3 THE EFFECT OF THE PRIMARY UPON THE ELECTION Another feature of the primary Ein Indiana has been distinctly noticeable. The direct primary partakes of the nature of an election. The arguments for and against the candidates are publicly made. And in a bitter contest members of the same party may attack each other with damaging effects. Personal feelings engendered may estrange the two factions, to the extent that the supporters of the defeated candidate may prefer to vote for the candidate of the opposite party rather than for their late adversary. Or a successful fight against the organization for the nomination may mean lukewarm support by party workers in the election. The striking illustration is that of the Indianapolis Municipal Republican Primary in 1921 in which Mayor Shank was the successful minority nominee. So bitter was the contest against him in the primary that Democratic papers had ample ammunition for the election supplied from the mouths of Republicans. And the Republican party and organization went through numerous distressing contortions in attempting to swallow the candidate they had not wanted. Mayor Shank's election was due more to Democratic votes for him than to the success of these contortions. Similarly in 1922 most of the party workers were supporters of Senator New and were positively opposed to Mr. Beveridge. There can be no doubt that many of them did not work actively for him in the election, nor for that matter, vote for him. In this contest, however, by mutual agreement, both candidates refrained as far as possible from supplying fuel for the Democratic flames. MINORITY NOMINEES AND THE ELECTION One of the serious defects of the Indiana primary lies in the very great possibility of a candidate being nominated by minority vote, as the law requires merely a plurality. Thus in 1922, out of the 13 congressional districts, eight minority candidates were named by one or other of the parties. In the municipal primaries of 1921, in 92 cities, 45 mayors or city clerks were minority candidates. This cannot but influence the ensuing election and party organization. Public opinion within the party has not had full expression, and the result in Indiana is distinctly visible. In 34 cities in 1921 the tickets in the election were split so that mayors, clerks or treasurers were not of the same party. Under the 1915 law Indiana provided for the casting of first and secondchoice votes, the latter to be used in case no candidate had a majority. While there were numerous cases in 1916 in which the second choice might have determined the result, less than 10 per cent of the voters expressed a second choice, and the provision was abandoned in 1917. Some sort of preferential voting seems to be necessary in order to perfect the primary, but no mere writing of such a provision into the law will suffice. It requires several years of systematic education before the voter can be expected to leave the traditional scheme of voting and appreciate the significance of the new. Certainly there must be some constructive attempt to make the voter understand the new system. That has been distinctly lacking in Indiana. EFFECT ON PARTY ORGANIZATION That the primary has materially upset the long-standing methods of party organization and control must be admitted. Minority nominations distasteful to the faithful workers in power, the present failure of the primary to elect primary officers in accord with the candidates nominated, and the independence of the average voter concentrating primarily on per'sonalities, has caused the politician uniformly to condemn the primary. Reward for political services by nomination to an elective office is now uncertain. Where formerly a rising candidate stepped aside for another with stronger demands, on the assurance that he would be considered next time, the politician is no longer in a position to give that assurance. Geographical representation, which people are quick to notice when it is disproportionate, is forgotten by the voter in the primary. In 1922 a member of a county council resigned after election because his election left unrepresented an important township that had always demanded representation. Such things the practical politician must take into account. The voter neither considers them nor understands their importance when he is exercising his power to nominate, however quick he may be to comment upon them later. All of these facts seem to lessen party responsibility under the primary. Combined with the recent increase in splitting the ticket and leaving county and city and state government divided administratively between the major parties after election, this would seem to demonstrate that the party organization cannot fully assume responsibility nor command obedience. As a matter of fact, however, in most instances, the party organization has seemed to keep a rather secure hold on the reins. In some of the larger counties, the organization regularly prepares its slate for the primary, smaller counties the successful candidates are frequently amalgamated with the old order, unless in a few cases they are strong enough to force compromises in their interest. Control of city, state and federal patronage continues to command for the organization a respect and obedience, so that party responsibility has not been altered as greatly as would first appear. PRIMARY EXPENSES The cost of primary elections to the various counties in Indiana in 1920 was $313,427, averaging $0.99 per vote cast, as contrasted with $567,599 and $0.45 per vote for the general election. Unquestionably