The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1913-11-03
SIMPLIFYING ELECTIONS.

SOI VCOS O0S ~ 6OCAAAo OA4C SA4oS ~ WOSAAN
be wise to provide.
SIMPLIFYING ELECTIONS.
In seven American cities. scattered
from Portland, Ore, to Cleveland. O.,
ranging in population from 5000 to
6OO,0 you can vote for a dozen can
didates for one office in one election
and still not be in any danger Of being
led away to Jail on the charge of re-
peating, writes Karl A. Bickel in an
instructive article in the American
Review of Reviews for November on
1.-The Direct Primary and the Prefer
entail Method"
This is one of the distinguishing
features Of the preferential system of
voting. which was inaugurated less
than five years ago in the United
States in the little city of Grand juno
ton, Colorado. and whose adoption by
the city of Cleveland. Ohio. on July
1, formally presented the plan to the
people of the east.
When seven widely scattered Ameri-
can cities determine upon a new and
radically revolutionary change in their
system of election the event is worthy
of some attention from students of
politics. The rapid growth of this
method of election has been one of
the minor yet most significant events
in recent municipal political history.
1t seems to demonstrate that in the
cities, at least, the American voter
has come to the conclusion that the
plurality system Of election. with its
unvarying tendency toward minority
control, is essentially wrong. and that
the plan Of the municipal direct pri-
mary Is a needless and improper bur-
den on both the people and the can
didates.
Indeed, the trend away from the d.
rect primary and towards the more
simple, inexpensive and compact meth
cd Of nomination and election is most
marked. and, while this tendency has.
as yet, materialized only in American
cities, it is not a wild prophecy to
state that II viii not be d decade be-
fore the direct primary win fade away
before the preferential system as the
old convention gave way before the
primary. This tendency will be given
| an added impetus as the movement to-
| ward the simplification of our state
governments secures a stronger grip
and the commission idea begins to be
applied in larger units. After all, all of
simply a result of the application of
| the law of evolution to our political
conditions, and we are now moving
from the complex to the simple. as in
the half-century prior we worked
from the simple toward the complex.
| The truth is that the direct primary
has serious faults. Chiefly these are
the plurality election. too often re-
sulting in minority control, expense.
and a steadily increasing lack of inter-
est in the primary elections by the
voter. The partisan clamor, long con-
tinued, generally merely personal OPP
crates to dull the voters interest. dis
gust him with the whole affair and
cause him to absent himself from the
polls.
Naturally 1t was in the cities. with
their keen and varied contests, large
fields of contestants, and great in.
terests at stake, that the faults of the
direct-primary system were first mos
clearly exposed. and from the Ameri.
can city first came the demand fol
an effective corrective. In the adop-
i ton of the preferential system of vot-
ing a great many thinkers believe thai
a long step toward the final solution
of the problem of an ideal electora
method has been taken.
The general workings of the prefer.
entail system are as follows:
The candidates secure their nomina
ton by petition. The number Of sig
natures required is generally few
ranging from fifty to one hundred, al
though in Cleveland. where they d.
not have the pure commission form
of government by any means, they re-
quired, for some not clearly defined
reason, $500 signatures for the mayor
atty candidate and 200 for the alder
manic. The form of the ballot Il
similar to the Australian except tina
instead of one voting column aftel
the names of the candidates there arr
three. headed respectively 'firs
choice" second choice" and "othel
choices" To vote for candidate
place a cross after his name in tn,
column of preference desired. voting
J in the first column for first choice, il
the second column for second, and II
the third column for third and othe
} choices. Only one choice may b.
voted for any one candidate. In tn
best form of the plan the voter is alb
solutely free as to whether he will
vote for one choice or as many as h
desires, the only restriction being tina
he must certainly cast q first choice
he votes at all.
If candidate secures q majority o
: all the votes cast in the election Il
the poll of the first choice votes, he /
elected then and there and the con
) test ends. If no candidate secures thi
Z majority, then the first and secon