sentiment throughout the country upon the subject of the direct primary, four questions were submitted to the governors of the various states, to state political leaders in each state, to the editors of the two leading newspapers of opposite political faith in each state and to professors of political science in certain universities and colleges. The questions submitted were as follows:

1. Is the direct primary, in regard to state-wide officers, a success or failure in your state?

2. Would the direct primary be strengthened and made more effective by the adoption of the short ballot principle?

3. Is the party nominating convention, with delegates thereto chosen at a primary, preferable to the direct primary?

4. Is party responsibility, obtained through the party nominating convention, of more value to our system of government than the direct primary with its great reserve power which the people may use if they wish?

I. IS THE DIRECT PRIMARY A FAILURE OR A SUCCESS?

Opinions of Governors

With respect to this question, replies received from the governors of fourteen states show ten more or less in favor, and four opposed. The following governors sent favorable opinions: Thomas C. McRae of Arkansas, Democrat; Henry J. Allen of Kansas, Republican; Lee M. Russell of Mississippi, Democrat; Arthur M. Hyde of Illinois,

sin, Republican; Robert D. Carey of Wyoming, Republican; Davis of Virginia, Republican; and Albert O. Brown of New Hampshire, Republican, who takes a rather neutral stand.

A summary of opinions received shows that Democratic sentiment especially endorses the direct primary. Governor Russell of Mississippi, declares it to be "the only safe method.” The experience of Nevada is particularly illuminating. This state, in 1909, adopted the direct primary and in 1915 went back to the party convention. Governor Boyle, a Democrat, says that the first convention held in 1916 so completely disgusted the people of Nevada that an immediate demand at once arose for the restoration of the direct primary. This was done in 1917.

Other governors declare that the type of official produced by the direct primary is satisfactory, and that its favor with the citizens is indicated by the opinion that the great majority of voters consider it a better method of choosing candidates than the convention system. It has also done much toward lessening the power of powerfu! political machines, and has rendered a satisfactory measure of service to the state.

Four of the governors take a negative stand on the direct primary. They are: Oliver T. Shoup of Colorado, Republican; Everett J. Lake of Connecticut, Republican; Samuel R. McKelvie of Nebraska, Republican; and Charles R. Mabey of Utah, Republican.

These men cite several significant facts as reasons why the primary is not satisfactory. First, it is cumbersome and expensive, and has failed to improve the calibre of the candidates. Furthermore, the system makes it impossible for any but a wealthy man to seek the higher state offices. That it is not practical, is indicated by the fact that the voter fails to give proper consideration to the selection of able minor officials, his attention being entirely absorbed by the major offices.

Opinions of Chairmen of Political

Parties

Coming now to the opinions received from chairmen of the state central committees of the two dominant political parties, one finds that the bulk of sentiment holds the primary to be a failure. Opposed to the primary are M. H. McCalla, chairman of the Democratic State Central Committee of Arizona; Arthur Lyman, chairman of the Democratic State Central Committee of Massachusetts; J. E. VanHorne, executive secretary of the New Jersey Republican State Committee; J. A. Harris, former chairman of the Republican State Central Committee of Oklahoma; J. N. Fisher, chairman of the Democratic State Executive Committee of Tennessee; Park H. Pollard, chairman of the Democratic State Central Committee of Vermont; R. F. Dunlap, chairman of the Democratic State Executive Committee of West Virginia and T. Blake Kennedy, chairman of the Republican State Central Committee of Wyoming.

Mr. McCalla of Arizona declares that the direct primary often results (1) in the nomination of incompetents; (2) in the nomination of the entire ticket from one locality; (3) in the violation of the principle of majority rule. Further expressions of opinion emphasize the fact that the direct primary

is a means of choosing men of doubtful integrity and only moderate ability; that it destroys party organization and encourages bitter campaigns among members of the same party. The voters, either through ignorance, irresponsibility or indifference, are not capable of making choices of as intelligent a nature as would be made at a nominating convention. Also, it is averred that the state-wide primary offers the demagogues the opportunity to stir up strife in party ranks and gives the unscrupulous newspaper a chance to poison the minds of voters against the leading candidates thereby furnishing campaign thunder for the use of the opposition in the regular election.

Favorable opinions are far in the minority. Burt D. Cady, chairman of the Republican State Central Committee of Michigan, says that the direct primary applies only to governor and lieutenant governor, and has proven a success. The other state officers are nominated by party convention. vention. Alfred T. Rogers, a member of the Republican National Committee from Wisconsin, states that the primary law has been a great improvement over any other method used in that state. He believes that it would be impossible to take away from the voters this privilege of registering their individual choice for nominees.

