The Portland daily press., 1890-10-29


minority Inc change has been brought about
oy the arguments presented by the friends of
we australian system ana by the practical
"oIkings OF the system In other States, es
peciaiiy In Massachusetts. There is still
however, some elements which look upon
tue reform as unnecessary and inexpedient.
Sucn OF these elements, If any there be, as
oppose the Australian system because of
oeiief or suspicion that the power Of the
poss" In politics will be diminished by 1t, "
Is useless to reason with. Their opposition to
the system is based upon the very same rea-
sonslwhich induce its friends to support 1t,
namely, that 1t will conduce to fair and
unbiased expression of the peoples will, and
| of course 1t can De removed only by showing
| that the reform system will not promote
| this result The chief questionable oppo-
sition that will make itself most felt--will,
we believe. come from men who sincerely
| think they see In the new system complexi-
ties which will perplex the average voter
| and an Increased cost which will prove bur
| depsome to the small towns. This kind of
| opposition is open to conviction ana can be
| reasoned with.
We believe superficial study of the sys-
| tenn is largely responsible for the notion that
| it is complex and cumbersome. The bill in
trodnced into the last legislature was very
long, and as descriptions of processes are
apt to be, somewhat obscure. A man read
ing 1t. especially hurIiedly, might easily get
the idea that the system was full of details
which would prove confusing to the voter.
But careful examination of that bill will
show that very large part of it was taken
up with defining the duties of public officers
under the law, and that as far as the voters
were concerned there were no puzzling de-
tails. This would still more clearly appear
by seeing the system in operation. As mat
ter of fact the system is not one whit more
complicated than the existing one. When
the voter goes to the polls under the present
system some one hands him ballot with the
names of the Republican candidates upon it
somebody else hands him ballot with the
names Of the Democratic candidates upon 1t I;
somebody else hands him third ticket, con-
tanning the Dames of some of the Republican
and some of the Democratic candidates. To
vote intelligently he must know the names
l Of the candidates Of each party, and be able
to read his ballot, else he is able to vote for
somebody he does not want to. He must
take the ballots given him, examine them to
see that they bear the names of the men he
wishes to vote for. He has no absolute
guarantee that either of the ballots handed
him is what it purports to be. He can only
positively determine that fact by examina-,
ton. Now In this respect the Australian
system Is simpler than the present system
tnasmuch as it relieves the voter from the
need Of verifying his ballot by comparing it
with the list of the nominees of each party.
When an official ballot is handed the voter.
such as the Australian system requires, the
correctness of the names upon it and of their
political classification is guaranteed. If John
Smith appears upon it as Republican candi-
date for sheriff, it is not necessary for the
voter to think over the Republican nominees
and see If John Smith is really the Republ-
can candidate for sheriff, or to consult list
OF Republican nominees posted in the ward
room or printed in newspaper, to guard
against being tricked. When he sees John
Smith upon the official ballot set down
as the Republican candidate for sheriff, he
has the guarantee of the State that the fact
Is in accordance with this statement of it,
That is to say. the official ballot entirely re-
lieves the voter of all necessity of himself
taking any precaution against deception by
split tickets. So In this respect his work is
simplified. Now what does the Australian
system require OF the voter which the pres
emit system does not? Simply that he shall
mark cross against the name OF the man or
men he wants to vote for. Is there any
thing complex or cumbersome about that?
Certainly not. Yet that is absolutely all
that the Australian system requires of the
voter which the present one does not. The
charge of complexity or cumbersomeness,
therefore Is absolutely groundless
Now as to the expense. There are only
two possible sources of increased expendi-
ture. One Is the cost Of the booths in which
the voter marks his ballot. The other is the
cost of the printing of the ballots. Five or
ten dollars will erect all the booths needed
In the average country town, and they can
be SO constructed that they can be taken
down when the election is over, and laid
away for use at the next election. After the
first year it will be great many years be-
fore single additional dollar will have to
be expended for booths. The cost of the
ballots will also be trifiing. Put into the
State tax 1t will be scarcely appreciable.
Massachusetts, has tried the new system
aud nobody throughout the length and
breadth of the State has complained be-
cause of the expense.