THE

HE difficulty with the investigation of this kind of problem is the lack both of objective evidence and a scientific technique of approach. Political science has been too much absorbed in purely descriptive, historical, or speculative work, to develop a really scientific methodology. It is indeed rare even to find discussions of political problems approached from a functional point of view. Most articles dealing with the direct primary, for example, have been merely descriptive of the laws involved, or systematic arrangements of a priori arguments pro and con. Rarely even has there been an attempt to analyze functionally the nature of the end to be attained, or to examine the appropriateness of the primary to the given task, or to check up its actual operation by objective evidence. There are, of course, conspicuous exceptions, but in the main the above observation seems to be correct. In the present discussion the author has attempted to secure all available evidence, but there is little to be found. What we need is to begin at once the attempt to formulate a scientific technique or methodology as a basis of a real science of politics. We need to know what facts and factors are pertinent in explaining our political experiences, and in seeking the methods of effective political control for the future. After we have reached some conclusions as to what facts and factors are important, we must then strive to develop a system for the observation, collection and recording of such phenomena, and we will then

have the basis of a constructive science. As Professor Merriam has recently observed, there are tremendous agencies already at work such as the state and federal census bureaus and other statistical bodies, which could be easily utilized in the observation and recording of pertinent phenomena, if we only knew what matters were pertinent, and could urge upon them definite and concrete requests. Until some such action can be taken political science will not come into its own. We need not be surprised to find the statisticians or psychologists or some other learned group invading our field and rendering this constructive service to the public, which should be the special prerogative of the political scientist and in which he should find his fullest opportunity. These observations were again emphasized in the writer's mind by his experience in preparing this paper, and he submits them as a not entirely irrelevant approach to the consideration of the present problem.

As indicated by the title, the scope of this paper is limited to the operation of the direct primary law in Wisconsin and its relation to the doctrine of party responsibility. Only the statewide primary will be considered and all aspects of the primary law will be ignored except those that directly affect the operation or organization of party government within the state.

PARTY RESPONSIBILITY

While there have been almost as many theories of party responsibility

as there have been writers upon the subject, nevertheless there do seem to be a few rather definite dogmas, one or another of which is generally accepted among recent writers as part and parcel of the theory. In the first place the discussion of party responsibility in America generally proceeds upon the assumption of a two-party system. While there are always minor parties of varying degrees of strength, the struggle generally rests between the two great organizations. In those states where there is only one party of any considerable strength, the struggle generally lies between two factions of the dominant party. Except in unusual emergencies, the practical political instinct of the average American seems to rebel at the apparently futile investment of time or interest in minority organizations.

In the second place the doctrine of party responsibility is based upon the theory that the processes of popular government require certain extra legal activities on the part of the people, which the people cannot do directly as well as they can through the agencies of party organization. These activities are principally the nomination of candidates for public office, the conduct of the campaign, the promulgation of political issues, and the securing of harmony between the different departments of government.

"Our state constitutions provided for the election of certain state officers, but made no provision for their nomination. But popular election, unless restricted to a choice from a very limited few, becomes an obvious absurdity. When the author was attending the public school, it was decided to have all the school children march to the cemetery on Memorial Day. The boys in the author's class were asked to elect a captain to lead the march. A vote was taken by secret

ballot, without any opportunities for the scholars to talk it over and develop any consensus of opinion. The result was that out of about thirty votes cast, most of the pupils received one vote, and the boy who was elected received four. He was the most cordially disliked boy in the group, and secured his election by exchanging promises with three neighbors to vote for each of them if they would vote for him, and then finally voting for himself. No one could possibly say that the election was an expression of the group opinion. If there had been two or three candidates from whom the voters could have made their choice, another more representative body would have been elected. Nominations are thus essential to effective popular elections.

POLITICAL GROUP ORGANIZATION

"The people did not take long to realize that if they were to control the government of the state, they must organize into groups, according to political theories or prejudices, nominate a candidate and place the party label upon him, in order that the public might have a basis of judging him and of holding his group accountable for his conduct. It was the only way public opinion could function in the control of state government. Political parties originated in this very obvious necessity. Likewise, it was only through group effort that political issues could be formulated. The great mass of the people become articulate only when their leaders, seeking to interpret their thoughts and aspirations, formulate broad, general principles upon which they can vote with a 'yes' or 'no.'

"Moreover, the leaders soon observed a popular indifference and ignorance regarding political issues. If a group believing in certain political

Likewise, there remained the necessity of devising some means by which political harmony could be secured between the different departments of government. No constructive program is normally possible when the legislative department is controlled by one party and the executive by another. Likewise administrative friction of a very decided type is caused among the different executive heads of the state government when they represent conflicting groups, which is quite possible under our anomalous state system of decentralized administrative departments. These evils could be eliminated only by a system of party government, in which the voters chose between parties rather than persons, thus generally insuring the control of all departments of the government by the victorious political group, providing party harmony and making possible the achievement of any constructive program that the dominant party might be inclined and competent to undertake.

