Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1890-11-06
THE SMALL PRECINCT SYSTEM.

The wisdom of limiting the number of
voters in precinct to 200 is undeniable /;
it has been now demonstrated, and no
man who has any regard whatever for the
elective franchise and free government
will ask for return to the old system, if
he has personal knowledge of the new.
The only reason that there was such de-
lay as was the rule Tuesday night, is that
the Story method of counting. as put in
practice, handicapped the small precinct
system. That was certainly true in Sac
ramento, and from all indications it was
evidently true throughout the State.
If there is not, therefore, any intricate
system of counting interposed, then
by the system of small precincts speed
in counting ballots is promoted, but a
greater gain by far is the time afforded
voters in which to cast their ballots. The
polls being open for eleven hours, and the
electors being divided as nearly as can be
done into groups of 200, there is allotted
more than three minutes to each voter in
which to deposit his ballot.
The old-time crowding and pushing
about the polls is avoided under the new
system; the element that was wont to
block the way to the ballot-box and delay
voters is too small to be divided among
thirty odd precincts in such city as this
and accomplish its vicious ends. Still
further virtues of the small precinct sys-
tenn, and which the authorities have not
shown enthusiastic friendship for, are
that it enables the elector to know person.
ally or by research every other elector and
his qualifications to vote, or his disqual-
ifcations; the greater cost the system i'm
poses upon the vicious men who buy votes;
the quiet it insures to the public and con-
the dignity it adds to the cleo
tive system; the aid it is to the timid
man who will not vote in crowd, or put
himself at risk of any kind of ineonveni-
ence or punishment in order to exercise
his right as a free man.
Unhampered by involved devices of
standing alone and upon its own
merits, therefore, the small precinct sys-
tenn is great advance in securing cleanli-
ness in elections, full and fair expression of |
the popular will, rapid counting and early
of the results of ballot |
ing. And in this last advantage resides !
another. Where the tallies can be
early declared, the opportunities to alter
returns, manipulate ballots and adjust |
counts to meet the ends of the I'M
are very few. Such influences
profit by all night counts, large tally sheets,
the WEAKNESS of clerks, the multiplicity of |
ballots and the great opportunity long |
count affords for criminally manipulating |
ballots.
There was a great deal said recently |
about the heavy cost to the people Of set
ting up and offering so many precinct |
election boards. But the cost, no matter |
what it is, is bagatelle compared to the |
benefits of the small precinct
system. Cost cuts no figure whatever in
schemes that are intended to secure the
of the ballot box, the freedom of
the voter, honest counts and true returns.
1t is rmored that because of the element
Of heavy cost an effort will be made in the
approaching legislative session to raise the
precinct limit to four hundred voters. If
any such attempt is made, it can be relied
upon as having its genesis in vicious in
fuences, and as being prompted by those
who wish to profit by the fears and the
timidity of some voters, the cupldity of
others, and the opportunity to commit
crimes against the ballot-box.