River Falls journal. [volume] (River Falls, Pierce County, Wis.) 1872-2019, 1902-09-04
Primary Elections.

My present conviction is that the
scheme is practical only in a limited
field, where the offices to be filled
are single or at most very few in
number, and the candidates we'll
known to the electors. Extended
beyond this, it will, in my judgment,
tend to stiffen and strengthen parti-
sanship and bossism and to promote
secret combines of political manipu-
lation. Gen. Winkler on primary
elections.
Many of us have modified our
views as to this innovation. A fac
tor in our decision is the conclusion
that if Gov. La Foleette does not
hesitate to make the United States
senatorship vehicle of his personal
aims and prejudices, he would use
the nominating system of the state
with the same disregard of conse-
quences. The bill offered the legis-
lature next winter must be moder-
ate and tentative, and be subjected
to the closest scrutiny an suspicion.
Madison State Journal.
The theory Of primary elections
is very pretty one. The principle
is correct. "The fundamental prin-
ciple that each citizen shall have an
equal voice in the government, and
to this end must be assured an equal
voice in making his party ballot"
as enunciated in Gov. La Follette's
message to the Legislature of 1901,
is very acceptable statement. No
one will demur to this. If pri-
mary election law can be so framed
as to secure this principle in exercise
it will commend itself to the hearty
acceptance of every voter in the land.
We are all aware that a theory--as
an abstract principle-may not be so
unobjectionable in practice as it ap-
pears in the statement of it.
Many of us who had experienced
special admiration for the primary
election principle had our eyes
opened to this fact by the radical
enormities of the "Steven's Bill"
presented to the last legislature.
The primary election principle re-
duced to practice is an innovation.
1t necessitates a radical change in
our methods of elections. This
very fact suggests the necessity to
go slow; to feel the way along; to
be sure of our ground before we
make abrupt changes. The ground
work of our present system is in
majorities. "The majority rules"
Are we ready to jeopardize this
fundamental law and relinquish the
regulation of political affairs to a
possible minority, contingency
which is liable to happen in the ex-
ercise of a primary election law?
Have we considered this phase of
a primary election law in operation?
Probably we may have hint Of
what a primary election law may be
in our fool caucus law. An illustra-
ton of its effects is seen in the fol-
lowing incident, practical applica-
ton of it: In city caucus man
was named for an office by just one
fifth of all the votes cast. That man
was evidently not the choice of the
majority. In fact it was pretty GER
tain that four-ffths of the voters were
opposed to him. This is inferred
for the reason that he was the in
cumbent official and as such his
name. was suggested for the office,
whereas four-fifths of the voters not
having agreed upon candidate for
the office threw their votes away on
four different candidates. Was such
a contingency contemplated by the
trainers and makers of the law?
Evidently not for the law specifically
says that the nominee shall have
majority of the votes cast. But
how could this be possible when the
law provided for only one ballot?
In view of this anomalous condi-
ton the Attorney General says the
word "majority" must be construed
to mean "plurality." But Judge
Vinje, ruling on a case under the
law that arose in Superior, says the
word "majority" means what it says.