Finally, the real importance of having political parties to carry on these functions becomes evident only when we contemplate the inherent nature of popular government. Real democracy is not assured by the establishment of universal suffrage. It is only when

1 Arnold Bennett Hall, Popular Government, pp. 66-68. Macmillan, N. Y., 1921. See also Walter Lippmann, Public Opinion, pp. 193-253. New York, 1922.

that suffrage represents a public opinion of the majority, and expressed within such limits of action as will secure the acquiescence of the minority that we have effective government by the people. For if the minority refuse to acquiesce, we have government by force and not by the people. This is dramatically illustrated by the present unhappy efforts of the Irish people to achieve democracy. Moreover, this public opinion which represents the majority must be a real opinion, with sufficient coherence, durability and vitality to exercise a controlling influence, for the time being, over the affairs of government. Unless there is a public opinion that can accomplish this, there is no popular control. Democracy becomes a myth, while the actual sovereignty passes to some despot, dictator, oligarch or ruling class. "There are many instances in Central America where dictators have aroused tremendous enthusiasm in behalf of democratic government, but it has rarely continued long enough to establish even a semblance of democracy. This popular manifestation was not real opinion, but merely a popular impression. Created by the authority and contagious personality of some dominant figure, there was no basic conviction of liberty, popular government, or orderly restraint with which the popular impression might establish a vital contact. There was no foundation of national unity, philosophy, or character upon which an enduring structure of democracy could be erected." 2

NECESSARY ELEMENTS OF PUBLIC OPINION FOR POLITICAL CONTROL

This brings us to a consideration of what are the constituent elements of a public opinion that has, to a sufficient

2. Ibid., p. 8.

degree, the elements of continuity and vitality that will enable it to achieve political control. Also what political problems come within its effective scope? President Lowell has given the best statement of the former. His theory is that public opinion that has the necessary qualities of stability to afford a basis for popular government, must, if it originate in the voice of authority or suggestion, as most opinions do, be in harmony with the established convictions and philosophy of the people. This does not guarantee the accuracy of the opinion, but it does insure for it a reasonable degree of permanence and power. But in order

"that there may be a real public opinion on any subject, not involving a simple question of harmony or contradiction with settled convictions, the bulk of the people must be in a position to determine of their own knowledge, or by weighing evidence, a substantial part of the facts required for a rational decision." *

It follows from the above that a popular election is significant only in so far as it registers a real public opinion. If an election does not do so it amounts to naught. It represents nothing more than caprice, fancy or the accidents of chance. It carries no mandate to those entrusted with official power. It gives the officers no assurance of support in the execution of their policies or direction in the formulation of their programs. Public officers are judged by capricious and whimsical opinions, while the real sovereignty tends to vest in the hands of those most skilled in the art of demagoguery and of exploiting the ignorance and cupidity of the people. With the vast development in the art of advertising, with its capacity to control by suggestion, the hired makers of

A. L. Lowell, Public Opinion and Popular Government, pp. 18-22. New York, 1913.

publicity will yield a power almost impossible to conceive. Where, therefore, there is no public opinion there can be no popular control.

DOCTRINE OF POLITICAL RESPONSI

BILITY

If this be true it seems clear that there should be no popular votes taken except on matters regarding which there can fairly be said to exist a real opinion. This places rather definite limitations to the questions and matters that may properly be submitted to a popular vote. If the question is one upon which there is no established fundamental convictions or philosophy among the people and if it involves matters outside the popular range of information, experience or thinking, there can be no real public opinion on the matter and a vote upon the subject will register only the passing fancies of the people and the accidental considerations of the moment.

It is here perhaps that the doctrine of party responsibility occupies its strongest ground. For under our system of government many matters have been left to the people which involve decisions on matters in regard to which no public opinion can exist. It has been the business of the political party to take up these matters, assume the responsibility for their proper treatment, reduce them into such simple forms that public opinion may operate upon them, and then leave the issues so simplified to the judgment of the people. It requires no argument to show that there could be no public opinion to function upon the selection of public officers without the aid of some nominating method. If the people of the state were asked on election day merely to go to the polls and vote for whomsoever they might desire, without any prior nominations or

campaigns of publicity, ordinarily there would be such a babel of tongues and variety of opinions that the winning candidates would have back of them a very small minority of the voters. The result could not be said to represent a true opinion. The decision as to who is the best candidate in the state is a question of fact, outside the range of information of the average voter, and not involving a question of theory or conviction that might harmonize or conflict with the voter's beliefs. A public opinion on such a question, under such circumstances, is thus practically impossible.

So with the formulation of public issues. The desires or aspirations of the multitude cannot become articulate save through the voice of leadership. No other means has yet been devised by which the mass of the people can express an opinion. The political party meets these two problems by nominating a list of candidates and promulgating a party platform. This is done by both the great parties and the voter has a definite issue submitted to his decision. Which list of candidates is the best? Which political platform is most entitled to respect?

Moreover, the two parties then proceed to carry on a campaign of popular education, bearing on the relative merits of the two tickets and the two platforms. These campaigns generally last for a number of weeks, with the result that the average citizen gains some ideas both as to the merits of the candidates, and the nature, meaning and value of the platforms. As between the two alternatives the voter generally is enabled to come to some kind of intelligent conclusion, and the final results tabulated on election day then tend to represent a real opinion. Thus the political party takes the original problems upon which public opinion cannot exist, reduces them to

specific proposals upon which the public may answer with a yes or no, places the public in possession of material facts, and thus subjects the ultimate question to the possibilities of decision by a true opinion.

Since the great majority of voters vote straight for one party or another, this generally assures automatically that the different departments of the government will be under the control of the same party and pledged to the same program, which will insure political harmony, the minimum of friction, and the possibility of working out a constructive program.

NEED FOR HIGHER STANDARDS Someone will here object that under such a system, both parties may nominate worthless candidates, both may promulgate hypocritical platforms and their campaigns of publicity may be misleading and unworthy. All this must be admitted. It has frequently so happened. But there seems no relief other than a regenerated citizenship, eager and capable to compel the political parties to attain higher standards of performance as the price of popular support. These parties are usually managed by the most capable and astute politicians that their ranks afford. The first and controlling ambition of every political boss is to retain his hold upon official power. He can do this only by securing a larger share of popular support than is accorded to his political foes. The organization that can most unerringly give a majority of the voters what they want is destined to control the government. The ultimate struggle for good government is thus necessarily wrought out in this competitive struggle between the opposing parties for political support.

If the results are bad, and they frequently are, it is not due to the system,