4
Ml
ID
i,
Vol. XV.
LINCOLN NEB., FEBRUARY 18, 1904.
No. 39.
THE PREFERENTIAL BALLOT
The Independent Straw Vote'
Nominates Watson and Allen.
''fa
The Independent's experiment with
; the ."preferential ballot" has been edu
cational in more ways than one. First
of all, it shows that a very large per
cent 6f populists regardless of local
ityare in favor of Thomas E. Wat-
son of Georgia for' the presidential
nominee this year. Secondly, it shows
that a large rer cent of them want
- William V. Allen of Nebraska as his
running mate. Were The Independent
called upon to decide between Watson
.& Allen and Allen & Watson after
eliminating the matter of state pride
it would be puzzled to know which
to choose.
In the third place, The Independent's
"straw vote" shows that very tew
mistakes are made in voting the pre
ferential ballot. Eight "null' votes"
out of 396, is a trifle more than 2 per
cent; and an inspection ( of the eight
ineffective ballots shows that the vot
ers were possossed of that spirit of
cocksureness which often causes men
to err. Instead of reading the in
structions in regard to .the proper
manner of voting, most of them made
a cross instead of using figures to ex
press preference. . Where only one,
cross was made, the vote was counted
as a first choice; but where two names
were marked, each with a cross, there
was no way of determining the voter's
preference, and his ballot went into
the 'null" pile. One voter expressed
double preference, voting two "first
choice," two second, etc., making it
impossible to count his ballot it could
not be placed in two piles at the same
time.
The count was made as follows:
Large cards were prepared each con
taining the name of one of the candi
dates named in the ballot; another
was labelled "scattering;" and one
was marked "null votes." These cards
were arranged on a large table in the
same order vas .the candidates' names
appeared on the ballot, followed by the
"scattering" and null" cards.
The ballots were then taken up and
inspected to find the voter's fust
choice. If it was Watson, thC baliot
was placed below the Watson card;
if Allen, below Allen V card; if for
some person whose name was not
printed in the ballot, in the "scat
' tering" pile; if the first choice could
nol be ascertained, the ballot went in
to the "null votes" pile.
When this first distribution was
made it was found that W. S Morgan
and James H. Ferriss had not re
ceived a single first choice vote; and
the remaining ten candidates had bal
lots as follows: Owers 1, Watson 171,
' Williams 7, Weller 2, Breidenthal 4,
Brown 1, Livingston 1, Calderhead 3,
Allen 137, Barker 30. There were 31
ballets in the . "seattefia' pile, cast
as follows: W. J. Bryan .12, T. H.
Tibbies 3, Col. S. F. Norton 3, Gen.
Nelson A. Miles 2, Marion Butler 2,
and G. W. Berge, Tom L. Johnson,
John O. Zabel, Milton Park. Fred G.
R. Gordon, A. L. Mims. Fank T.
Ilichey, William It. Hearst and James
B. Weav2r had one each. Thre were
8 ballots in the "null" pile.
While some of the "scattering" can
didates had more first choice votes
than several of the regular candi
dates, it was thought proper to elim
inate the entire 31 vote first These
ballots were then taken up and re
distributed according to jecond choke.
An inspection of the abstract will
show that 8 of these went 10 Watson,
2 to Wllllama 1 each to BrfMciitha',
Brown, and Livingston, 2 to Marker,
and 2 were "null" because no scioml
choice hid been marked.
J ml en Owers having the lowest num
ber, bin ballot w:s redistributed. It
' went to Allen, who wu the voter
tccond choice.
K, Gerry Brown being now one of
the' "low men," 1th two vote wcie
redistributed. B'iig one each to Wat
son a n.l Wei lor.
A. If. I.lvlncMon was eliminated
next, Ulh hla vote fMiUA to Barker.
Weller' thrift vote were now le
dMiih'it"d, rolnst one eath to Wal
ton. Breidenthal, and i nliH'rtuwl,
C.ildi'rhr3l iliopped out nt, Thtr
of fch sMfKi tern haul exr.res.ud l.o pre
ference for lewmd choice nnl tlnlr
Elimination "
Candidates 1 1 .
Owers..... 1 X
Watson 171 ....i 1 1 2 ....,5 ....81 ...219
Williams... 7 .....2 1 1 X ,
Weller... 2 1 X 3
Breidenthal 4 1 ...1 X '.
