Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1912-06-08
An Analysis of the N..s''
Republican Primary Vote
IBy Ora Williamsl

Des Moines, June S.-When the
complete table of the repub-
lican primary vote of June goes
| into the Red Book it will disclose a
serious indictment against the voters
OF the state and the most conspicu-
Gus weakness OF the primary system
OF making nominations for state Of
fce. The first lesson OF the primary
Is that vast majority of the voters
do not vote intelligently and that the
| avenues thru which they ought to be
Informed as to candidates. and issues
are badly clogged. When candidates
| carry counties in which they are to-
tally unknown, as against men much
better known, as in this case, it is
certain that ignorance was the con-
trolling factor. The figures will show
this occurred in many cases. To one
who has followed the course of the
campaign, so far as shown in the
newspapers. this is not surprising. In
many counties of the state the voters
would never know, from reading OF
their newspapers. that there was any
campaign in progress. There are daily
republican newspapers, and scores of
weekly neWSpa perS. that never during
the progress of the campaign made the
slightest effort to enlighten their read
erS as to what is going on in state
affairs, and to only very limited eX-
tent as to local affairs. Apparently
many of them were waiting for candi-
dates to buy space in the papers. They
avoided politics as If it was a pla que.
Their readers went to the polls ignor-
ant. If the primary law is to be saved
from utter destruction in Iowa steps
Will have to be taken to see that the
people are better informed as 20 cam
didates. and this must rest with those
who are interested in the welfare Of
their party.
The surprise OF the primary, as dis
closed in the returns. is the vote on
secretary of state, but this illustrates
not only how important is position on
the ticket but also that secret int1u-
ences may easily work to effect many
votes. II will be found that the big
majorities or votes for each candidate
were where his l7ane came first on the
ballots. This had quite as much in
fuence as it did on the vote for gov
ernor four years ago. when it was the
deciding factor But there were other
influences working to give Allen a big
vote-just what they were is not dis
closed. but il may he set down that
To only Very limited extent was his
big vote an accident or due to con-
fusion of mis- name with others.
While the tables show that the
voters failed to vote with discrimina-
ton on minor offices on the state
head of the ticket Cnquestionably
ba irfa IN he 90, ON,
tered on the head of the ticket and
not great many of the voters gave
much attention to candidates. down
the line. But on governor there was
a real contest; and yet there are some
things about the vote that can not very +,
we'll be explained. In general, how
ever. the vote was evenly divided over
the state and as to all the precincts.
showing that the voters were discrimi-
mating.
Following the election. and in line
with campaign arguments, the anti
progressive organs here undertook to
explain the success of Clarke by hints
as to saloon influence. One of them
referred to the "closeness" Of the race
between Holden and Clarke and that
the Ames man said the lead gained
by the lieutenant governor in the river
counties is too great for him to over
come; which is only another way of
trying to convey to the republican
votes that it was in counties where sa-
looms are located that their candidate
was named. 1t is worth while to
analyZe the figures to see whether
there is any foundation for this indict-
ment Of the republican party.
Here are twelve river counties" or
those in which there are or have been
saloons recently, and where the liquor
influence would be felt if anywhere,
namely: Woodbury.. Clinton. Black
hawk, Pottawattamie, Muscatine, Du-
buque, Harrison. Clayton, Webster,
Boone. Des Moines Scott. Certainly
this group of counties is entitled to
the classification of river counties"
In this group of twelve counties, ac-
cording TO early figures. the vote was:
Clarke 1869. Holden 1926, Proudfoot
1923: total, 24,2s7. Plurality for Hol-
den 5s6
Now take this group Of counties
casting nearly as many votes, namely:
Dickinson, Winnebago, Sioux. Greene
Hardin, Marshall. Jasper, Adair Powe-
Sitter. w dSulIS ION, Monroe
Certainly this group would not be
designated as one of river counties
1t is well distributed over the state
1t does not contain the home county
Of either candidate.
In this group of twelve counties the
vote was: Clarke 1852, Holden 1912
Proudfoot 2.521; total, 1886. Plural
ity for Clarke 5000.
If complaint be made that this is an
unusual list OF dry counties take
list with small votes. namely: Howard,
Lyon, Mills, Osceola, Clarke, Shelby,
Tama, Warren, Mitchell, Adams, Floyd
Taylor.
In this group Of counties, with small
vote. the result was: Clarke $685.,
Holden 1886, Proudfoot 3,240: total
1910 Plurality for Clarke $500.
Any possible analysis Of the figures
viii show the utter absurdity Of the ex-