The true northerner. [volume] (Paw Paw, Mich.) 1855-1920, 1906-02-23
Party Registration
A Further Consideration of the Merits of
the Primary Law.

During the last few years we have heard
much about the evils OF caucus pack
ing" One of the strongest reasons urged
for reformation of our primaries has
been, il possible, to get rid of this grow
ing abuse.
A packed caucus may be defined as
one in which portion of those taking
part are not legal voters of the precinct
in which the caucus is held or are not
members of the party holding the caucus.
In most of our country townships, caucus
packing practically is unknown; but in
our larger villages and in our cities it has
become seriousmat In the summer
of 1904 not less than 30 democratic voters
came into republican caucus held in
Paw Paw with the evident intention of
voting therein, but when faced by a
challenger they had too much self respect
TO perjure themselves, and stood aside.
In former republican primaries, however,
l have seen more than one, democrats
unchalenged, cast their votes. In Ale
gan township, two years ago, the papers
stated that not less than 20 democrats,
minors and non-residents voted in re-
publican caucus. These examples can
be multiplied indefinitely; you hear of
them In every county.
Where the system of direct nominations
has replaced the nominating convention
in this state and elsewhere, this evil of
packing" has always appeared, and in
an aggravated form. 1t is a matter of
common kno Wedge that in.Kent and
Muskegon counties large proportion of
democrats who voted went outside of
their party lines and marked the names
of candidates on the republican primary
ballots; that is to say they packed the
republican primaries.
In Wayne county we are told by the
press that thousands of democrats took
part in h e republican primaries. 3"
Why did these democrats vote for re.
publican aspirants for nominations? |
know of but two reasons.
First, because their votes were solicited
or bought by INSCRIPTIONS candidates
who felt that they would be repudiated
by the voters of their own party.
Second, democrats voted for weak.
undesirable" candidates on the republi-
can primary ballot believing that if
such candidates were nominated they
might be defeated at the polls.
Large numbers of democrats in Detroit
deserted temporarily their own party
and voted for Mr.. Codd, one of the re-
publican candidates for the nomination
for mayor. These democrats supported
Mr.. Codd not because they believed him
to be the best qualified and strongest
man on the list of aspirants for the re-
publican nomination, but because they
believed him TO be the weakest.
The democrats packed" the republic
can primaries and aided 10 the nomination
of Mr. Codd because they believed they
could defeat him at the election easier
than they could any one of the other
candidates.
The campaign that resulted IN the cleo
ton of Mr.. Sweet as mayor of Grand
Rapids furnishes a striking illustration
at an informal convention, or confer
ence" Mr. Sweet was selected by the
democratic leaders of Grand Rapids as
the strongest and most available can
didate for mayor of that city.
No other name appeared against that
of Mr.. Sweet on the democratic primary
ballot, consequently his nomination was
assured; it was immaterial how many or
how few democrats voted for him at
the primary. The democrats, with this
candidate for mayor practically selected
by convention methods before the pri-
mary, were left free to "play smash with
the republican primary ballot, which
| they did.
There were four names for the nomina-
ton for mayor on the republican primary
ballot; one of them, that of Mr.. Wesselius,
the democrats believed was distasteful to
large numbers of republican consequently
they marked the republican ballot;
marking of course the name of Mr..
Wesselius
Most of the republicans marked the
name of some one of the other three can
didates on this ballot The democratic
vote cast for Mr.. Wesselus enabled him
to poll larger vote than any one OF the