Brown........... .1 1 X 2
Livingston 1 1 X :
Calderhead ...8 1 X 4
Allen............ 137 ...A 1 2 2 1 ...157
Barker ....30 1 ... 2 ;....J 2 X .37
' r 11
Scattering (a) ;. ....31 X 01
Null votes.. 8 .....2 ". 3 2 5 ... 20
Totals..... m ....81 .'....I .....2 2 3 ....A .....6 ....11 ....37 ...3'.KS
ballots went into the "null" rile; the
other went to Breidenthal.
Breidenthal went next, his ballots
being. given as follows: Watson -2,
Williams 1,, Allen 2, Barker 1.
Judge Williams, who had now eleven
votes, was next eliminated. Five of
his ballots went to Watson, 2 to Al
len, 2 to Barker, and 2 were "null"
because no further choice wa3 ex
pressed. . This left the field wilh Waison, Al
len and Barker. The last had gained
7 votes in the redistribution, but was
still far behind the other two. His
AotC3 being redistributed, 31 of them
went to Watson, 1 to Allen, and 5
were "null"- fcr the same reason as
before 3tated that no further choice
had been marked. One of the ballots
having Barker a3 first choice was
marked for Williams, Weller, Living
ston and one or two others, a3 subse
quent choice; but as all these had been
previously eliminated, the. vote was
"null" because no choice was ex
pressed for a candidate still in the
fields -
This rounded up the work. Watson s
71 had grown to 213; and Allen's 137
had been increased to 157. If this had
been a formal vote to make real nom
inations, the candidates would be:
For president, Thomas E. Watson ci
Georgia; for vice president, William
V. Allen of Nebraska and The Inde
pendent believes that wou'.d make
obout the strongest ticket the peo
ple's party could put up.
Under the count as made, of course,
it is impossible to know who were
marked as second choice in the 171
Watson ballots first given to him, or In
the 131 Allen ballots; n I made a
lount of 3econd choice for the purpose
of making a little, analysis of the
vote. It is as follows
Fir?t Second
choice. choice.
Morran 0 27
Owers 1 1
Ferriss 0 6
Watson HI 137
Williams 9
Weller 2 C
Breidenthal "4 9
Brown I 4
Llvlncaton 1 , ?
('itMerhentt ,. 3 4
Alln T7 1
BirVef 30 f!l
Scattering .it 13
Null bnl lot a S 27
Total Slfi SOS
A little tli 'tlatlon will now show
th it In the 1 f7 ballot which went to
the Allen jol. ' fif them claim Wat
Mm a Mtond choice. ThI Is evident
from the fact that although Watson
asm named ru ennl choice by 157 dif
ferent voter. ,vt he pilnt but It in
the redbtrlbutions-nhowlnf ihat at
least 99 of his second choW votes are
hidden in the Alien pile. A similar
calculation for the Watson pile shows
49 Allen second choice votes in it. And
in both there are 50 3econd choice
votes for Barker.
The number of ballots cast Is not
large. It was not expected or intend
ed that It should be. The vote was re
stricted to enrolled , members" of . the
Old Guard of Populism, primarily to
increase the interest in' the enioll
ment which -H did very materially
and to find out whether the preferen
tial ballot could be applied in a prac
tical way in making direct nomina
tions. I am satisfied that not only is
it feasible to make nominations by. di
rect vote and this. year, too but that
the Hare" or "preferential" ballot
should be used. Even in the event or
a convention, the ballot could be used
with telling effect'. Only one ballot
would need to be taken. It would do
the work. It might take a little more
time than an -ordinary roll call but
there . would be no dead-locks, no
"climbing into" the band wagon."
The ballots cast came from 9 states
and territories, thus eliminating the
question of sedional prejudices. Per
haps I had better give a little more de
tailed account along this line:
Alabama 17 'votes: First choice,
Allen 11, Watson 5. James B. Wea
ver 1.
Arkansas 1-5 votes: First choice,
Allen 1, Watso.i 11, Barker 1.
California 5 votes: First choice,
Allen 1, Watson 2, Barker 1, "null" 1.
Colorado 6 .votes: First choice,
Allen 3, Watson 2, Owers 1.
District of Columbia: 1 Watson
vote.
Florida: 1 Watson vote.
Georgia 9 votes: First choice,
Wall on 8, Brridenthal 1.
' Illinois 5 vtes: First choice, Al
len 1, Watson 3, Barker 1.
