"Were each candidate to depend entirely upon a home-made platform the chaotic result is easily imagined." "If candidates elected by the primary were allowed to make the platform we would have a hodge-podge of political opinion and political opportunism impossible to handle." It is, of course, natural that strong party men should find it easy to imagine that parties stand for definite principles. CHARACTER OF PLATFORM DRAFTED BY DIFFERENT METHODS As between platforms made by candidates and those made by delegates, do the documents themselves show any difference in conciseness, consistency and applicability to state issues? Certainly a careful reading of any particular platform does not enable the reader to determine whether it is convention-made or council-made. Some of the platforms this year most seriously lacking in the ordinarily conceived desiderata were drafted by party councils. Perhaps the platforms in Rhode Island, Connecticut and New Mexico-non-primary states -most offended academic taste in platform criteria, but only to a degree, if at all, more than several others. It seems a logical course either to try to have parties as responsible as they may be made for their candidates and principles, or to throw parties into the discard entirely. Perhaps we are doing the latter as rapidly as is wise. We can hardly gain anything by maintaining a practice which cannot be made intelligible even to the careful student of politics. If official responsibility is to be individual, let the confusion caused by the reference to parties and the use of party names be ended. How, for instance, could platforms mean anything where the open primary permits voters of all so-called parties to mingle freely? It may be suggested at this point that perhaps the more frequent swings from party to party today than in the past century, due to what is commonly called the independence of the voters, may be rather the result of the shifting of parties or the meaninglessness of parties. It is a question whether primary candidates do not tend to sacrifice principle fully as much as nominees under the convention system, and it is hardly reasonable to expect a collection of such nominees to be able to give expression to a clean-cut position on really controversial ques tions. Thus while the candidates strive more earnestly to appear to be what they think the people want them to be, it is doubtful whether another supposed function of parties the presentation of conflicting programs to the voters is not hindered. runs Do the platforms this year indicate any differences between the parties on state issues? It would seem not. One cannot readily tell whether he is reading a Democratic or Republican platform as far as the expressed attitude toward government is concerned. "We believe and strongly urge that the 18th amendment both national and state, be strictly enforced," the Democratic platform of Wisconsin, and, "We advocate the granting of the use of light wines and beer to the people ...," reads that of Maryland. The Democratic Party in New York and probably in South Dakota favors the centralization of state government, while in Idaho, Nebraska, Michigan, and Missouri it opposes such reorganization. Of course the record of the party in office is the main basis of differing judgment among the voters or else economic conditions for which neither party has had much responsibility. The portion of state platforms devoted to t matters of national control varies widely in the different states and parties, with a tendency to constitute one-half or one-third of the whole. Thus, one-half of the North Dakota, Vermont and New Mexico Democratic platforms discuss national affairs, in Nevada and Wyoming two-thirds, and in Maryland four-fifths, with hardly a single definite proposal, with the exception of that for light wines in the last, while in Idaho and Michigan there was no reference to national matters. About one-half of the Washington, Ohio and Michigan Republican platforms were national in character. In Colorado, national and state questions were confused and mingled throughout the Republican platform. Although some correspondents in New Jersey insisted that there were state issues involved in the election this year, such as a bond issue for roads and the regulation of public utilities, the best informed person seems to have summarized the situation correctly when he said, "There was not a great deal of difference between the parties on this point. The final result is to be attributed to a protest against prohibition, with dissatisfaction with the national administration taking a second place." And in Iowa writer comments, "The contest in Iowa concerned largely, if not wholly, the personality and political beliefs of Smith W. Brookhart." one candidates will not harmonize. Little interest is shown in the election of delegates. In Michigan, the Democratic county chairmen usually make up lists of delegates and pass the word around to the wheelhorses in each precinct. A conflict between wouldbe delegates on account of political issues is in that state unknown. The voters' interest is in the candidates. In North Dakota not ten per cent of the voters write in the name of anyone for precinct committeeman. Then the conventions contain by far too many members, and in several states these delegates are indirectly elected. Perhaps the most objectionable feature of all, in the case of both conventions and councils, is the time at which the platform is made. In South Dakota the precinct caucuses meet the second Tuesday of the preceding November. In many states, especially in presidential years, the state convention or council meets in the early summer. It would be preferable to have the primary not more than six or seven weeks before the election. This would give the platform bodies an opportunity, if it would not place them under a greater necessity, of speaking to the question, for issues seldom take definite form until a few weeks before an election. It seems desirable that there should be some means of ascertaining the attitude of the voters at the primary on the questions on which the party is likely to take a position. This is done to a degree, it is true, through the selection of candidates. The writer's proposal that a group of party representatives be permitted to propose a set of candidates to the primary voters would apparently afford a means of more definite decision than is offered at present. And if state issues are to receive adequate attention there is