The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1902-09-18
PRIMARY" Results and Comment.

Primary Results and Comment.
early returns, the primary election of
Tuesday brought out a vote that, in it's
size was both surprising and gratifying.
1t was agreed on all sides that the vote
would be smaller than at the primaries
two years ago. In 1900 the voters had a
new plaything to amuse themselves with,
and the excitement of a presidential cam
patgn to stir them up This being an off
year, and the primary system being no
longer novel in this county, all the polit-
ically wise agreed that the vote would be
from 5000 to 5000 less than in 1900. 1t
turns out to be as large, If not larger,
the errors of election judges two years
ago making it impossible to ascertain pre-
cisely how many ballots were cast then.
Probably 81, 900 votes were cast in each
election in this county. So far as main
tanning popular interest Is concerned, then
we may conclude that the primary cleo
ton Is a. great success. 1t is doubtful If
there were ever more than $4,000 votes
cast in Hennepin county under the old prl-
mary or caucus system. The people like
to vote directly for their party nominees.
Of that there can be no doubt.
There were many complaints from vot-
ers regarding the requirement: of a state
ment Of party utilization, but the number
Of those who refrained from voting on
that account does not appear to have been
large. On the whole the effect of this pro-
vision appears to have been good AS the
democrats have increased their primary
vote, while the republicans have lost, as
compared with two years ago, there is
reason to suspect, though not to conclude,
that the new provision has kept democrats
from interfering with the choice of repub-
lican candidates. It can safely be SAID
that, with a few possible exceptions, the
republican candidates were nominated
without the assistance Of democratic
votes. There is nothing in the result an
a1ooo,s to the Nomination Of Ames two
years ago. II y "a / - :. =.
In the state the people seem to have
taken kindly to the new system. z. The
vote has, not, perhaps, been proportion
ately so large as in Minneapolis and St.
Paul, but very large for a primary cleo
ton in the country districts:
The most notable defect of direct nom1-
nation of candidates is strongly brought
out by the large number OF minority
candidates. There were contests for the
republican nominations to congress IN
seven Of the nine Minnesota districts. In
five of these the nominee is the choice of
a. minority Of votes: Only ~Rede in the
eighth and Tawney in the first are moral
nees who had to fight and have yet OBJ
tanned majorities. Notwithstanding Mr..
| Fletcher's large plurality in this district,
he is a. minority candidate. -.--~-
| But 1t is not too much to say that the
majority choice under the convention sys-
tenn is not what it seems to be-. Conven-
tions that have to deal with more than
! two aspirants very often nominate the
one who had the fewest votes at the start.
| The fact that the delegates voted for him
does not change the choice of the citizens
who elected the delegates to vote for an
| other man. Moreover, it sometimes hap
1 pens that a majority of delegates really
represents a minority of voters-as has
sometimes happened in the electoral col
lege of the United States. Too much
| stress has been laid on the possibility that
opposition to a candidate before the pri-
maries may lead to opposition to him IN
| the final polls. The 5000 republicans who
voted for Mr.. Hay and the 5000 who voted
for Mr.. Peterson in this district would
rather vote in November for Mr.. Fletcher
the choice Of 10000 of their fellow repub-
licans, than they would for. Mr.. Fletcher
as the scratch nominee Of closely di-
vided convention. They know that more
republicans favor Fletcher than favo,
Hay or Peterson. After a close anc
angry convention they would not have the
| consolation of that knowledge. j
It is true that some undesirable candi'
| dates were nominated Tuesday by botf
parties, but not more than the old system
would have given us. The people chose
l them, and if we are to condemn the
i primary system because it sometime:
a gives us unfit candidates, we must for the
! same reason condemn government by the
people,
i The great advance marked ny the prl
mary election system IS the intense inter
est it arouses among voters. Il Nothing
J will, in the long run, prove so beneficial
} to government as popular interest In it
These thousands of voters who have as
] sisted in nominating men who will late
fill Offices are going to watch them close
, w. This will lead to a feeling of respon
J sibility on the part OF the ofhceholoe
; that he does not have in such degree 81
| long as control of a few political leader
gives promise of reelection. The office
, holder who wishes to continue in offic
must make a good name for himself witt
the people.
i We think the primary. election system i