Return this book on or before the Latest Date stamped below. A charge is made on all overdue books. University of Illinois Library m -d isv, 27214 THE NEW PRIMARY LAW IN WISCONSIN. BY HOWARD L. SMITH, PROFESSOR OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN. In March, 1898, the present Governor of Wisconsin, just elected a United States Senator, addressed the Uni- versity of Michigan in this city on the subject, then a forlorn hope, of the reform of primary elections. De- feated as a candidate for his party nomination for Gov- ernor in 1896 by the instability of delegates who had been elected as his supporters, but who, as his friends asserted, had been unable to withstand the blandishments of a political machine that was opposed to him, his attention was naturally directed to the destruction of that machine. He thought he saw that its strength was rooted in the caucus or primary election and in the convention system of nomination which was so constituted as to be really in the control of the professional or semi-professional poli- ticians, while nominally and theoretically a perfect medium of popular expression. Perhaps no human in- strumentalities were ever devised more faultless in theory than the caucus and convention. In an ideal world, among faultless and public-spirited citizens, they must constitute a well-night perfect medium for the expression of the popular will. But the world is not ideal and men are not angels, nor all of them sufficiently public-spirited to perform disagreeable duties. So the problem which presented itself to the chagrined and defeated candidate was to find and secure the adoption of some sort of machinery by which it would be at least more difficult for professional politicians and party bosses to take advantage of the carelessness, indifference, and inexpert- ness of the unsophisticated and not too enthusiastic voter. 74 MICHIGAN POLITICAL SCIENCE ASSOCIA TION It is to be noted that the convention of whose misrepresentative action complaint was made was itself the fruit of a practically untrammeled and unregulated caucus and convention system. For while there had, at each session of the Legislature since 1891, been legis- lation looking to the bringing of caucuses and conven- tions within the pale of the law, and to the regulation of their proceedings, yet such legislation had related to one county in the State only, and had been very rudimentary and imperfect. Moreover, such legislation as there had been, had not taken the form of direct nominations of candidates in the caucuses, but solely that of attempted regulation of the manner of conducting caucuses. But the complaint of the candidate was, not that the caucuses had failed to represent the people, but that the delegates chosen at the caucuses had failed to truly represent the caucuses in the convention. The particular problem suggested, then, by the exigencies of the moment was, not so much to reform the caucus, as how to effectu- ally secure the registration of the will of the caucus. If this was to be accomplished as heretofore through the mouth of caucus delegates assembled in convention, then some way must be devised to make the delegates ‘‘stay put.” The only alternative was to do away with the con- vention of delegates altogether, and provide some means by which the voters in caucus could register their wishes directly, without the intervention of any middlemen to be lost, strayed or stolen on the road between the caucus and the nomination. It was this alternative that the Governor adopted, and as to which he said in the address before referred to, “The fight is on. It will continue to victory. There will be no halt, and no compromise.” The fight has been on ever since without halt or com- promise, and has continued to victory. We may now survey the battlefield, and consider the results. The THE NEW F HIM ARY LAW IN WllSCONSlN. 75 measure advocated was enacted by the Legislature of 1903, referred to the people at the last general election, and adopted by a large majority. It has yet to undergo the test of actual operation. The fight, throughout, has been pre-eminently the Governor’s. Mr. LaFollette has known exactly what he wanted, and refused to accept makeshifts or subterfuges, or half-way measures. A very adroit and successful practical politician himself, he has seen at once through every scheme of substitution and amendment with which the prolific friends of “re- form in general,” but opponents of all particular measures of reform, beset all schemes of regeneration, and has set himself like a stone wall against them. He flogged a more or less indifferent party into line, imbued it with some of his own enthusiasm, and kept its front to the enemy until the measure was passed. Scores of times, during the campaign of more than six years, his indomit- able preseverance alone stood between the scheme and defeat. It is, more essentially than most laws, the crea- tion of one man. It could scarcely be more so were it an imperial ukase. If it succeeds to anything like the extent anticipated by him, he must receive credit for a large measure of prophetic and constructive statesmanship; while if it fails he will hardly be allowed to escape a large measure of the responsibility. The steps in the progress of the reform are interest- ing, and not altogether uninstructive. The first bill was introduced in 1897 at the very next session of the Legis- lature after the convention of 1896. It abolished all conventions and provided for the nomination of all officers at the primary. Only one primary was provided for, which was to