quite as much need for the separation of state and national elecThe recommendations offered are in summary these: state elections, if possible, in a year by themselves; platform-making not more than six weeks before the election, by a body greatly restricted in numbers, including perhaps several recognized party leaders chosen by appointment; and the proposal to the primary voters of a tions as for that of state and municipal set of candidates and issues by a elections. preliminary meeting of responsible party representatives. The function of platforms as possible indications of public opinion, the economic interpretation of platforms, and the possible value to a state's citizenry of political and partisan agitation and discussion, even when the outcome is the result of no real difference in policy, cannot be discussed here. 1 Non-Partisan Nominations and Elections THERE By ROBERT EUGENE CUSHMAN, PH.D. HERE is no phase of our recent It is the purpose of this paper to at- I. NON-PARTISAN NOMINATIONS AND A. The Origin of the Movement made its first appearance in municipal elections and why it should have been used in such elections much more extensively than elsewhere. In the first place, party loyalty had not infrequently been broken down by the numerous independent or reform movements which had characterized municipal politics. Resentment and protest against the exploitation of the city by self-seeking and venal political machines had on numerous occasions caused decent citizens of all parties to join hands. In other words, the idea of non-partisanship received a powerful impulse from the general movement for political sanitation in city government. Then, in the second place, it became evident that national party labels on municipal ballots served to distract the attention of the voters from real municipal issues. As has been aptly said, the use of the Republican or Democratic insignia in city elections served as a sort of "smoke-screen,” behind which municipal spoilsmen and office-brokers could hide in safety. And finally, the comparatively recent demand for real efficiency in municipal government has brought with it a recognition of the distinction between politics and administration and of the fact that city government is largely a matter of administration. The real issues in municipal elections are in the main, issues of administrative efficiency rather than issues of policy upon which political parties might be expected to differ. It has seemed desirable therefore, to rule 1 Party lines have never been so closely drawn in municipal politics and the stigma of irregularity has not attached to the man who has assumed an attitude of independence. For further elaboration of this see Merriam, American Party System, 89 ff. out partisanship from the field of city politics as an irrelevant hindrance to business-like administration. Whether or not the worthy ideals here mentioned have been, or can be attained by the simple act of striking party labels and emblems from the municipal ballot is a question however which can be answered only in the light of actual experience. B. Present Extent of Non-Partisanship in Local Government There is no easy way of determining the precise number of municipalities in the United States in which non-partisan primary and election ballots are used, and the value of such statistical information would hardly compensate for the labor necessary to acquire it. There are some states in which municipal nominations and elections are required by state law to be non-partisan.2 In other states, towns and cities under home-rule or optional charter provisions, enjoy the privilege of dispensing with party labels and emblems if they so desire. An overwhelming majority of the cities which have adopted the commission and commission-manager plans of government have introduced the non-partisan ballot. In addition, there are a number of larger cities, among them Cleveland, Buffalo, Boston, Pittsburg and Philadelphia, where the non-partisan system prevails, while Chicago has eliminated party designations in the choice of aldermen. The extension of the non-partisan system to county government has been much slower than in the case of cities. In California, North Dakota and Minnesota, all county officers are nominated and elected on non-partisan ballots in accordance with the requirements of state law. In other states the non-partisan principle has been applied to the election of particular county officers such as school superintendents 4 and county judges.5 It seems probable that the considerations which have accelerated the movement in cities will lead to its gradual extension in county government as well. C. The Results of Non-Partisan Ballot in Local Government [a.] The Difficulty of Appraising the Results. It is rather difficult for several reasons to estimate with assurance the results of the non-partisan ballot in local primaries and elections. In the first place, there is a sharp conflict of judgment as reflected in the opinions of persons who are in a position to know. In the second place, the nonpartisan ballot has in many cases ridden into city government upon a wave of aroused public sentiment, which could hardly fail to drive out corruption and mismanagement, regardless of the type of ballot used. How much of the happy consequences are due to this reform spirit and how much to the non-partisan ballot, it would be somewhat hazardous to say. And finally, the non-partisan ballot has usually been merely an incidental fea more. 2 In North Dakota and Wisconsin all municipal elections are non-partisan. Laws of North Dakota, 1913, Chap. 73; Laws of Wisconsin, 1913, Chap. 5, sec. 35-20. In Minnesota the non-partisan ballot is used in cities of the first and second classes and in villages having 8,000 inhabitants or Minnesota Laws, Chap. 12. Laws 1921, Chap. 8. It is interesting to note that the first Australian Ballot law adopted in the United States provided for a non-partisan municipal ballot for the city of Louisville, Kentucky. Laws of Kentucky, 1888, Chap. 266. The text of the act is also found in Wigmore, Australian Ballot System, p. 138. The non-partisan feature of this law can hardly be attributed, however, to an appreciation of the problem under discussion in this paper. 3 California, Act of June 16, 1913; Minnesota, Laws 1913, Chap. 389; Laws of North Dakota, 1919, Chap. 117. 4 Nebraska, Laws of 1917, Chap. 37; Wyoming, Laws of 1915, Chap. 59; Wisconsin, Laws of 1911, Chap. 333. See infra, p. 86. |