Indiana 15 votes: First choice,
Watson 8, Williams 4. Barker 2,
null" 1.
Iowa 6 votej; First choke Allen
!, Watson 2, Baikcr 1. liryui 1, Wel
ler 1.
Kansas 18 voles: First choice, Al
In 3, Watson 6. Barl er 3. Breiden
thal 2. Weller 1 William 2. tltarsl I.
Krntm ky: 2 Watson voteg.
lotilxlana: 1 Watson voto
Main 2 vote.: Watson 1. Balk
er 1.
Maiaehuetti: 1 MiW vote.
MuhUnn I vote: vVaUon 1, Bry
an 2. Zabel 1.
Minnesota:
Mlsslrtjshtnl
"null" 1.
MI-Kottrl-43 vote: Allen 4. Wat
ron 30. Barker l, Norton 2, B'jan 1,
Breidenthal 1. Ilichey !.
Montann-1 vote: Allen 1, Wat
oa I, CaUerhead J.
3 Wattfun vfk.
-3 vote: Watson 2,
Nebraska 134 votes: Allen 99,
Watson 21, Bcrgo 1, Bryan 6, Barker
1, Brown 1, Tibbies 3, Butler 1,
"null" 2.
New Hampshire: 1 vote for Fred
G. It, Gordon.
New Jersey: 1 Barker vote.
New York 2 votes: Allen 1, Bry
an 1.
North Carolina 4 votes: Watson
3, Butler L
North Dakota 2 votes: Allen 1,
Watson 1.
Ohio 9 votes: Allen 1, Watson 5,
uull"'!, William 1, Tom L. John
son 1.
Oklahoma 5 votes; : Allen 1 Wat
son 3, Livingston 1. '
Oregon 3 votes: Allen 1, Watson
1, Norton 1.
Pennsylvania 2 votes: Waison 1,
Barker 1. ,
South -Dakota 2 votes: Allen 1,
Watson 1.
. Tennessee 2? votes: Allen 1, Wat
son 21, "null" 1.
Ttxas 35 votes: Watson 21, Bry
an 1, Barker 8, Mims 1, 'null" 2, Miles
1, Park 1.
Utah: 1 Allen vote.
Virginia: 1 Watson vote.
Washington 2 votes: Alien 1,
Calderhead 1.
..West Virgin a: 3 Watson votea.
. Wisconsin: 1 Bryan vote,
Wyoming: 1 Watson vote.
' Such is the experience with the pre
ferential ballo The result on this
occasion was not close enough to bring
out the really effective features Wat-;
son being such a general favorite all
over the country. Since the polls were
closed a good many ballots have come.
In. but. of course, they cannot now h
considered. They will be retained,
however,, and fled away. AH future
letters of invitation will also carry a '
blank ballot which the recipient, may
fill out and return witli his enroll
ment. Just bf fore the national con
ventionif the nominations are to be
made by convention all baUobr on
hand will be -ounted and the result
announced through The Independent
America Up to Date
(Adapted to the tune of Jim Fisk.)
If you listen awhile I will sing you a
song
About this great land of the free,
With its trusts and its tramps and
its millionaire scamps
From the ocean across to the sea.
J. Pierpont Morgan and oily John D.,
Who controls all our big New "iork
banks; '
Bill Allison. Aldrich, Steve Elkfns,
Matt Quay,
And a hundred more " rich tariff
cranks.
Phila Knox, Perry Heath, and our
Postofflce Payne,
With his Neeleys, Ralhboncs and
wild Beavers,
And a million more grafters all hunt-
Ing for spoils
Like an army of well trained re
trievers. .
Then there is our sultan of all the
Sulus,
With his servants and forty odd
wives.
His dattos and eunuchs In lace and
gold braid, '
And his subjects In fear of their
lives.
And all those wild people we pur
chased of Spain
For "benevolent assimilation,"
Such a bargain we made to get hold
of their trade
Was not seen ninco the day of
creation.
We have seized all their land, burned
their hounea and crops,
And we cured them with water each
lay.
We will nviki them kneel down to
the iftar an t the stripes.
We will Ut them for all they can
pay.
Our "lUty-cnt ullver" will bu all
their wart
At half prl e, with It hntro aul
rlna.
Wo will malve them nil knuckle, xow
tow. 4it.l ntaam.
Doff their hat and shout, 'V 4 4tt
the kl.:g."
A. U HKMMKNWAY.
IV Kalb Junction, N. Y.