
chase of voters and the delivery of the
goods" provided the purchased voters wish to
say purchased, any better than the California
method.
Admitted, but the modern system gives
even the purchased voter full opportunity
to repent. 1t is because the purchaser,
under the "booth" system, cannot assure
himself that the goods he has purchased
will be delivered, that he opposes the
reform, and it follows that if the new
method of conducting the election is
adopted, he will cease to buy, since the in
VeStment Will DC too PIecdHlous.
The printing of ballots by the State or munich
pality would form no serious obstacle to cum
ming bosses. who would soon devise means to
procure as many tickets as they needed to carry
out their purpose
VIII the Chronicle, which certainly
esteems itself as cunning and witty as the
most adroit loss could hope to be, suggest
single scheme by which, under the re-