be held in September of each year. Probably the weakest features of the bill was that all officers, not only those to be elected in November, but those to be chosen in the coming spring were to be nomi- nated at this one September primary. This provision 76 MICHIGAN POLITICAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATION. was defended chiefly on two grounds. First, economy; second, the greater interest that it was supposed would result in the primary, and the consequent larger attend- ance. It is probable that these advantages do not out- weigh the disadvantages inhering in the mixing up of the largely non-partisan and local spring elections with the fall candidacies, when party spirit is highest. The bill provided that all primaries of all parties should be held on the same day, and at the same place. To have their names placed on the primary election ballots, can- didates were to file nomination papers signed by a certain number of electors. Though not so comprehensive in scope, or detailed in its arrangements as some of the later bills, its general purpose and effect were the same. Instead of passing the law, the Legislature enacted one (Laws of 1897, ch. 312) regulating the caucuses for city and general elections in the city of Milwaukee, and for general elections in the other cities of the State, with a provision that as to city elections, other cities than Milwaukee might adopt the provisions if they choose. In general, the purpose and effect of this law were simply to regulate in some particulars the conduct of caucuses. It did not pretend to interfere with the delegate con- vention system. Both these and the caucuses were still to be called, constituted, and conducted by the party committees, who were, however, required to give certain notices, and observe certain formalities in the conduct of the caucuses. Probably the most singular feature of the law was that candidates whose names were to be placed on the official caucus ballots were to be proposed at a “preliminary meeting” of voters of the party. At this “preliminary meeting” any person might propose a can- didate whose name thereupon went upon the caucus bal- lot. The attempt to cure the evils of the caucus by changing its name seemed peculiarly naive. The sub- stantive provisions of the law were wholly inadequate. THE NEW PRIMARY LAW IN WIISCONSIN. 77 and no sufficient machinery was provided or penalties inflicted to make effective even so many of its provisions as were substantially good. That it did not satisfy the reformers goes without saying. The next session of the Legislature came in 1899, and the reformers were ready with another bill (the Bryant bill) resembling in its main features the defeated bill of 1897, but somewhat wider in scope. It provided for direct nomination at the primaries of all State, Con- gressional, Legislative and county officers by simultane- ous primaries of all parties. Previous registration was required as well as a disclosure of the political affiliations of the the voter. The platform was to be promulgated by the State Central Committee, and all expenses borne by the political parties. The Bryant bill met with the same fate as its predecessor, but again the Legislature felt the necessity of “pandering to the better elements,” and passed in its place another caucus-regulating bill (Laws of 1899, ch. 341). As this law remained in force up to the last election, if indeed it is not still in force, I shall pause to examine its provisions. It applies to all portions of the State except Milwau- kee County, which was already provided for by the law of 1897. It does not provide for simultaneous caucuses of all parties, but that all caucuses of each party in each county shall be held the same day, which day shall be fixed by the respective county committees. These com- mittees are to give certain notice by publication of the time, place, and purpose of holding the caucus. The apportionment of the delegates to conventions is to be by the party committee. It is made a misdemeanor for any but a cjualified elector of the caucus district to vote thereat, and for anyone who has already voted at the caucus of one party to vote at that of another party. The chairman of the caucus is the chairman of the local political committee, and the secretary and tellers, as 78 MICHIGAN POLITICAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATION. well as the chairman, when the constituted chairman is not present, are to be chosen by the electors present at the opening of the caucus. The fine hand of the political manipulator is evident in this provision. The chairman and secretary shall “on taking their places” take an oath, before whom the law does not provide, and it must in a vast number of cases be true that no one is present who can administer an oath. The law does not provide what officers may be voted for directly at the caucus, but the provisions for the canvass and return of the result are inconsistent with any other candidates being so voted for than those whose jurisdiction is coterminous with or smaller than the caucus district, — that is to say, the officers of towns, villages, school districts and wards of cities. As to all other officers, the function of the caucus under this law is to elect delegates to a nominating con- vention. There is no official ballot at the caucus. The voting is to be by ballot either written by the voter, or printed on plain white paper, and is to be deposited in a “box or other receptacle” provided by the caucus officers. A poll-list of those who vote is to be kept, and lodged with the city, town or village clerk. The vote is to be canvassed and returned by the cau- cus officers. The curious provision is made that in the case of candidates nominated at the caucus “the candi- date receiving a majority of all the votes shall be declared the nominee of the caucus, and his election shall be cer- tified,” etc. Sec 9. No provision is made for what must be the far com- moner case of no candidate having received “a majority of all the votes.” Apparently in this case there would be no nomination. Bribery, intimidation and interference of any sort with the operations of the law are made mis- demeanors. While this law bristles with defects, its capital in- sufficiencies may be said to be three. THE NEW PRIMARY LAW IN WISCONSIN. 