Opinions of Newspaper Editors

The editors of prominent newspapers throughout the nation who replied to the questionnaire are quite evenly divided in sentiment, for and against. Those in favor are: Will Owen Jones, managing editor of the Nebraska State Journal; John H. Kelly, editor of the Sioux City Tribune; Harvey E. Newbranch, editor of the Omaha World Herald and the Hon. Josephus Daniels, president of the News and Observer of North Carolina.

Mr. Jones of the Nebraska State Journal, favors the direct primary because it has given the people more control of state governmental affairs, increased the feeling of responsibility of office-holders to the people, and has broken down powerful political machines. Mr. Daniels declares it to be a partial success. Other expressions of opinion point out that the direct primary is better than the system that it displaced, and that its claim to success lies in the fact that the voters have a greater opportunity to select the candidates than formerly.

Four editors are opposed. They are: Samuel S. Sherman, general manager of the Rocky Mountain News and the Denver Times; Milo M. Thompson, editor of the Idaho Daily Statesman; Charles B. Cheney, managing editor of the Minneapolis Journal, and Graham Sanford, managing editor of the Reno, Nevada, Evening Gazette.

These editors who oppose the direct primary do so on the ground that the majority party is the only one to use it, the other parties making back-room nominations and centering their efforts on the nomination of inferior opposition men; that under the system demagoguery flourishes and there is little chance to locate responsibility.

Opinions of Professors of Political
Science

Of the twelve replies received from the professors of political science, seven favor the primary. They are: Victor J. West of Leland Stanford University; Allen Johnson of Yale University; P. O. Ray of Northwestern University; John A. Fairlie of the University of Illinois; Chester J. Maxey of Western Reserve University; Frank J. Laube of the University of Washington; and the professor of political science at Williams College.

that the direct primary is a decided advance over the old convention system. The officials secured under the direct primary are of as high a type, on the average, as under the old system, and in general they are of a better type because they are more social-minded, more representative of the people, and less representative of the special interests.

Argument in opposition is offered by Professor Robert Phillips of Purdue University. He holds that in Indiana the primary is less popular in its application to local offices than to statewide offices. It is further unpopular because of the great expense entailed, thus barring the man without means. Professor Arnold B. Hall of the University of Wisconsin, gives several reasons why he objects to the direct primary: (1) It has broken down party responsibility and developed factionalism, due to the open primary; (2) it has resulted in minority control; (3) it has tremendously increased the expense of candidates. Karl F. Geiser of Oberlin College, and Isador Loeb of the University of Missouri, are also opposed to the direct primary.

II. WOULD THE PRIMARY BE BENEFITED BY THE ADOPTION OF THE SHORT BALLOT?

Opinions of Governors

Of the ten governors replying to this question, six give an affirmative and four a negative answer. The affirmative replies are from Governors Shoup of Colorado; Allen of Kansas; Hyde of Missouri; Dixon of Montana; McKelvie of Nebraska; and Boyle of Nevada.

Governor Allen believes that the short ballot would strengthen the primary. He states that the people will not take the trouble to become acquainted with the capacities of the candidates for the subordinate posi

capacity can be filled better by the appointive system. Other expressions of opinion favor the short ballot for the following reasons: Good government comes from concentrating administrative power in the hands of the fewest number of persons possible, with the result that responsibility can be directly located; also, as a business proposition, the governor, charged with the duty of efficiently administering state affairs, should have the right to surround himself with heads of the coördinated departments, who would effectively coöperate with him in whatever administrative policy he might adopt.

The negative answers are given by Governors McRae of Arkansas; Mabey of Utah; Davis of Virginia; and Blaine of Wisconsin. Governor Davis feels that the short ballot is a questionable remedy for the ignorance of the voters in that it would slightly, but not materially, strengthen the direct primary. Others suggest the primary ballot is shorter than the election ballot, and therefore its adoption would not necessarily have a good effect.

Opinions of Chairmen of Political

Parties

Five of these officers oppose the short ballot. They are: Mr. Cady, Republican; Mr. McCloud, Republican; Mr. Fisher, Democrat; Mr. Pollard, Democrat; and Mr. Kennedy, Republican.