the expense of conventions or primaries under party control would be less. But the question of expenditure is never the determining one in the case of state policies. The chief objection raised against the primary in Indiana concerns the expenses of individual candidates. This is particularly true of state-wide offices, where candidates must cover the entire state with advertising and mail matter. It is impossible to draw definite conclusions on this subject, but there is a strong movement in Indiana to eliminate state offices from the primary on this ground. All state officers are now nominated by the state conventions with the exception of the governor and United States senator. For these the vote is preferential only unless one candidate receives a majority in the primary. In 1922 candidates were nominated by primary majorities. In 1922 Senator New reported an expenditure of $15,588.05. Beveridge reported $10,715.91. But Ralston, successful in the election, spent but $2063.01 in the primary. In 1920 Governor McCray reported a total of $31,366.82. All were campaigning and it usually goes through. In the in state-wide contests. For lesser offices, it appears that it is possible for a state representative to be elected in Indiana on a primary expenditure of from $11 to $25, although some candidates spent as much as $150. In many cases candidates reported that no money was expended. For close contests in a single county, candidates may spend much more than candidates for Congress. Thus, in one contest for superior judge, the successful candidate spent $1,180.50, and the unsuccessful $1,297.07. The candidate for Congress in the same territory expended but $67.50 in the primary. A candidate for county treasurer needed $3,864.45 for his campaign. An unsuccessful candidate for state office before the state convention reported $1,134.00. In the face of such returns, no positive conclusions are possible. A successful candidate for governor may spend less than an unsuccessful candidate for county office; a congressman, less than a state representative or justice of the peace. PRIMARY DOES NOT CONTROL PARTY ORGANIZATION By far too much attention has been centered upon nominations in Indiana, and practically no emphasis has been placed upon the question of party organization. It may be stated emphatically that popular control of party organization through the primary does not exist in Indiana; has never existed; and, which is more important, has never even been attempted. The so-called democratization of party machinery, a fundamental part of the program of the direct primary, has been a total failure in Indiana. It is written into the law, but there it has remained-on paper only. The Indiana primary law is based upon the assumption that the proper place at which popular control should be applied is in the precincts. Hence, under the law, both major parties regularly "elect" precinct committeemen who are chairmen of the precinct committees, and the foundation upon which the party organization is based. There are 3,395 such precinct committeemen in Indiana. These meet in their county meetings as a county committee and elect a county chairman for each county. The 92 county chairmen meet in congressional districts and elect 13 district chairmen who constitute the state central committee. These elect the state chair man. It would be a cumbersome system at best, were the precinct committeemen the real representatives of the popular sentiment in their precincts elected to have a decisive vote in party affairs. But the real state of affairs is that the average party voter in most instances has no idea that such a committeeman exists, and certainly has no interest in his selection. To nominate a United States senator, a governor or representative, or to express a preference for a presidential nominee; that the voter understands That he has within his grasp possible complete control of the party itself through the insignificant precinct committeemen, he does not understand. Nor does he understand the reason why party control is of any importance. FEW CONTESTS FOR PRECINCT Hence no citizen is interested ordinarily in becoming a candidate for this lowly office. The fact is, that in most cases the county chairman or other active workers have to select someone in each precinct who can undertake the work of political organization necessary for party success in the election, and in many instances have to persuade that person to accept the position. A statistical analysis of the returns demonstrates this fully. In the first place, in most of the precincts in Indiana the candidates for precinct committeemen do not even appear on the ballots. There is no contest and the canvassing board certifies them as elected with "no opposition." Where they do appear on the ballot they receive but a handful of the total vote cast, except in a small number of instances where there are contests. For example, a study of 792 precincts for the primary of 1920 shows that there were contests for precinct committeemen in 61 instances, or 7.7 per cent. A similar study of over 800 precincts in 1922 shows an even smaller number of contests. In eight of eleven counties in 1920 there were no contests in any of the precincts; and a contest in 31 precincts out of 51 in one county accounts for over half of the contests. In other counties, for example, there were contests in three out of 44 precincts; in 10 out of 69. In only one of these cases could the contest have affected the control of the majority of the county committee. And without such majority