79 I. It does not make the caucus an official function conducted by officers of the State at the expense of the State or lesser municipalities, but leaves it and all its machinery in the hands of the political managers. II. It provides no official ballot, but leaves anybody to provide any ballot or assortment of ballots so long only as they be on plain white paper. III. It permits only a very insignificant amount of direct nominations at the caucus, and does not require any. The requirement of an oath from the caucus officials and the denunciations of certain pains and penalties against the violators of the law are the sort of sop that almost any Legislature will throw to almost anybody whose clamor is so insistent that it must be noticed. This law has been in force ever since its adoption in 1899, and is now about to be superseded by the law of 1903, recently approved by the people’s referendum vote. No particular difficulty has been experienced in its adminis- tration, nor can it be said, so far as appears, that any particular benefits have flowed from it . It will have been obvious long before this that this law was not likely to satisfy the reformers. It was fol- lowed in 1900 by the election of the chief reformer as Governor of the State. As part, in fact the chief item of his program, a well-considered and far-reaching primary election bill was introduced into the Legislature, but, by reason of factional differences in the dominant party, failed of enactment into law. I shall not linger over its provisions since they neither became law, nor resulted in the enactment of any other law. A much-emasculated bill did pass the Legislature by a small majority, but was vetoed by the Governor as an insincere attempt to head off genuine reform. Another campaign resulted, in 1902, in the re-election of the Governor, and the return of a Legislature more in harmony with his views. As a 80 MICmOAJS POLITICAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATION. result of their deliberations there was enacted in 1903, subject to the approval of the people at the general elec- tion of 1904, what I suppose to be one of the most sweep- ing primary election laws upon the statute books of any State (Ch. 451, Laws of 1903). The approval provided for has been given, and it is now the law, though there is a difference of opinion whether it goes into effect at the spring elections of 1905, or the general elections in the fall of 1906. This law consists of twenty-eight sec- tions, many of them of considerable length and com- plexity, and I should quite despair of making clear to you by oral exposition all of its provisions within the limits of this paper. But its main purposes, and the prin- cipal means adopted to accomplish them can perhaps be be sufficiently exposed within reasonable limits. To avoid repetition and an undue trespassing upon your patience, I shall make my comments upon some of the various sections of the law as I come to them, rather than first to summarize the entire law, and then go back to criticize, believing that for oral exposition such a method will be less confusing than the other. It will be remembered that the Australian system of voting is a fixed institution in Wisconsin; that the cen- tral feature of that system is the official ballot prepared by the State, with the names of the candidates printed thereon, and that the problem is to determine what names shall be printed thereon. It is to determine this that caucuses and conventions have been chiefly held. The law, then, provides in the first place (Section 2) that this question shall hereafter be determined only by the results of primary elections (called primaries) held pursuant to the act, and by direct votes cast at the primaries. The law does not apply at all to special elections to fill vacan- cies nor to the election of local, judicial, and educational officers who are chosen in the spring, except in cities, where it applies equally to the local spring and general THE NEW PBIMARY LAW IN WISCONSIN. 