Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1913-03-04
The Massachusetts, Ballot.

than they knew, Tor they incidentally
swept away the only argument of any
consequence against the adoption of
the Massachusetts form of ballot for
ali elections. That argument, briefly
stated, was that while intrinsically
the Massachusetts ballot was superior
TO our own, yet its adoption would
result in the confusion and perhaps
disfranchisement of many voters.
We had become familiar with our
present system-then why plunge us
into an unknown sea of difficulties by
changing it?
Prior to the adoption of the primary
election law. it cannot be denied that
there was some force in the above
eounter-arguments were not only
sound, but were continually gaining
favor with the thinking men of all
parties. State after state was dis
carding Anticipated systems which like
that of Maine, were richly productive
of spoiled and defective ballots, and
adopting the Massachusetts system,
which has never been exeelled for
simplicity, and under which spoiled
ballots are so rare as to be almost a
curiosity.
1t was pointed out that the Massa-
| oh .1,,t, \
arrangement of candidates. precisely
similar to our present primary election
ballot, makes ii obligatory upon the
voter TO place his cross opposite the
name of each man for whom he
wishes to vote. In other words, vot-
ers must pick their men, fact which
encourages Independent voting and
tends to do away with the party boss
Under the Maine system person may
vote straight party ticket by mark
ing a single cross III the square above
the party name. This is not, of it
self objectionable. but every man of
intelligence knows that rather than
run the risk of spelling their ballots
by splitting, men will vote a straight
ticket and help to elect candidates
whom they would never have voted
for under the Massachusetts ballot
where each individual must be desig-
mated by cross.
There We're other and equally strong
arguments for its adoption prior TO
the enactment of our primary election
law, but the adoption of that law. as
We have said, sweeps away the last
vestige of reasonable argument in OBJ
position To the Massachusetts ballot
The reason is because under the pri-
mary election law we now vote in
June upon ballot precisely like that
of Massachusetts, indicating our
choice between the different candi-
dates by crosses placed to the right
of their names. This being so, the ar
gument of confusion. formerly urged
against the Massachusetts ballot, is
ioN oiie VI tIe SlfoHSesl arguments
against the retention of the Maine bal
lot Voters cannot mark their ballots
by one method in June, at the pri-
maries, and by a totally different
method in September, without largely
increasing our present glutted market
of defective ballots. A prominent leg
islator, who earnestly advocates the
Massachusetts ballot, made extensive
quent to last September's election, and
found that by far the largest percent
age of defective ballots were those in
which voters, under the influence of
the primary election in June, had
marked crosses to the right of can
didates' names and neglected to mari:
cross in the square above An equal
ly significant fact was the widespread
satisfaction expressed by voters in the
primary at the simplicity of the new
ballot.
1t is gratifying to know that for
once, at least, there is apparently no
division of sentiment along party lines
and that the discussion and action of
the present Legislature in this mat
ter will be based solely upon it's merits.