The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1892-01-19
Nor A ..DEFECTIvE sYsTENr.,,

NOT A ''DEFECTIvE SYSTEM"
In San Francisco daily journal, which
has uniformly opposed the reform ballot
system, we find renewed assault upon
the law. Evidently the intention is to
keep up these attacks with the hope en-
tertained that the next Legislature viii
undo the work of the last.
The complaint is now made that many
blank ballots were cast in both the Mas
sachusetts and the New York elections.
Upon the former fact the San Francisco
paper hinges its argument. AS to the
latter it is sufficient to say that the New
York law, with its party ballots, is not
the reform law, but bungling, ill-con-
structed cheat, and was intended by Gov
srnor Hill, to please whose notions it was
constructed, to be non-effectual.
AS to the Massachusetts, system, it is
excellent and the only complaint by its
enemies now made against it is that at the
recent, election quite a percentage of
blank or unmarked ballots were de-
posted. The conclusion is therefore
reached that this was due to incapacity of
the voters to understand the system of
Of marking because It's complex, involved
and not understandable. That same
argument has been advanced in this city,
and as it is pushed persistently to the
front, and as we are to hold an important
election here in few weeks, the subject
is worthy of reorganization.
Under the old system there always was
recognizable percentage Of blank bal
lots; that is to say, voters were quite nu-
merous who rejected all nominated can
didates and declined to write the name
of their choice. In the last Presidential
election in this city, very considerable
number refused to vote for any Presi-
dental electors; the same spirit has been
manifested at every GubernatorIaI cleo
ton.
But suppose it to be true that from to
8 per cent. Of the ballots cast in Massachu-
sets were cast blank. Is it reasonable to
attribute the fact to the inability of the
voters to mark their ballots? We think
not. For it must be conceded that all
such voters were intelligent enough to
enter the polling place; to give their regis
ter number or direct its finding: to re-
ceive ballot and go into booth, and
there enter upon the duty of marking
their ballots.
1t appears that Of the whole number of
''blank ballots" none-or so few that no
point is made of it-were entirely blank.
Some officers were voted for upon each.
Thus, there were cast $50, 594 ballots. On
these 32l $50 times the candidates for Gov
ernor were voted for, while upon the same
ballots only 305,566 markings for Attor-
ney-General were found, and 3OS, O2O for
Secretary ofState. What does this prove?
That there were 25,02S voters Intelligent
enough to vote for Governor or other
officers who declined to accept any of the
candidates for Attorney General; that
22,574 voted for other officers but rejected
all nominees for Secretary of State, and
so on through the list.
1t is simply absurd to claim that men
having intelligence enough to mark their
ballots flor ten or fifteen offices are too
stupid to complete the markings for one
or two others. The presumption must be
in favor of the voter, that he intended his
ballot to count precisely as he deposited
1t. But suppose, for argument, that out of
$50, 1874 voters an average of 10000 deposit
blank ballots, because they cannot under
stand how to make an tx" opposite the
names of their choice. shall 80, 594 voters
who are intelligent, therefore, be relegated
to the tender mercies of the old system,
under which secrecy was difficult, indie
pendent voting more so, and ability to
reach the ballot-box without interference,
cow, threat. crowding and trouble, was at
the minimum?
But is the system difficult to under
stand? Is it so complex that the average
American citizen cannot comprehend it?
voter enters an Enclosure where, with
out jostling, suggestion, crowding or in
timidating, he is given a ballot. He re-
tires into the privacy of a small compart-
ment where he examines the paper. In
clear, bold type he finds the names of two,
three, or four candidates for Governor,
with the political designation of each
printed with each name. He finds in a
separate group the names of all candi-
dates for Secretary of State, for Treasurer,
for Assemblymen from his district, and
so on. It is printed plainly before his
eyes that he is to indicate his choice for
each by pressing stamp, ready at hand,
upon the paper opposite each name foi
which he wishes to vote, voting for but
one in each group, or two or three as