81 fall election. Justification for this exception is no doubt found in the resulting economy and in the fact that with us the rural local and judicial elections are little domi- nated by partisanship, and are usually conducted without notable scandal or manipulation. It will be an easy matter to extend the system, once established, to them should there seem to be any necessity therefor. For all caucuses, and conventions, then, with the exceptions above noted, there is substituted a primary election to be held on the first Tuesday in September pre- ceding a general election, and two weeks before the spring elections in cities. This primary is made a com- plete official function. It is to be conducted by the same officers who officiate at the election itself, in the official booths, upon official notice given by the State, entirely at the expense of the State, and subject, in all essential respects, to the laws governing the conduct of other elections. Sixty days before the date of the primary, notice is to be sent by the Secretary of State to all county, town, city and village clerks, of the officers to be nominated, and these several functionaries are required to give by a prescribed period of posting and publication, notice to the constituencies to the same effect, as also of the time and place of holding the primary, precisely as in case of the election itself. On the day appointed the voters repair to the regular polling places which are to be kept open from eight o’clock in the morning until eight o’clock at night, and in cities from six o’clock in the morning until nine o’clock at night. The voter finds the polling- place in charge of the election and registration officials with the party challengers permitted to be present at the primary, and all others kept at a distance, precisely as at an election. Having arrived, he is permitted to vote, provided he has qualified or does qualify to vote at the election — not otherwise. That he may qualify, if he 82 MICHIGAN POLITICAL SCIENCE ASSOCIA TION. wishes, primary day and the preceding day are made registration days in all places where registration is required. Finding himself qualified, or making himself so, the voter is furnished with an Australian ballot, pre- pares it in his booth, and it is deposited in the same ballot-box used to receive his vote in November. Before proceeding further it is necessary to consider this ballot furnished to the voter. What names will it contain, how will they be arranged, and how did they get there ? The only way in which names get upon the pri- mary ballot is by petition. Such petition must be filed at least thirty days before the primary, for all officers repre- senting more than one county with the secretary of state, for all other officers, except city officers, with the county clerk, and for city officers with the city clerk. In addition to the signers’ name, it must contain their address, and date of signing. It formally proposes A. B., giving his address, as a candidate for the specified office at the primary in question. Curiously, it says nothing about the particular party ticket upon which he is to be nomi- nated, but recites the partisan affiliations of the signers, and contains a declaration that they intend to support the candidate named for the office. No signer shall sign more than one paper for the same office, and all signers of each separate paper shall reside in the same precinct, except in case of state officers, when they must all reside in the same county. Each such nomination paper must have appended to it an affidavit of a qualified elector that he is personally acquainted with all the signers; that he knows them to be electors of the precinct or county as the case may be; that he knows they signed the same with full knowledge of the contents; that their residences and the dates of signing are correctly stated, and that he himself intends to support the same candidate. It is difficult to see what more could reasonably be required to insure the bona Udes of the nomination papers. THE NEW PRIMABY LAW IN WISCONSIN. 83 That men may not be nominated or candidated against their will, each candidate must file with his papers a declaration that he will qualify and serve if nominated and elected. The number of signers required varies for different offices, as follows: (a) If for a state office, at least one per cent of the voters of his party for presidential electors at the last general election in each of six counties, and in the aggre- gate not less than one per cent of the total vote of his party in the state. Under this provision, coupled with the inhibition against signing more than one nomination paper for the same office, it will be seen that not more than one hundred candidates of each party for the same office can get on the official ballot. (b) If for a representative in Congress, by at least two per cent of the voters of his party for presidential electors at the last general election in at least one-tenth of the election precincts in each of at least one-half of the counties of the congressional district, and in the aggregate not less than two per cent of the total vote of his party in such district. The number of possible candidates of each party is here reduced to fifty. (c) If for an office representing less than a con- gressional district, or a county office, by at least three per cent of the party vote for presidential electors, in at least one-sixth of the election precincts, and not less than three per cent of the total party vote in such district. Any political organization casting not less than one per cent of the total vote at the preceding general election may be thus represented. Non-partisan candidates may be placed upon the ballot by the filing of nomination papers signed by not less than two per cent of the total vote for the office at 84 MICHIGAN POLITICAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATION. the preceding general election, distributed as above pro- vided. Two criticisms of these provisions occur to me. 1. It is made unduly difficult for a non-partisan can- didate to get upon the ballot. In the case of a state office for example he must have on his nomination papers two per cent of the total vote in the state, while the par- tisan candidate needs but one per cent of his party vote. Inasmuch as this privilege is extended to the partisan candidate, whose party polled as low as one