The Alaska citizen., 1911-01-02

the total vote of the state may be nominated without participating in the direct primary, but by means of petition or mass meeting. No Cauli- date non 'na ted otherwise than in the direct primary can Us. either the HuIi Re rublICau' or Democrat in any form; that is, the nominees If the direct primary are entitled To tne party designation in the general lection. and no opposition candidate san designate himself as all 'lnde- ponden. RepUa.icau" or Progressive Republican, or Use any other quail f,ng term which includes the word Republican" or Democrat" These provisions secure to the nominees of the direct primary he exclusive
 right 70 their party designation Cn rho ballot in the gen raj election.
 Each candidate in he direct prim- mary is vu'itIci tO have placed
 in his petition for nomination a statement Cou.aiuing not t' exceed
 loo words, and on the ballot in the 1 primary and gen rel election q leg l end f not more than I2 words speci- l lying aug measures or principles he i especially advocates.
 l i4l ny 'l'i--'NiA 't4' ttA ''' I'l AiiA'Ni i is the only uraCticabla method If ful- i ly securing to the people their right 1 70 choose their public servants.
 1 Convention Nominee Under Obliga. tion to Boss.
 Under the convention system thd i mem Jers of q party dclcgat2 their | power of selection of candidates to i he members of a Cony ention. To my mind this system is more per. niciouS. because the party electorate i feels that its responsibility ceases with the selection of is convention i delegates. Hence the respOnsibilit! i of citizenship is weakened and shift i lessneSs encouraged.
 As soon as the del gates to the 1 convention are chosen, the power Of | selection of public servants becomes ] , enjraliZed in q few and opportunit! i is exte nded to individuals and inter.
 ests who wish to use public servants l for selfish or ulteri r purposes. In. | huenCes adverse 10 the general well l fare are immediately brought to 1 bear upon this body of delegates.
 Factions are created, combinations effected, and party disruption ire 1 Quently results. Often convention i nominates man for public Ct1lct l WhO. prior to the convention. was never seriously considered as q | probable nominee.
 ! Tn my thirty years experience in 1 politics quite frequently have i seen l this the case. This strengthens m. | conviction that the prevailing system 1 of convention selections of party can | didates is not representative, but mis- 1 r. presentatiye. form Of government. | The people certainly have no voice l in the selection O. candidates when heir temporary representatives hau no idea of making q selection unti- i occurrences transpiring during the convention determine their action.
 Let us look at the system in vogue l Il he se.eCtiCn Cf delegates. In
 most cases where convention nom
 nations are maue We can trace back
 the political boss and machine tht preparation of slate of delegates. In | the selection of the individuals com | posing the slate the political boss l has in mind the pcrpctIdtiCn of his own power, and selects individuals
 whose interests are identical with ! his and whom he thinks he can di- 1 rect and control. though occasionally, ! if anticipating a struggle, he will
 select a few men whose standing in l the community will bring strength
 to the slate he has prepared in
 order to carry out his purposes. In | dependent men are selected only where it is deemed necessary by
 the political boss to deceive the public and secure sufficient support | from the personal influence of those 1 few selt ctiOns to carry through the ! slate made up chiefly Of his willing
 tools. This system prevails not on'y l in selection Of delegates to county
 conventions, but in selection of del
 gates to congressional, state. and
 national conventions as well. The
 result is inevitable that the dele gates nominate candidates whom the
 machine and political bosses desire,
 except in rare cases where a few | independent men are able, by pres
 entation of arguments against the
 qualifications of a machine candidate,
 10 demonstrate to the convention the probability of the defeat of the
 man slated for the position. Ere 1 Quently, Of course, a case is present
 ed where the boss has made promis- l eS bO Val lOuo dSpIi dlllS lOI luS Sdile
 office, in which case he excuses him.
 self to the disappointed aspirant by 1 explaining that he was unable to control the convention. Thus men, | dacity and treachery are f0stered by
 the convention system which by the
 primary system are absolutely elim- mated.
 Under the convention system the
 nominee realizes that his nomination is due chiefly, if not directly, to
 the boss. With this knowledge natur-
 ally goes a feeling of obligation, SC
 that the nominee, when elected is
 des'rous, whenever possible, of ac-
 ceding to the wishes of the man
 to whom his nomination is due.
 l hus the efficiency anu lnuependen,e e
 of the public servant is seriously af-
 fected and his duty to the public in
 many cases completely annihilated q.
 Nominee of Direct Primary Responsi-
 bIe to People Alone.
 How different in it's operation is
 the direct primary. The man who
 seeks a nomination under the direct
 primary system must present before
 the members of his party the poll
 cies and principles by which he will
 be governed if nominated and elect
 ed. He must submit to them his
 past record in public and private life. Promises made to political boss.
 es or machine managers will have
 no beneficial influence in determining
 the result, and therefore the candi-
 late is not tempted to place him.