of the two major parties in Indiana are in no sense controlled by the voter within the party, even though he may "vote" for a delegate in some cases.

VOTERS IGNORANT OF METHODS OF CONTROL

The reason for this failure is not hard to find. We have regularly depended upon the political parties to educate the voter in all matters political. In an election they accomplish this to a certain extent in the discussion of issues and candidates. But if the organization interferes in the primary, machine control is at once alleged. And if the party workers do not interfere, the usual education is lacking as its chief agency has been removed.

Moreover, the party workers very generally have been strenuously opposed to the primary. It is not to be supposed that they would attempt to inform the voter how to exercise his powers to wrest control from their hands. And we have provided no other means of informing the voters concerning the significance of party control or how to secure it.

This failure is not a failure of the primary law, except in so far as it expects public opinion to focus on offices concerning which the voter is ignorant, and, moreover, in which he cannot be interested. The law provided the machinery for the democratization of party organization. What is needed now is some method of concentrating party attention on the important contests and persuading the primary voter that zeal in nominating candidates might be better spent if he were to remember that he is also electing party officials.

The chief defect of the Indiana primary at present lies in the overemphasizing of the nomination of candidates and the almost total ignor

ing of the election of party officials. The voter in the primary is not particularly nor strikingly successful in selecting better candidates than were chosen by the party workers under the old system. If that were all there was to the primary, we might be better off under the old primary or convention. But it is the question of party control, however much it has been overlooked, that should be the dominant question in the primary. With popular control of party a fact, nominations perhaps would be easily taken care of through the party committees.

To revert to the old primary and convention system, as things now are, gives no promise of improvement. Today, as large a proportion as 90 per cent of the voters in some counties participate in party primaries. Their zeal is considerably misdirected towards nominations, it is true, but still they

no

To argue that the primary should be discarded as a failure is to declare that real control of government should be relegated to self-appointed committees, or factions thereof, with semblance of popular control. It were as well to restate the argument in this form:-that the people are neither interested in, nor capable of governing themselves, for that is what it means. People are used to elections and ballots as the method of expressing their political opinions. And the possibilities lie through utilization of this interest, not in destroying it.

Acts 1913, Ch. 6469, as amended by Acts 1915, Ch. 6874; Acts 1901, Ch. 5014, as amended by Acts 1905, Ch. 5471; Acts 1913, Ch. 6470; Acts 1909, Ch. 5929; R. S. 1920, Sec. 299-367.

Laws 1919, p. 372.

First Tuesday after first Monday in June of even years.

Casting 5% or more of total vote for highest officer in state, county or congressional district. Optional in cities.

First Tuesday in Au- Casting 10% of total gust of even years. vote of state for any office and having 3 nominees for state offices at last election.

State offices
Congressmen
County offices
U. S. senators

None required.

30 days before primary for state or district office and 20 days for county office.