per cent of the total vote, it is obvious that the minimum number of sponsors required of a non-partisan candidate is two hundred times greater than the minimum number which may be required of a partisan candidate, and in almost every case would be very much larger. With respect to congressional offices the proportion of the two minima is one hundred to one, and with respect to local offices sixty-seven to one. No good reason occurs to the writer why it should be made so much more difficult for non- partisan candidates to get on the ballot than for partisan candidates. It surely cannot be because there is likely to be a flood of such candidates to encumber the ballot. The likelihood of any such inconvenience is far greater on the partisan tickets than on any non-partisan one. For my part I am unable to justify the discrimination on any ground that seems tenable. 2. But a more serious objection seems to be that there is no way by which a new party, no matter how strong, can ever get upon the ballot. The doors of admission to this ballot are but two, viz., a record of votes cast, as a party, at the last election, and the non-partisan nomination papers. In the life of every party there is always a time when it has cast no votes at the last general election. The only way, then, that it can get its candi- dates on the ballot will be by the filing of non-partisan nomination papers. But this, as we shall see, will result THE ISEW PBIMARY LAW IN WmCONtHN. 85 in their being placed on a non-partisan ticket, and trans- ferred thereafter to a non-partisan column on the elec- toral ballot. The votes cast for them, then, will be non- partisan votes, not new-party votes, and they will be no better off with respect to getting on the ballot next time than they were the first; nor under the law as it stands will any possible increase in strength or participation in elections ever enable them, as a party, to secure a place upon either the primary or electoral ballot. Moreover, other sections of the law providing that no candidate’s name shall appear under more than one party designation on either the primary or the electoral ballot, the result is that no party can endorse the candidates of another party, or fuse with another party on presidential electors for one election without irretrievably losing all right or possibility of ever again appearing as a party, or having its candidates appear as party candidates for any office whatever. The same result would follow in the perhaps unlikely but conceivable case of a party whose presidential voting strength should for one elec- tion drop below one per cent of the total vote. That such a party should be deprived of its representation so long as its vote remains below one per cent is perhaps perfectly proper; but that no means should exist by which it may regain its place on the ballot when its strength has risen to seventy-five per cent of the voting population seems to be a defect. It will be noticed that neither of the defects which I have pointed out is necessarily inherent in the primary election system. While the number of votes cast at the last election is the most convenient method of deter- mining party strength ordinarily, yet it would be per- fectly feasible to provide some other means, as by nomi- nation papers filed, of determining this fact as to new parties, and thus affording them, when entitled to it, an access to the official ballot. 86 MICHIGAN POLITICAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATION. The respective nomination papers are to be filed with either the Secretary of State (for state officers, senators, and representatives in Congress, and those members of senate and assembly whose districts comprise more than one county) or with the county or city clerks according as the offices may be county or city offices. In the case of general elections each county clerk is to publish in papers of opposite political faith a list of all persons for whom nomination papers have been filed, whether with the Secretary of State alone, or in his own office also, does not appear to be very clear from the wording of the statute. It is probably safe to hazard that it will be given that construction which will most redound to the advantage of the public printer. These notices are also to be posted in each precinct, and they as well as the printed notice are to give the date and hours of the primary, and the information that it will be held at the regular polling place of the precinct. In other words, the primary is to be as well advertised as the election itself. The official ballot is to be prepared by the county clerk, advertised and distributed precisely as the electoral ballot. It differs from the latter, however, in this fun- damental particular, that it consists of as many separate tickets as there are party nominating papers filed, and a non-partisan ticket, all fastened together at the top. The voter detaches one of them, and votes it, putting the unused ones into another box where they remain until the close of the polls without examination, and are then destroyed. Any voter may, therefore, without any state- ment of his political affiliations, vote any nominating ticket he chooses at the primary. But he may vote only one ticket, and while he may vote upon his ticket for any candidate named upon another ticket, yet if in the result, the candidate shall be successful on more than one ticket “he shall forthwith file with the proper officer a written THE NE W PRIMARY LA W IN WISCONSIN. 