cent of the vote polled at the election was cast at the primary. It increased to 60.5 per cent in 1916, and to 73.3 per cent in 1922. It fell down to 41.9 per cent in 1918 when Governor Milliken was nominated without opposition. The highest proportion of the Democratic vote was cast in 1914, when with a real contest for the nomination, 42.2 per cent of the September vote was cast at the June primaries, while the lowest was only 13.6 per cent in the primary of 1922. The analysis of the vote for county officers shows that rarely does the local contest bring out a big party vote. A primary in which there is no contest for the higher positions, that is, governor, United States senator and representative to Congress, as a rule fails to arouse public interest. The experience with the direct primary in Maine shows that the people will not generally become interested in nominating men for comparatively insignificant offices. The direct primary functions less successfully in the selection of candidates for county positions than for state and federal positions, if we may judge from the popular interest manifested. THE PRESENT STATE OF PUBLIC OPINION IN MAINE WITH REGARD TO THE DIRECT PRIMARY Since the close of the World War a movement for the repeal of the direct primary law has been growing in Maine. The chief causes underlying the movement seem to be: First, the conviction in the minds of many that the direct primary has not sufficiently produced the betterment in government promised by its proponents; second, the reluctance on the part of many voters to go to the trouble of signing nomination papers and informing themselves regarding the qualifications of candidates to be voted on at the primaries; third, the natural hos tility toward the primary held by the old line politician who sees in the present state of public indifference and confusion, an opportunity to restore the old convention system; fourth, the reactionary swing of the political pendulum which tends to place under a ban of disapproval the progressive measures of the Rooseveltian era; and fifth, the conviction in the minds of a number of people that the principle of representative government is superior to the principle of direct democracy in party affairs. The opponents of the direct primary were successful in securing the adoption of planks in both the Republican and Democratic platforms in 1922 for the repeal of the direct primary law, or at least the submission to the people of a bill to repeal the law. Since the April conventions however, the friends of the law have been making themselves heard especially in the rural districts and two of the leading organizations among the women of the state, the "League of Women Voters" and the "Maine Federation of Women's Clubs" have passed resolutions favoring the retention of the law. In the light of the growing opposition to the repeal of the law it is probable that the next legislature will consider modification rather than repeal. Many advocate giving the party conventions the power to indicate their choice of candidates whose names would appear, labeled as the convention's choice, on the ballot with others which have secured their places by means of nomination papers. It is probable that several minor changes looking toward the improvement of the primary law will be presented to the legislature. For example: the extension of the registration law to towns of two thousand and under; the inclusion of Portland in the enrolment law; dispensing with the primary election in all cases where there is no con test; and strengthening the corrupt i practices act in its application to the direct primary. When the voters of Maine in 1911 adopted the direct primary law, its more ardent proponents believed they were creating an almost perfect instrument of popular self-government. But having the limitations of all mere instruments, the direct primary did not operate itself, and many of the promised benefits have not been fully realized. On the other hand, most of the disadvantages predicted of it by its opponents have not materialized; and it has not been the failure which its present opponents would have us believe. If the writer interprets public opinion correctly, the people of Maine must be convinced that something better is being offered them before they will give up the present direct primary law. The Operation of the State-Wide Direct Primary SING in New York State By LOUISE OVERACKER, M.A. INCE 1906 the direct primary has been 1 live the direct primary bas been a lively issue in New York politics. Governor Hughes' strenuous efforts to pass such a law during his two terms (1907-1910) proved unsuccessful, but public attention was focussed upon the question to such an extent that the 1910 platforms of both the Republican and Democratic Parties contained planks advocating direct nominations, and in 1911 the Dix law passed the legislature. This law, however, established the direct primary only in congressional, judicial, statesenatorial and assembly districts, and in cities and counties, leaving the power of the state convention over the state-wide ticket untouched, and it was not until 1913 that the advocates of the direct primary in New York State succeeded in putting through a measure which extended the direct primary principle to state-wide nominations. In 1921, after having been used in four gubernatorial elections, the direct primary was abandoned and the convention restored for state-wide and judicial district nominations. It is therefore a fitting moment for some appraisal of the operation of the state-wide direct primary in that state. ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST THE DIRECT PRIMARY At the time of its adoption many advantages were claimed for the direct primary, but the arguments in its favor may be summarized as follows: (1) that it would bring out a larger vote than an election for delegates to a nominating convention, and therefore would be more representative and democratic; (2) that superior candidates would be chosen; (3) that the power of the "boss" and the 'machine" would be broken or more easily opposed, and that the party organization would be made more responsible to the rank and file of the party. The opponents of the direct primary, on the other hand, argued: (1) that the ballot would be crowded with the names of publicity seekers; (2) that it would complicate still more the already complicated task of the voter; (3) that it was expensive to both the state and the individual candidates; (4) that party unity and harmony would be impossible and that party responsibility would be destroyed. What light, if any, does an eight years' trial of the direct primary throw upon the validity of these contentions? How far did it fulfil the claims of its supporters, and to what extent have the objections of its opponents proved well