The Idaho Republican. [volume] (Blackfoot, Idaho) 1904-1932, 1910-03-11
HOW PEOPLES CHOICE MAY BE
DEFEATED
Direct Primary Law Makes il Possible
For Real Choice OF IA Party to
De Defeated

In recent issue the Boise States.
man gives us this example of how q
popular candidate, though the
people choice, may be defeated
through the workings of the direct
primary law:
The direct primary law will nc
doubt be the subject OF considerable
discussion for the next few months
Especially will it be asubject Tor
exploitation in the public prints, as
a matter OF general information il
for no other reason. At the present
time there seems to be one question
in sight that bears promise of compll-
cations, and that is with respect to
the first and second choice voting.
The law contains a form of bal
lot bearing Instructions to the voter
which says in part: Vote for both
first and second choice if there are
more than twice as many candidates
as there are positions" In other
words if there are more than two
candidates for any office, then the
voter is instructed to vote for first
and second CHOICE
Inc Qu0SLlOu dlloCo, IL u 'oeSA
should vote only for his first choice
would his ballot be rejected?
The instruction to vote for both
first and second choice was apparent
ly incorporated in order to harmonize
with another section of the law which
reads.
Section 34.-The person receiving
a majority of the first choice votes at
a primary as the candidate OF party
for an office shall be the choice OF
that party for such office, and his
name as such candidate shall be plac-
ed on the official ballot at the fol-
lowing election; provided, that II no
candidate shall receive a majority OF
the first choice votes, then in that
event a canvass shall be made of the
second choice votes received by can
didates for said office, and said sec
ond choice votes shall be added to
the first choice votes received by each
candidate for such office, and the
candidate receiving the highest num-
Der of first and second choice votes
shall be the nominees for such office
of the party nominating him.
Uuu6T ILLS otCClOI IhC ioiio " 40 .
situation might be presented on the
basis of $4,000 votes cast.
1st choice End choice
Candidate votes cast votes cast
John Doe IL ,005 4,5OO
Richard Roe 1896 1000
William Coe 800 10000
In such a case Doe received ma
iority of all the first choice votes
cast. But let it be presumed that
five of those voting for him failed to
indicate a second choice, and their
votes were thrown out. We would
have this.
list choice End choice
Candidate as counted as counted
John Doe ,11.OOO 4,50O
Richard Roe 1896 1000
William Coe 800 lO,495
The throwing out of the five votes
would deprive Doe of the majority
of all the votes cast, 11,O01 being
required, and would result in sec
ond choice canvass. This would re-
suit as follows:
Candidate vote
John Doe 10 ooO
nlCudIu IloS 49, : : = 49,
William Coe .......... .lo,o9o
Under the law Gee would become
the candidate although he was the
real, or first choice, of only 800
out of $4,000 people voting. Doe
received II ,O05 first choice votes, but
failed of a majority of all by virtue
of five votes being thrown out be-
cause indicating no second choice.
Being the strongest first choice, he
would naturally be the weakest sec
ond choice, whereas the weakest first
choice man might be the strongest
second choice; and in the second
choice canvass the law dominates the
man receiving highest number OF
first and second choice votes. BY
throwing out those five votes, unmls-
takably expressing preference Tor
Doe for the position, the real choice
of the party is defeated. The situa-
ton gives cause for all the more con-
Germ in the light of the possibility OF
hundreds of first choice votes being
thrown away.
If it should be held that ballots
not indicating first and second
choice should not be counted, 1t
might become impossible for any man
to secure majority of all the frst
choice votes.
Unfair as that would be, the
courts would likely not consider the
question from the candidate point
of view. They would be more apt
to look to the protection of the vot-
err.
In all such cases the intent of the
voter has been the guiding factor.
If a voter marked his ballot for John
Doe and failed to indicate a second
choice, surely his vote on that par
ticular office should not be lost to
him.
There is no intent here of attack
ing the first and second choice prln-
ciple. Every voter should be given
the privilege of indicating a second
choice after he has expressed pre-
ference for the nomination, but he
should not be compelled to vote for
a second choice, and if he should not
do so he should not be deprived OF
his vote for the man of his choice:
Such a condition, it seems would
vitate, the fundamental doctrine OF
the direct primary, which is 10
n1od nnpnrtnnitV