87 declaration indicating the party designation under which his name is to be printed on the official ballot.” This provision, I take it, cannot be considered other- wise than as a concession to those whose trade and busi- ness are politics. The practical effect of it is to compel every party to have a separate candidate for every office. It prevents combinations, fusions and endorsements among the weaker parties, and is altogether in the interest of the dominant parties. The excuse offered for it is that since a plurality of votes nominates, and any voter may vote any ticket, any other practice would permit a strong candidate of one party with his support- ers well in hand, especially where the opposition to him is much divided, not only to secure a plurality of the votes of his own party, but also a plurality of the votes of another party, or perhaps of other parties. But it seems to me that this is a danger somewhat fantastical and remote, and that, even if it were much more imminent it should be avoided by some test of party affiliation of the voter, or an abandonment of plurality nominations, rather than by making it impossible for worthy men to be candidates of more than one party. Certainly if the latter alternative cannot be avoided it is a grave, inherent weakness in the scheme, which may well give us pause before we extend it to, for instance, the judiciary. In Wisconsin, the judiciary, though elective, are almost entirely out of politics. No conceivable advantages from primary reform would justify throwing them back into the cess-pool, wherein they wallow in some other states. The votes cast at the primary are canvassed and returned substantially as those cast at the general election itself. The person receiving the greatest number of votes is declared the candidate of his party, and his name, as such, is placed upon the official electoral ballot. Vacancies occurring after the holding of a primary are 88 MICHIGAN POLITICAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATION. filled by the appropriate party committee, who, with the exception of the state central committee, are elected at the same time and upon the same ballot. The party platform is to be adopted, and the state central commit- tee elected by a convention of all the party candidates for state offices and for the senate and assembly. It would seem as if this convention might well be charged with the additional duty of naming party candidates for presi- dential electors, so long as these useless instruments for recording the people’s will continue to encumber an age which has outgrown them. To require them to be nomi- nated at the primaries is likely to be unsatisfactory. Nomination papers for the empty honor of being a popular amanuensis are not likely to be circulated with much zeal. Yet it is important that the office be held by men of character and responsibility. For it must be remembered that it is only an extra-legal custom that has shorn the presidential elector of the discretion and initiative he was created to possess. These are all the features of the law that it is neces- sary to dwell upon. What seems to me its most funda- mental defect remains to be pointed out. It is that provision which makes the party nominee the man who receives the largest number of votes cast, irrespective of the total number of votes. In the case of state officers, as has been pointed out, there may be as high as one hundred candidates. Such a case is, of course, not likely to arise, but if it did, it is obvious that two per cent of the total vote might make its recipient the party candidate, against the will of ninety-eight per cent of the party who had voted for other candidates. Cases will probably not be rare where a third or a quarter of the vote will prevail over the scattered two-thirds or three-quarters. The candidate who has the field against him will infallibly win. It is said that in the history of political conventions this has rarely been the case. One of our great political THE NEW PRIMARY LAW IN WISCONSIN 89 parties has, as is well known, carried conservatism in this particular to the point of requiring in its presidential con- ventions a two-thirds vote to nominate. It cannot be regarded otherwise than as a grave defect in such a system that, under it, the great political parties are quite likely to be represented by candidates who are the choice of but a minority of their parties. And note that where this occurs the minority that is represented on the ticket will be composed of the poorest elements of the party. For it is they who are most easily organized into a com- pact and governable body. The saloon vote will be con- centrated, the respectable vote divided. In New York the candidates of Tammany will easily secure the nomi- nations, since that institution is an adept both in con- centrating and controlling its own vote, and in dividing and dispersing its opponents. That these fears are not idle ones is shown by the result of the first primary of this sort at Minneapolis, when the notorious “Doc” Ames easily secured a plurality nomination. Of course such things happen in conventions. But the powers of evil are there immensely handicapped by the fact that they must have a majority — must beat their opponents not only separately but unitedly. To permit minority nomi- nations is to play into their hands to a degree that makes me tremble for the result. Is there no way of escape from minority nomination ? Of course a re-ballot confined to the two candidates who had received the highest votes would be a way out. But it is said, and I think truly, that this is impracticable. The great body of voters have never been