The Hawaiian gazette., 1913-02-04

The primary was at first abused in
the same way that the caucus was by
members of one party voting in the
primary of the opposite party. With
the primary held on the same day, in
the same place, with the voter re-
quired to announce his party, this evil
was stopped but another disadvantage
followed, namely, that the voter was
not able to support good men on the
tickets of both parties. The inexped-
iency of this is apparent. The average
voter who takes part in the primary is
n party man. That is the kind of
voter that is surest to come out. The
machine thus has an advantage. hide
pendents are deferred from participa-
ton in the primary by the necessity
of appearing as party men. Moreover
if half the voters come out for the
primary it is considered satisfactory
number That vote is divided approx
mately equally between the two par.
ties; a majority of that half nomi-
mates. The candidates, therefore, are
likely TO he machine men, nominated by
small minority, and all of them UNI
acceptable to the majority of all the
voters. In other words the voter on
nees of mere political machines.
The preferential system of voting in
conjunction with the short ballot, nomi-
nation by few petitioners, and the
elimination Of party designations puts
an end to the primary and its offend
ant evils.
In the method of voting proposed in
Cambridge, any fifty voters could Sc
L.. 60 he
name of their nominee for any elective
office. Election is by the city at large,
to a highly paid, conspicuous position
for three-year term, with no party
designation, no primary, and after the
first year, with never more than two of
fees in the city council to be filled an
nually. Every candidate stands on his
own feet-no boss dictates who shall,
or shall not run. The man who can
survive this test must win on his own
merit and not merely drift into office
on party label unknown to most of
his fellow citizens,
The preferential ballot enables the
voters of the city in one election to
arrive at a majority choice irrespective
of the number of candidates. provided
there is anyone in the list of candidates
acceptable to majority. If there is
none such in the list it is obviously not
the fault of the preferential ballot.
Besides, we get the next best thing
and the only thing possible with such
a list of nominees, a legitimate plural.
ity election, lie, a plurality election
based on full and free expression of
choice by the voters in place OF the
customary one in which a voter with
only one choice must vote against all
the candidates but one, though there
may be several excellent names in the
list.
No Majority System.
Beware OF the man who tells Of an
absolute majority system. There is nc
such thing. What goes by that name
is always something which merely
chokes of candidates by a primary
election or by dropping low men as n
some Of the older preferential systemi
and forcing an appearance Of maiorit,
for what IN fact is only a plurality can
didate. A man Is no true majority .cnn
didate unless Ina free and open Gel,
aud with full range Of choice by thl
voter be- has the support Of tho major
ity No system Of voting will make ul
for a lack Of acquaintance or support
We must, 10 word. either have a ma
iorlty man gmpng the nominees, or pu
b np With "a plurality choice la fact &
, NOT in form
Tho modern Preferential ballot b ID
; hanged lihr thr ordinary AusirHHa
ballot esfrpt That Instead vi an
, column for chooses ihpre 900 three 10,
I Ndri. beaded "hnt choice nfr
sni fhHirn.H nna aihrF fl1iffsN d.
q fperiiYrlY lhf voter place o tro,
NJ itf hfai fnIHmH nflri ihf nams b
. hiH nfHi choice fa iNHi onff mi i
lhp frfonl ,oHmH Hfiff fhf uamt 4
30 frHaHi fI0Iff If ilffs 500 nilrl