;" t&r
ipir4
s?
r
tt
V
4 The Commoner. V0MB'7' NUMBBE
AJDKANTAGE5 OF THE DIRECT PRIMARY ELECTION
The advantages of "direct primary" were re
cently set forth In nn intoroHtliitf way In tho
Arena, by Ira Crow of Madison, Wisconsin. From
Mr. Cross's article those extracts are taken:
All ntlomplH al reforming the caucus and tin
ronvention have resulted In diurnal failures. New
York, California, and Cook county, Illinois, which
have the most' highly legalized caucus-systems,
are si 111 boss-ridden and machine-controlled. ,
There can be but one remedythe government
must be brought back lo Hie people. They must
1)0 given Ihe power to directly nominate their
party candidates, ir they are sulliclently Intelli
gent to directly elect them by means of the Aus
tralian ballot they are sulliclently Intelligent to
directly nominate them.
Experience Avith the direct primary In thirty
two stales, where It Is now being used in one form
or other shows that every good direct primary
law, whether applied to city, county or state,
must have the following live essentials: (1) It
must be compulsory upon all parties; (2) the Aus
tralian ballot must be used; (.'I) all primaries must
bo held under slate regulations; (I) the state must
bear the expense; (f) all parties must hold tTielr
primaries at the same place and time. Under a
H.vstom of direct nominations one of the registra
tion days Is set aside for Hie primary. The voter
goes to the polls, registers, receives a ballot con
taining a list of the candidates, and votes directly
for the men of his choice. Nothing could be more
fdmplc in operation than this. It places in tho
hands of the voters the power to nominate their
party candidates, and in all sane governments lh.it
Is where it should be placed.
The real tests of any nominating system, how
ever, are (1) the number of voters that take part
!u the primaries, and (2) the kind of candidates
Dominated.
Tinder (lie caucus system, no matter how high
ly legalized, Hie wdors will not take part in mak
ing the nominations. They are not even interested,
for in the caucuses they do not nominate candi
dates, they only elect delegates, and a delegate,
no matter how. honest he may be, cannot correctly
represent the wishes of his constituents upon all,
and quite often not even upon a small portion, of
the candidates to be nominated in the convention.
Do the facts uphold the argument V Take the cau
cus system at Its best and what do wo find? In
San Francisco, New York city, and Cook county,
Illinois, which places since 1001, 1900, and j.SOO
respectively, have had the most highly legalized
and reformed caucus systems in the United
States, mi average of but li) per cent of the voters
of San Francisco, 41 per cent of those in New
York, and US per cent of those in (look county,
Illinois, take part in making nominations. If but
this small number, of people attend the caucuses
when such great care is taken to protect the voice
and the will of the people, what a handful must
turn out In those states In which few if any legal
regulations are thrown around the nominating
machinery! Under the caucus system the result
ing government cannot represent the will of the
majority. It can only represent the will of the
minority, and It Is to this small minority (composed
though It usually Is of men who are in politics
for what there is in it) that our ofllctals are di
rectly responsible, not only for their nomination
!ut also for their subsequent election.
On the other hand, it cannot bo denied that the
direct primary greatly increases the attendance
at the primaries. The reason for this is that it
Vivos the voters a real voice in making party nom
inations. They can express their choice upon all
candidates from governor down to justice of the
yeaee, and by this means are able to exert a direct
inlluence upon the final results.
In Cleveland, Ohio, under the old caucus sys
tem, only n.OUO voters took part in nominating the
republican candidates for city olllces In 1802, out
in 3Si),t, when they used one of the most poorlv
framed and extra legal primary systems imagin
able, over 14,000 republicans turned out. This
number increased to 123,000 in 1S0G, to "SOOO in
3800. and lo 31,000 in 1001, the vote at tiic pr -maries
during these years averaging more than
.)5 per cent of the vote cast by the republicans t
lie subsequent elections. In Crawford comity
Srt u!oliVllT lh rtll'c primary has been
S ! ii H0, th0 ftvorgo attendance at the
primaries has been more than 715 per cent In to
Twenty-fifth conerosslnnni ,i ,., .,.' n
system has been used since 1S00, 77 per cent of
le voters have made the nominations. Even
5m mi !?2wTlB U(VnU,st' as s the case
J MM and 1000, more than 02 per cent of tho vim
u tended .the primaries. What other port ion of tl e
United States can show such a record i, this v
In Minneapolis," writes Mr. Day of that e v
'uiuler a highly legated caueusyste u S
per cent of the voters attended the caucuses.