These men give as reasons for their opposition to the adoption of the short ballot the fact that to give to the chief executive power to appoint subordinate state officers, is contrary to the spirit of our government and would further tend to destroy our organization; and also that there is difficulty in arousing the interest of the voters in the primary as well as the regular election, and there is no guar

antee that the short ballot would arouse this increased interest.

Those favoring the short ballot include Mr. VanHorne, Republican; Mr. Hurley, Democrat; and Mr. Dunlap, Democrat.

Mr. Hurley says that the short ballot principle would simplify the task of voting and make it much easier to locate responsibility, thus enabling the discerning voter to act more intelligently in the selection of candidates. Mr. VanHorne cites the case of New Jersey, in which state the governor is the only officer elected by state-wide vote, the minor state officers being appointed.

Opinions of Newspaper Editors

Of the eight editors replying to this question, seven favor the short ballot, and one opposes it. The editors who sent favorable opinions include Mr. Sherman of the Rocky Mountain News and Denver Times; Mr. Thompson of the Idaho Daily Statesman; Mr. Kelly of the Sioux City Tribune; Mr. Cheney of the Minneapolis Journal; Mr. Jones of the Nebraska State Journal; Mr. Newbranch of the Omaha World-Herald and Mr. Daniels of the News Observer.

The reasons given by the above men for their favorable opinion may be summarized as follows: Inasmuch as there would be fewer candidates to consider, there would be less confusion due to the injection of many personal fights. Not one voter in a thousand knows who all of the candidates are or what principles they represent, and he therefore votes the greater part of his choices in absolute ignorance. The people can think of only one thing at a time, and when they are called upon to elect a score of officers the miner positions become merely a “grab-bag.” The lone negative amongst the editors is Mr. Sanford of the Reno Evening Gazette. He states that the short ballot

would not help the primary in Nevada because the population is small, the elective state officers not many and the candidates are personally known to a very large number of the electors.

Opinions of Professors of Political
Science

In answer to this question, eight favor the short ballot, and three oppose it. Those who are in favor are: Professors West, Ray, Fairlie, Loeb, Maxey, Geiser, Hall, and Laube. Professor Maxey maintains that the direct primary will never be effective until we eliminate the long ballot which causes blind voting and is responsible for many of the alleged defects of the direct primary system. In addition, another points out that the short ballot would limit the operation of the primary to those offices where public opinion exists and where caprice, accident and irresponsible publicity would not control. The short ballot would permit a more intelligent vote by enabling the electorate to concentrate on a few political offices.

Professors Phillips, Haines and the professor of political science at Williams College are in opposition to the short ballot. Professor Phillips takes a rather neutral stand. He says that while the short ballot would probably make possible a more centralized, responsible and efficient government, the same gain might be made by the adoption of the short ballot under the nominating convention system. The short ballot principle, therefore, is not an argument for or against the primary. III. IS THE PARTY NOMINATING CONVENTION WITH DELEGATES THERETO CHOSEN AT A PRIMARY, PREFERABLE TO THE DIRECT PRIMARY?

Opinions of Governors Eight out of the ten governors replying believe the direct primary preferable. They are: Governors Allen

of Kansas, Russell of Mississippi, Hyde of Missouri, Dixon of Montana, McKelvie of Nebraska, Boyle of Nevada, Davis of Virginia, Blaine of Wisconsin.

Governor Hyde of Missouri, declares that the direct primary is the people's answer to the abuses of the convention system. Other of the governors hold the convention less preferable because the people are opposed to it on account of the fact that it is favored by the corporations and money interests and because the delegates to the convention do not represent their will. Governor Blaine states as his reason for favoring the direct primary that it is easier to vote direct for a candidate than to reach the same result through an agent.

Governor Carey favoring the convention in preference to the direct primary, believes that under the convention system the delegates would be practically pledged to the candidate, the general ticket might be better balanced, and the various parts of the state better represented.

Opinions of Chairmen of Political
Parties

The various political party chairmen are practically unanimous in favoring the convention system. Seven of the nine replying favor, and two oppose, the convention system. The officials replying favorably are: Mr. Lynch, Democrat; Mr. Lyman, Democrat; Mr. Cady, Republican; Mr. McCloud, Republican; Mr. VanHorne, Republican; Mr. Fisher, Democrat; Mr. Kennedy, Republican.

Mr. VanHorne, Republican, states that, as a newspaper man, he has seen the "Boss" defeated under the convention system more times than he won. It is further observed that the candidates selected by the direct primary are not of as high an order as those selected by the party convention. It is believed that the convention plan should be used in the nomination of.