Americus times-recorder. [volume] (Americus, Ga.) 1891-current, 1924-08-01

ing tiiG HCht lew litoit'''
The time L. Start is TODAY.
Preferential Primaries
Q Failure
Tie Presidential preferential
primary is a farce and a failure.
Its proponents predicted great
things for it in the beginning, bus
its abjcct failure Is obvious to
those who have given it any de-
gree /of thought or watched it
in actual practice.
1t is ineffective, coe'ly and
does not cure any OF the Ills
claimed for it.
'AAmost anything is better
than the present method, says
the editor of the South Bend
tlnd) Tribune, in an editorial
on the subject. from which we
quote in part:
Advocates Of the direct pri-
mary conscientiously believed
that it would attract to public
office a higher type of citizen
ship and more competent persons
than were obtainable under the
old methods. Theoretically it
should do so, but the theory has
not worked out and, with here
and there exceptions, the people
are not given the type OF Off
cials they had expected the pri-
mary would produce. =.
Under the Indiana primary it
is possible for voters Of one par
ty to vote for candidates Of an
other party and then in the cleo
ton vote their own party ticket
and thus cause the defeat of the
one they helped nominate besides
multiplying the object Of the pri-
nary. It therefore must be clear
ly apparent that instead Of gov
eminent by political parties the
primary invites and permits gov
ernment by groups, classes and
other minorities and aids in po-
litical trickery.
The primary creates an inch-
nation to nominate a man because
he is a good fellow, an orator, a
controller of crowds or a pleas
ing personalit, rather than be
cause he possesses qualifications
to make a competent and ac-
commodatin.g official. There
fore, men really capable, who
would 90 before convention,
win often hesitate to make the
race before a primary. Applied
especially to local offices the phi
mary causes syn. patty and sentl-
ment to prevail over ability. Vot-
ers deliberate too lightly or not
at all on qualifications and vote
to nominate because a candidate
is a friend, has done favor cr
attracts their attention for some
cause other than actual ability.
The primary does not promote
efficiency in office or high quail
ty in candidates In fact, the
opposite is true.
1t has been argued by the un-
thinking that the primary per-
mits a free, unprecedented vote
by the people The fact is the
primary vote can easily be in
flueneed if a candidate has the
money and the organization.
This has been proved frequently
1t is argued that the primary does
away with the political boss.
Foes it? II may be more diff
cult to control a primary. than
caucus or convention, but
it can be done, is done and will
be done more than ever if the
present primary system, continues.
The expense of the primary to
the voters is not in keeping with
the results. Had the results
proved in actual practice what
the advocates of the primary be
u we'd the expense might he
justified, but in the majority Of
instances the people have less
competent officials than under
the old system.
An example of the expense put
upon taxpayers by the primary in
Jackson County, Indiana. In the
primary in that county in 1922,
1888 Democratic votes and L.
TIC Republican votes We're cast;
approximately bur 40 per cent or
a majority of the total vote of
the county The primary cost
Jackson county taxpayers an av-
erage Of about As cents for each
vote cast. Had the delegate and
convention system prevailed
Jackson county taxpayers would
have been saved this expense.
Such of it as necessary would
have been paid by those interest
ed in their political parties.
In primary in Baltimore, Md,
the cost to the taxpayers of that
city was $4,000. But ~ per
cent OF the registered vote was
cast. The votes cost the tax
payers an average of $3.50
vote.
A Mayoralty primary in the
City of Chicago is said to have
cost the taxpayers, the party or
carnations and the candidates the
tremendous sum of 100000.
In almost every State, IA
vorite sons" have run as Presi-
s.