The weekly Iberian. (New Iberia, La.) 1894-1946, 1913-03-01
PREFERENTIAL VOTING
AND HOW IT WORKS
BY Reginald Mott Hull, Cam
bridge, Massachusetts.

-O-
The preferential system of voting is
no new thing. For some wears stu
dents Of government have advocated
some simple method which would eli
inmate the primary election. and al
low the voters automatically to get be
hind an acceptable candidate. Meth
ods of cumulative voting and other
plans Of preferential voting have been
suggested, but il remained for Hon.
James W. Bucklin of Grand junction.
Colorado, to devise one which was
easily administered and which ena-
bled the voter to express his will.
Proceeding upon the Grand June
tion plan as n model. Prof Lewis J.
johnson Of Harvard University and
others recently drafted n charter for
Cambridge which passed the Massa
chusetis Legislature and only narrow
~ failed OF adoption by the people OF
Cambridge upon referendum.
The preferential system 1s believed,
however, to have been the chief cause
for the hearty support of the strongest
hackers of this charter, aud to have
met the oppcsition of none but those
who were opposed to the charter on
other grounds. It had the support Of
practically all the non politician lead
ers of local public sentiment and the
open opposition Of none whose stand
pat or dOctrinaire bias had not been
At first were inclined to think prefer.
entail voting complicated. but this i'm
preston was readily dispelled by max
ing mock election illustrating the sys-
tenn regular feature of charter meet
ings.
Spokane, influenced by the favor
which preferential voting had received
in Cambridge, AS we'll as by it's success
10 Grand Junction. adopted charter
Of the same kind and held its first elec.
ton under it, March I. 1911, and Pue-
bio, Colorado, u near neighbOr OF
Grand Junction. has followed suit.
In order to understand some Of the
advantages of the preferential system,
the evils which it eradicates should
be briefly enumerated.
The primary was al first abused in
the same way that the caucus was by
numbers of one party voting in the
primary Of the opposite party. With
the primary he'd on the same dav, in
the same place, with the voter requir-
ed to announce his party. this evil WAS
stopped but another disadvantage fol-
lowed, namely, that the voter was not
able to support good men on the tic
kets Of both parties. The inexpedien-
cy Of this is apparent. The average
voter who takes part In the primary is
a party man. That is the kind Of a
v0aer that is surest to come out. The
machine thus has an advantage. In
dependents are deferred from partici-
patton in the primary BY the necesst-
ty of appearing rs party men. More
over ii half the voters come out for the
primary it Is considered satisfactory
number. That vote is divided approx
imately equally between the two par
ties; a majority of that half nOminates.
The candidates. therefore, are likely
to be machine men, nominated by a
small minority. aud all Of them unac-
ceptable to the majority Of all the vot-
ers. In other words, the voter on
election day must choose between
nominees Of mere political machines.
The preferential system Of voting,
in conjunction with the short ballot,
nomination by a few petitioners, and
the elimination Of party designations
put an end to the primary and its at
taDdant evils.
| In the method Of voting proposed in
Cambridge, any fifty voters could se-
cure q place on the final ballot for the
name Of their nominee for any elect.
i've Office. Election is by the city al
large. to 4 highly paid, conspicuous
position for a three year term, with nc
party designation, no primary, and
after the frat year. with never more
than two Offices in the city council Il
be filled annually. Every candidate
stands on his own feet,- no boss die
tates who shall, or shall not run
The man who can survive this test
must win on his own merit and nO
merely DRIFT into Office on a party Ia
bel unknown to most of his fellow cit
| liens.
The preferential ballot enables the
voters Of this city in one election to ar
rive at q majority choice irrespective
of the number of candidates, provided
there 10 anyone In the list Of candi
dates acceptable to majority. II
there is none such in the list 1t IL Oh
viously not the fault Of the preferen
tial ballot. Besides we get the nex'
best thing and the only thing possible
with such list OF nominees, legiti
mate plurality election; /. e., a plurali
ty election based on full and free ex
preston Of choice by the voters y
place Of the customary one In which
voter with only one choice must vote
against all the candidates but one
though there may be several excellent
names In the list.
Beware Of the man who tells Of an
absolute majority system. There II
no such thing. What goes by thai
name ,s always something which
merely chokes of candidates by prl
mary election or BY dropping low mer
az in some Of the older preferential
Systems and forcing an appearance o.
majority for what IN fact 10 only
plurality candidate. A man 10 no true
majority candidate unless In fret
and open field and with full range o
choice by the voter he has the suppor
of the majority. No system Of votin,
viii make ~ for q lack Of acquaint
ance or support. We must. in word
either have a majority man amonl
the nominees, or put up with plural
,tv choice in fact, If not In form.
Theo modern preferential ballot i
arranged like the ordinary Australian
ballotlex Except that instead Of one col
umu for crosses there are three pro
yjded, headed first choice" 'secon'
CHOICE" and ''other chOices' respect
lively. The voter places cross in tn
first column after the name Of his firs
choice for that Office, and In the see
- 4 .oaA.,~ >eknr Ahn - q mo nf hts QN(