Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1890-02-09
SUNDAY. ..FEBRUARY9. 1890.
The Australian system.

Theforcible argument in favor of the Aus
tralian system Of voting presented yester-
day IN our columns was written by men,
Der Of the House of Delegates. thas sug-
eested 10 us again that that system OF voting
might be tested first IN primary election.
It's merits and dement's would thus be
brought out. The Legislature Of Virginia
has never made provision, as those OF other
States have. for conducting primary cleo
lions according to law; but there Is no
reason why that body should not legailze
such elections and bring them under the
operation of suitable statute.
The Australian system seems to hayo
grown wonderfully in public esteem during
the last year or two. One OF the reasons
assigned by its friends for advocating its
general or universal adoption is that the
absolute secrecy of the vote will do away
with bribery by making it impossible for
the briber to know that the corrupt bar
gain is carried out. But this feature OF
the system will not prevent the corrupt
candidates from paying the voters for
staying a, home. 1t is true the purchaser
would not get as much for his money
when he bought mans absence rs
he xould when he bought his vote;
but the only result of this woulo be
that the price would be lower Nor
Is IL altogether certain that the bribed
voter could not be relied upon TO live up
20 his contract. The honor" which IS
said to prevail among thieves" Is not
thing unknown among vote-seekers. We
have heard or read the statement that in
New Hampshire and Vermont, and per-
haps elsewhere in the North, thrifty men
cell their votes with as full purpose to
"deliver the goods" as when they sell
horse or q load Of hay. Their conscientious
scruples control their action only 50 far as
to lead them to vote the ticket of their own
party rather than the ticket of the oppo-
sing party. As between men of their own
party they cell their votes to the highest
bidder.
The Australian system will. il is claimed.
prevent intimidation. as OF employees and
Government appointees or officials or OIL
GERS. II is also claimed that the providing
of ballots by the State aud at public ex-
pense will lessen the power of political ma
chimes by depriving them of their principal
legitimate excuse for levying assessments
upon candidates. Who would not rejoice
70 soc such machines smashed to srnithe-
Teens? BY all means lot US test the matter
Il not otherwise at primary election. 1t
Is claimed also that the Australian system
will make it possible for a short purse to
compete with long one. We doubt the
possibility of accomplishing that most de-
sirable result. but we repeat we are willing
to try the experiment alta primary election.
The Australian system Is no new thing.
It is perhaps thirty years old in Australia,
and has been in use in England in its most
important features for nearly twenty
years. Belgium has a law similar in most
respects to the Australian or English law.
in the Dominion Of Canada the Australian
system has been in use since 1874. All
these countries may have some features
peculiar to their own election-laws.
We might name Louisville, KY, as O
place where the Australian system with
one exception, styled "a noticeable
blemish,'D has been successfully tried.
Massachusetts, has successfully tried it.
It is claimed that no State which has ever
had an election-law modelled after the
Australian has repealed it. This fact speaks
strongly in favor of the system which the
mugwumps of this country advocate with
90 much zeal.