in the habit of attending primaries at all. One fundamental purpose of the legislation is to so safeguard, legitimatize and rehabilitate the primary as to tempt these voters from their timid seclusion. But, if you would do this, you must be merciful to them. If you hold up before them the prospect of a double primary, you will scare them 90 MICHIGAN POLITICAL SCIENCE ASSOCIA TION. away before you have gotten them within hailing dis- tance. The objection on the score of expense I do not regard as serious, since all the expenses of every sort are borne by the State, which may well pay whatever is necessary to secure as nearly perfect an expression of the popular will as possible. But the other objection to a second primary seems to be insuperable. It has been said that since minorities frequently elect, and no serious inconvenience arises therefrom, therefore there can be no serious danger in permitting minorities to nominate. But this does not follow. To permit a minority to designate the candidates, and then a minority to select which of the minority-designated candidates shall have the office is to raise a fraction to the second power, and insist that it is no smaller than before. The only purpose of a re-ballot is to ascertain the second choice of the voter, his first choice has been already expressed. It has been ingeniously suggested that there is no necessity of a second ballot to ascertain this : that the voter may, at the time he indicates his first choice, also indicate his second, and that the second choices of those supporting the lowest candidates be counted until, counting his first and second choices, some candidate has a majority. It would seem that this method would accomplish the result, the only objection being the possible difficulty of educating the voters to work the scheme intelligently. It would seem that this difficulty ought not to be insuperable, and that, so far as it proved so, it would be in the nature of an easy educa- tional test, giving, perhaps, no more advantage to intelli- gence than it ought to have. But, whatever its merits, it is not a part of the law as it now stands, and the absence of some provision for such result seems to be its most serious defect. It is not entirely clear how the law will work when applied to presidential electors chosen as at present on a THE NEW PRIMARY LA W IN WmCONIHN. 91 general state ticket. It would seem that in such states as New York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio electing those officials by the score, this system might be hard to oper- ate, and might easily result in an unfortunate and unrep- resentative choice. The liability to this, however, can be greatly lessened, if not done away with, by the method, formerly in vogue in some states, of choosing electors by districts. When all is said, however, the law is one which betokens an awakened public interest in elections, and may well be productive of much good. But we must not expect too much of it. It will not regenerate human nature. At bottom the trouble with the old system of caucus and convention was nothing more than that the virtuous and intelligent public would not take the trouble to work it. As has beeen remarked before,' theoretically it was a well-nigh perfect instrument for expressing the popular will. Its abuses grew out of the fact that most men found it more profitable to be attending to their business and affairs than to be operating the machinery; whereupon it was taken in charge by men who made a business of operating it. The new system is more diffi- cult for the professional politicians to engross. In so far as the primary itself is concerned, it is rendered no more respectable than it has been for some years in Wis- consin and many other states; but in eliminating the convention, the whole electoral process is placed under legal protection, and the practice made certain and uniform. But is the convention abolished? Already it is said that one of the great political parties in Wisconsin will hold a pre-primary convention, at which its candi- dates will be nominated, and its platform adopted. If, and in so far as, it does this, there is almost a certainty that its candidates will be nominated at the primaries, and its platform re-adopted by the September convention of candidates. This would not have been apt to happen 92 MICHIGAN POLITIC AL SCIENCE ASSOCIATION. with respect to local affairs had the law applied to them only. But it is entirely possible that, by reason of attempting too much, the primary may become a mere machine for registering the antecedent decrees of a con- vention, and as useless a piece of machinery as the elec- toral college. Finally, no political contrivance is likely to revolu- tionize human nature, or prove a panacea for political ills. If the new system is forced to appeal in its opera- tion to a public indifferent to its political duties, careless' of who may be candidates for office, and subject only to spasmodic upheavals of post factum political indignation, then I, for one, look for no political regeneration to come from this or any other mechanical contrivance for out- witting Satan. But the very demand for such legis- lation, the continued agitation of the subject, resulting ultimately in the defeat of the obstructionists are them- selves hopeful signs of an awakening of the public con- science to its responsibilities, and of a reviving interest in good representative government. If the agitation for electoral reform accomplishes little or nothing more than such awakening and revival, it will have served a good purpose..