founded? A complete evaluation is impossible with the evidence available, but some interesting results are reflected. NUMBER OF CANDIDATES In the table on the next page is shown the number of candidates for the Republican and Democratic nominations for the seven important state offices.1 It is at once apparent that the direct primary ballot was not crowded with the names of notoriety seekers; in no case were there more than three candidates for a nomination and most con 1 Compiled from the New York State Legislative Manual. th tests were between two aspirants. On the other hand, does the fact that there were no contests whatever in thirty out of fifty-six cases, indicate that the direct primary was a mere farce at which the voters put their stamp of approval upon candidates already selected by the party organization? It is well known that throughout the period of the operation of the direct primary, the parties held unofficial conferences and drew up unofficial "slates" which were afterward put upon the ballot by petition. In no case did a nominee with the support of the party organization fail of nomination, although in 1916 Senator Calder, the Republican organization candidate, came dangerously close to losing the nomination. Now this may indicate that the direct primary utterly failed to break, or weaken, the power of the "boss," but it may also indicate that, recognizing the power which the direct primary put in the hands of the rank and file of the party membership, the "bosses" carefully felt the party pulse before making their choices. The mere fact that designations were made by unofficial conventions does not in itself indicate the breakdown of the direct primary; it is natural and advantageous that such should be the case. The only danger is that the party organization may be able to force its selection upon an unwilling party and it is difficult to see how, under the direct primary, nominations could be forced upon a sufficiently unwilling party. No amount of primary legislation can change a “Barkis is willin' attitude in a political party; all that it can hope to do is to provide a weapon with which the members of a party may protect themselves. The very fact that the weapon is possessed may be the reason why it is unnecessary to use it often. INTEREST OF VOTERS Figures showing the size of the vote at direct primary elections give us some indication of the amount of interest which is taken in the primaries, and are especially significant when they can be compared with the vote for delegates to nominating conventions. In New York the latter figures are available for 1912 only. It is unfortunate that we have not the figures for 1922 also, to give us some indication of the degree of interest displayed since the return to the convention system, but these have not yet been compiled.2 In the table on page 145, the total vote cast for delegates to the state conventions in 1912 and the total primary vote for governor, 1914-1920, have been compared to the total vote for governor at the general elections, 19121920. In addition, the three following typical groups of counties have been taken for more intensive study: (1) the 2 November, 1922. five counties of New York City; (2) five other urban counties; (3) ten of the larger rural counties. To the most casual observer two things are apparent from the table on page 145: (1) Only a small proportion of the people voting at general elections voted in the party primaries; (2) a larger number voted in the direct primary than voted for delegates to party conventions in 1912. The small size of the direct primary vote has been a distinct disappointment to those ardent advocates of direct nominations who were convinced that it would mean the democratization of the party. In so far as any trend is indicated by these figures, they would seem to be even more discouraging, for they show a decreasing rather than increasing interest in party nominations. Upon closer analysis, however, it appears that several factors other than declining interest may have entered into the decreasing primary vote. It must be remembered that the years 1912-1914 marked a high water level in interest in party affairs because of the Progressive movement; this was followed by a "slump" in the interest of the rank and file which was naturally reflected in the primary vote. Then, too, it must not be forgotten that the enfranchisement of women brought a new element into the parties in 1918. It is well known that fewer women than men vote. In New York City in 1918 only 40 per cent of those registering were women; in 1920 only 36 per cent. Is it also true that women are even more unlikely to vote in the primaries than in the general election? This has been the case in Illinois and it is reasonable to suppose that it is also true in New York.3 In the 1915 election for mayor of Chicago 33 per cent of the votes in the primaries were cast by women, while 37 per cent of those cast in the final election were cast by women. See Grace Abbott, Are Women a Force for Good Government? in 4 National Municipal Review 437. The see-saw nature of the primary figures may perhaps be explained by the fact that 1916 and 1920 were presidential years, and in those years many people are drawn to the polls by their. interest in national affairs who also cast a vote for governor, although they have not voted in the primaries and would not participate in a purely state election. It may also be explained by the fact that in those years there were no important contests in the Democratic Party. An interesting point brought out by these figures is that the rural counties show a consistently higher primary vote than the cities. Apparently the farmers are not going to permit themselves to be ruled by city "bosses" if they can help it. On the whole, these figures show a disappointing lack of interest in direct nominations, but the direct primary enthusiast may gather some comfort from the fact that they do indicate appreciably more interest in the direct primary than in the 1912 election for delegates to the state conventions. And every gain in popular interest in party affairs is of importance, for the larger the number of people participating in party primaries, the greater the likelihood that nominations will represent the real sentiment of the rank and file of the party membership. COMPARISON BETWEEN REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC VOTE A separate analysis of the primary vote of each of the two major parties, 1916-1920, shows a decidedly larger vote in the Republican than in the Democratic Party. In the table on page 146 are given the Republican and Democratic vote for governor at the general election and at the direct primary, and the percentage of the primary vote to the general election vote, 1916-1920. ' Compiled from the New York Legislative Manuals. |