control, minor personal contests become unimportant. It seems fair to conclude from the nature of the returns considered, that the percentage of contests for this fundamental party office in Indiana is less than 10 per cent. Eliminating the miscellaneous minor contests which cannot affect subsequent party control, the percentage of real contest for party organization falls to 5 or even 3 per cent. The fact is that the contest for party control, which frequently is a real contest, does not take place in the primary, however much the law intends that it should. The real contest comes after the people have voted in the primary. It is then a contest of faction against faction, and not a contest for democratic control. CONTESTS FOR PARTY CONTROL IN 1922 The primary of 1922 affords interesting illustrations. In Marion County (Indianapolis) there was a long-standing movement to dislodge the "machine" which had been in control for eight years. This contest did find its way into the primary, and many candidates for precinct committeemen were known as for or against the existing order. After the primary, both factions claimed a majority in the county committee. But the assured support of each left some thirty doubtful committeemen holding the balance of power. It is a publicly acknowledged fact that these doubtful.ones were definitely bought by city patronage by the faction seeking to gain control. According to the mildest statement appearing in an Indianapolis newspaper the day following: "The Mayor made no attempt to make a secret of the methods used in getting some of the precinct committeemen to vote for his candidates for the county organization. 'Of course we had to give about thirty of the precinct committeemen jobs with the city,' Mayor Shank said. This public declaration of a thing which would have been soft-pedaled by almost any other man in public life, resulted in riotous applause and cheering from the crowd in the packed court-room." And Mayor Shank reiterated this statement the next month before the Junior Chamber of Com merce. Seldom have the methods used been so freely admitted. But the methods have been used before. And the contest in the Republican State Central Committee, in the election of a state 1 chairman, developed methods of coercion less admitted but no less disgusting and reprehensible. It is a rather complete commentary on popular control of the party organization in Indiana through the primary. WHO CONTROLS THE PARTY If the voter does not, who does control the party organization? Strange enough, it is by no means certain that the successful candidates will. It may happen frequently that the party machinery, started through the precinct committeemen in the primary, may be positively opposed to the candidates nominated by the people in the same primary, or more favorably disposed in other quarters. For example, Mr. Beveridge won the nomination for United States senator in the Republican primary in 1922. But it was unquestionably Senator Watson who secured a dominant control of the party organization through the election of a state chairman and consequent control of the state central committee. Mayor Shank had been elected in the municipal election of 1921. He was in no way officially connected with the 1922 primary. But there is again no question that it was he who secured control of the Republican Party organization in Marion County. And it was repeatedly claimed that the national committeeman for Indiana had largely determined the election of the district chairman for that congressional district. Not only was party control not seized by the voter; it was secured by men who were in no sense before the public eye in the primary itself. DEMOCRATIC CONTROL A MYTH The fact remains that democratic control of party organization in Indiana is a myth. The real contests come after the primary, and are beyond popular control. The voter usually has no distinct knowledge concerning these contests even if he does happen to see the name of a committeeman on the ballot and place a cross beside his name. It would be better if precinct committeemen were appointed in law, as they virtually are in fact, by the county chairmen; and if popular attention were concentrated on the first real contest, that for county chairman. If the voters of a county were to vote for a single party officer instead of for 20 to 200 precinct committeemen, there would be better chance of a real expression of public opinion; and at all events a real contest in which public sentiment could be aroused intelligently would be transferred to the primary within reach of the voter. DELEGATES TO STATE CONVENTIONS Similarly there is no popular control of state conventions. There is more interest in this office in Indiana than for precinct committeemen however. These delegates are also "elected" at the primary. Contests for these positions run from about 20 per cent to 30 per cent in counties surveyed where there were contests in 1920 and 1922. But in 63 per cent of the counties studied there were no contests. In many instances the delegates were omitted entirely from the ballot and certified without vote, the voter never seeing the name or the name of the office of delegate whom he is supposed to have elected as a basis for democratic control of the chief assembly of the party. From the returns utilized, a 12 per cent contest for delegates would seem to be the Indiana average. This is an entirely insignificant proportion so far as any possible effect upon control of the convention is concerned. It is certainly true that the state conventions |