Under the direct primary, however, 01 per cent
of the voters attended in 1000, 85 per cent in 1002,
an off-year, and 03 per cent In 1004. In Hennepin
county, Minnesota, in 100-J, over 07 per cent of
the voters took part in making congressional nom
inations. In the same year the returns from
eighteen counties, scattered indiscriminately
throughout Minnesota (all the returns that could
be obtained), showed that over 72 per cent of the
voters took part in the primaries. These figures
show most conclusively that the difficulty is not
the apathy of the people. Their civic patriotism
is as strong as it has ever been in years past.
They are interested in tho government and will
attend tho primaries, if they are but given tho
opportunity to directly, nominate their party can
didates. Tho difficulty lies with the causua sys
tem. It is indirect and inefficient.
Now let us see if there are any reasons why
better men should be nominated under the direct
primary than under the caucus and convention
system.
In tho first place it must bo conceded that tho
majority of Uie people are honest and that they
want good government and honest officials. Un
der tho direct primary they can make this desire
felt more effectively. They can exercise two
vetoes upon any attempt to foist bad candidates
upon the public, once at the primary, and again
at tho election. But under the caucus system
they have no choice at the caucuses, while upon
election it is usually a choice between two evils,
between two machine-made candidates, and this
is one reason why there is sucli an appallingly
largo stay-at-home vote upon election day.
In the second place, who is it that so bitterly
antagonizes the direct primary? Most assuredly
it is not the people! It is the same class of men
that twenty years ago fought the introduction of
tho Australian ballot! The St. Paul Pioneer Press
of March 17, 1004, said: "The machine men have
never liked the primary. They fought it from the
start and they continue to sneer at it." The
Arena of August, 1004, also said: "It is needless
to say that tho grafters and the corruptionists, all
indeed who have been engaged in debauching the
people's servants, are bitterly hostile to the pri
mary." Why is it that the politicians have sud
denly become so solicitous about the welfare of
Ihe public, claiming, as they do, that the intro
duction of the direct primary would be detri
mental lo the best interests of the people? Why
is it that they tight it so strenuously? It is be
cause they realize that they cannot control the 70
or SO per cent of the voters who turn out to the
primaries as they dictate to the 20 per cent who
attend the caucuses. They realize that under
it their power to dominate the political arena
would be gone, that they could not prevent the
candidacy of good men. The direct primary In
troduces "the principle of free, open competition,
where before all was secrecy, scheming and log
rolling. It enables any man to become a candi
date without currying favor with the boss and
tho ring by methods which trench upon his self
respect." Tho natural result is that better men
come out for the nomination under the direct pri
mary than under the caucus system. Speaking of
tho last primary held in St. Paul, the Pioneer Press
of that city said: "Instead of a horde of office
seekers, bound to this or that faction, and foisted
upon tho public to feed at the public crib and to
play into the hands of a small coterie of republi
cans, tlio primary law stimulated a search for good
candidates all aver the city, and the result was
a primary ticket composed largely of men whom
the office had sought, unpledged and indebted to
no one. The result is the strongest ticket that the
republican party has had for years, a ticket of
strong campaigners, and of men who are entitled
to the confidence of the people and who have it
No convention ever did so well except when stim
ulated by popular impatience, and that was once
in a decade." Hundreds of other localities, where
the direct primary has ucen tried, could testify to
the same effect. The more fact that those cities
and states which have adopted this system have
never thought of abandoning it, and that its non
ularlty is ever on the increase, is sufficient evi
deuce that it does result in better men being nom
mated for public office. fa
The caucus system presents no remedy for the
evils of today. No matter how highly legal zed it
will still remain complex, indirect and uncertain
linn" n? " PCPremtS bl Si P
lion of the people. It places the power of nom
ination in the hands of the few, the boss 1ft
-ring. It is subversive of the prtactolo of wni
sentativo government. From all over tt LE
comes the cry of the American people for deZo?
