The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1891-12-30
REFORM.

In the Forum for January Joseph B.
Bishop, an ardent advocate of the Aus
tralian system Of voting, groups in an
interesting and instructive way the re-
suits of the workings of that system IN
the various states which have adopted
it. It is only five years since the agita-
tation in favor Of the secret ballot was
begun in earnest. Yet within that
period no less than thirty-three states
have enacted some form of law provid-
ing for the secrecy Of the ballot and in
most Of them the legislation has been of
the strictest sort. Mr.. Bishop Classics
the character Of these laws in the differ
I ent states as good, fair, poor and bad.
According to his view the laws of Cali
fornia, Connecticut and New Jersey are
poor; that of Maryland is fair while
those Of New York and Pennsylvania are
positively bad. He calls the law Of
Montana good. At the same time he
concurs IN the opinion SO often expressed
in these columns that there is much to
be said in favor OF grouping the names
by parties. on the official ballots, for the
convenience of voters. On this subject
Mr.. Bishop says: II am unable to real
ize the force Of the objections which are
made to the party-group plan. 1t seems
to me that in most of these objections it
is assumed that it is one of the functions
Of the new system to encourage indie
pendent voting and that such voting can
be encouraged by putting obstacles in
the way of straight party voting. Both
these assumptions appear to me to be
mistaken. AS I understand the new
system it is not designed to give aid and
encouragement to any particular kind
of voting at the expense of others but to
ecure absolutely fair, secret and easy
voting for all. 1t cannot be denied that
the number of electors who desire to
vote straight party tickets is enor-
mously in EXCESS of the number who de-
sire to vote independent or mixed tick
cts. Surely these straight voters are
entitled to have the process of balloting
made as easy for them as possible.
Their rights in the premises are as sa-
cred as those OF the independent voters.
My conclusions on this point have been
reached after careful observation of the
practical working of the laws. I have
been unable to see in what respect the
workings of the alphabetical laws have
been superior to the workings of the
party-group laws. In Indiana, Ohio
and Missouri and other states, in which
the latter have been tested, the results
have been SO completely satisfactory
that all criticism has not been merely |
silenced but turned into praise"
This is important testimony from an
independent point of view. We do not
think Mr.. Bishop lays stress enough on
the party-group method of voting.
Laws are made for majorities and not
for scattering individuals here and
there. Ninety-nine per cent. of tho
voters OF a community vote straight
party tickets. The independent voter
can take care Of himself. If he is intel
ligent enough to discriminate against
individual candidates he can readily
scratch any kind of q ballot that NAV be
framed. The grouping of candidates by
parties and allowing voters to designate
q whole group by a single mark greatly
simpiiiies the work of voting and gives
more satisfactory results thar the ar.
Fangement of the names alphabetically
~ on our Montana ballot. The per
centage of mistakes in voting under our
present law is very large, and a change
to the group-system Of voting, without
impairing the secret feature of the bal.
lot, would be a distinctive gain.
MI. Bishops article contains n or
two interesting suggestions. He main-
talns that the Australian system has
special advantages for the states in that
it furnishes them with the only method
by which they can get rid of the great
bulk 81 the colored vote in a legal,
peaceable, and unobjectionable manner.
Northern critics cannot complain Of