ance. They demand that the control of tho
eminent be placed in their hmas,alamt
he given the power to directly nominate all party
candidates. Arrayed against them in this struggle
for better government and purity in politics are
the corrupting elements of our social and industrial
world. What greater tribute can be paid to the
efficiency of the direct primary to destroy machine
domination and corruption than this bitter antag
onism of the boss and the ring?
The direct primary has universally proven sat
isfactory. Even where tried under the most un
favorable circumstances, placed entirely outside
the pale of the law, run by party organizations as
it is in many places, introduced into factional,
turbulent politics, into machine-ridden Minneapolis,
it has proven eminently successful. It has given
the people the power to nominate their officials.
It has brought out more voters to the primaries.
It has made tho officials responsible to the peopip.
and has freed them from the dictation of the ma
chine. And finally, as a rule, it has resulted in
the nomination of better candidates and in the
inauguration of better government
When these results are compared with those of
the caucus system, there is no necessity for ex
plaining further the universal demand for the
adoption of the direct primary.
oooo
SPECIAL OFFER
Chas. R. Glenn, Lamar, Mo. Enclosed find
fifty subscribers to The Commoner and draft for
$30 to pay for tho same. Mr. Bryan, these sub
scribers were secured by Uncle George Beamer of
Lamar, Mo., one of Barton county's grand old men,
who is strong, loyal and enthusiastic in his devo
tion to the democracy of William J. Bryan. Each
and every winter since The Commoner began its
career, Mr. Beamer has gone around faithfully in
this community getting all the old subscribers for
The Commoner and securing many renewals.
Speaking to me yesterday, he said: "I am eighty
three years old and cannot hope to contribute this
work many years longer. I have spent my whole
life in spreading true Jefferson democracy, I am
proud to say that I have cast two votes for Wil
liam J. Bryan for president." Mr. Beamer is' one
of Barton county's best known and highly honored
citizens. He is a man of broad intelligence, an
extensive reader, being a subscriber to eleven
periodicals, the principal one of which' is The
Commoner, which he reads with great interest,
each and every issue. He is an exemplary citizen,
loyal to his friends, merciful to his enemies, with
great force of character, strong convictions and
unyielding love and devotion to his chosen prin
ciples. 1
Everyone who approves the work The Com
moner is doing is invited to co-operate along the
lines of the special subscription offer. According
to the terms of this offer cards each good for one
year's subscription to The Commoner will be fur
n shed in lots of five, at the rate of $3 per lot. This
places tho yearly subscription rate at GO cents.
Any one ordering these cards may sell them
lor .fa each, thus earning a commission of $2 on
each lot sold, or he may sell them at the cost price
and find compensation in the fact that he has con
tributed to the educational campaign.
These cards may be paid for when ordered, or
llioy may be ordered and remittance made after
they have been sold. A coupon is printed below
for the convenience of those who desire" to par
ticipate in this effort to increase The Commoner's
circulation:
The Commoner's Special Offer
Application for Subscription Cards
5
JL0
JL5
20
25
100
ln?ScoMCMnLMvuEns, IW .interested " 'ncrenB
ing 1UE LOWMONEIl'B drculatlcn. and dPftlra vmi t
send mo a supply of subscription cards. 1 acre" t
ubo my utmost erdeavor to sol l Uio cardB and wll
remit for thorn at tho rate of CO ccits each, Wn sold
Box on Street No , ' M W
........ .............
p' Statu .','!. ..'...
" ' .
Indicate tho number of cards w anted by maililiVx
opposite ono of tho numboro printed oJRilJ
mSif Jih n!!?yL"i rnpor lB dom a wort thftt merits oncourniro
iScoiiNob. vo coupon ma mail U t0 Tho CoSSSSS,
- ir- xvtsr-
"migswzriurvettwnx-aee;
Vs raue-3-t
