as Bryce himself knew, had shown the inaccuracy of De Tocqueville's analysis of the party system, for Bryce admits that the parties at least had traditions. While De Tocqueville was in the act of writing, the Jacksonian Democracy was engaged in hammering out a distinctive policy which served it well for a generation: a strict construction of the constitution, a tariff for revenue only, internal improvements at state, not at federal, expense, an independent treasury and a severance of relations between the government and the banks, and no interference by Congress with the domestic institutions of the states. So likewise, while Bryce was penning his strictures of the American party system, the campaign of 1888 was taking shape. This was to end in the effective control by the Republicans of all branches of the federal government for the first time in half,' a generation, and in the enactment of a series of measures reflecting the distinctive tenets of the dominant party. But it is easier for the critic to recognize established traditions were generally recognized they would not be traditions - than to discern those that are in the process of making. Mariners on the high seas cannot discern whether the tide is rising or falling, yet it continually rises and falls. When the facts of party history are placed in their proper perspective, the case against the habit of party regularity does not seem so clear, at least so far as candidates for federal office are concerned. The vindication of national party organizations against the charge of lack of principle, however, does not of itself vindicate the use of national party designations by candidates for state and local office.

for unless they

The arguments in favor of the New York ballot, nevertheless, are not without some weight. In the first place, under existing conditions the great majority of the voters ordinarily prefer to vote a "straight" rather than a "split" ticket. This preference is clearly indicated by the election returns of the states which possess the Massachusetts ballot. Now the form of ballot which is most convenient for the great majority of the voters is the one which ought to be used, other things being equal. Secondly, under existing conditions the great majority of the voters need some assistance in the task of voting. This need is recognized even by the advocates of the Massachusetts ballot, for that form, like the New York form, is arranged to show the party affiliation

P

of each candidate whose name is printed on the ballot. Both forms of ballot, therefore, tend to stimulate the habit of party regularity, though doubtless the New York form does so to a greater degree. Under existing conditions it is necessary to affix a party label to each candidate, for without the label the voter would often be at a loss how to mark his ballot. At every general election there are so many obscure candidates for so many inconspicuous offices that few voters can form a personal opinion with respect to the qualifications of all of them.1 Now if the form of the ballot is to correspond to the needs of the existing electoral system and to the facts of human nature, the voter must be enabled to make his ballot count in the main as a vote of confidence in some political party, which selects his candidates for him, rather than in the particular candidates themselves. These for the most part he would try in vain to select for himself, if he were left wholly to his own knowledge for a guide. But if the voter is really in most instances indicating his choice between parties rather than between candidates, why compel him to go through the motions of marking a cross against the name of a candidate for each office, when one mark might serve equally well? If other things were equal, particularly if the time required to vote a "straight" and "split" ticket were the same, the case in favor of the New York form of ballot would be strong. The chief criticism of the form of the official ballot applies to both the prevailing forms alike. It is that the state, which

1 The Cuyahoga County (Cleveland), Ohio, ballot, already referred to, for example, contains the names of the candidates of seven different parties for the following offices (in addition to twenty-three presidential electors each): governor, lieutenant-governor, secretary of state, auditor of state, treasurer of state, attorney-general, commissioner of common schools, two members of board of public works, two judges of the supreme court, clerk of the supreme court, dairy and food commissioner, representative in Congress, judge of the circuit court, four judges of the court of common pleas, three state senators, eleven representatives to the general assembly of Ohio, judge of probate court, sheriff, county auditor, clerk of the court of common pleas, three members of the board of county commissioners, county treasurer, county prosecuting attorney, county recorder, county surveyor, and coroner. Fortunately not all the parties made nominations for all the offices, but enough nominations were made to bring the total number of names (exclusive of the candidates for presidential elector) to nearly 250. Without the guidance of the party label it is safe to assert that few voters would have been able to indicate their choice for every office on that ballot, and that many voters would have been practically disfranchised with respect to most of the forty-five elections for which, in addition to the presidential election, that ballot was made to serve.

compels the voter to rely so largely on the party label as a guide through the intricacies of the ballot, does so little to guarantee the integrity of the label. At most the primary and ballot laws of the several states ensure nothing more than that the label is borne by candidates whose nomination is "regular" in form. Concerning the substance of their creed and the purposes of their candidacy the official party label signifies little or nothing, except in the case of presidential electors. Congressmen may be nominated in districts where the majority of the party is out of sympathy with the policies professed by a majority of the delegates in the national convention. Under most primary and ballot laws they are nevertheless as much entitled to the party label as the candidate for president himself. Likewise in the case of candidates for state office the legal right to the party label may indicate little or nothing with respect to the principles and purposes of the candidate. Federal and state governments alike operate directly upon the people, through their own agents, and the principles to which a party professes allegiance in the nation at large need have no connection with those which it undertakes to advance in a particular state.

In most states which have established the direct primary, special efforts have been made to provide for the formulation of the party issues in such a way as to reflect the wishes of a majority of the party. The state platforms are usually adopted by conventions or party councils in which the candidates for office who have been successful at the primaries are expected to wield the chief influence. But platforms as a rule actually reflect the principles and purposes appropriate to candidates for political offices; that is, offices through which policies are to be executed with respect to which the voters may be expected to have opinions of their own. Many of the offices for which partisan candidates are nominated do not fall within this category.1 A state con

1 For example, of the forty-five offices, exclusive of presidential electors, which the voters of Cuyahoga County (Cleveland), Ohio, were required to fill or help fill by election in 1908, the following were hardly appropriate for administration upon either national or state party lines: coroner, county surveyor, county recorder, county prosecuting attorney, county treasurer, county commissioners, clerk of the court of common pleas, county auditor, sheriff, judge of probate court, judges of court of common pleas, judge of circuit court, dairy and food commissioner, clerk of supreme court, judges of supreme court, members of board of public works, com

vention or council, meeting to draft a platform for a state campaign, ordinarily reflects the principles and purposes of the successful candidate for the party nomination for governor. That these principles and purposes are not always the same as those of the most conspicuous party candidate, the candidate for president, is revealed by the fact that a state occasionally chooses presidential electors of one party and at the same time a governor of another party. In states with the New York ballot, such as New York, Ohio, and Illinois, this has not happened so frequently as in states with the Massachusetts ballot, such as Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Oregon, but it has happened often enough to indicate that the same party label may mean different things as applied to candidates for different offices on the same ballot. It may also mean nothing at all, except that a nomination is "regular" in form. The meaninglessness of the national party label in state and local politics is most conspicuously revealed in the cases, not infrequent, of candidates who secure in the "regular" manner the nominations of both major parties for the same office.

The use of the party label on the official ballot may be indispensable when forty-five offices are to be filled by the voters at one operation, but under existing conditions it is nevertheless objectionable. Either the number of offices to be filled by election at any one time should be so reduced that the voters can manage the operation without the use of a label, or the state should supplement the label with such other information concerning the candidates for election as will enable the voters to know in each case what stands behind the label. In other words, it is not the form of the ballot, but the system of filling so many and so diverse offices at the same time without proper provision for informing the voters concerning the character and purposes of the several candidates, thereby making the habit of party regularity indispensable, that is fundamentally at fault. The full advantages of the official ballot will not be realized until either party designations can be abolished without confusion to the voter, or the state can undertake to furnish the voter not only with the party designation of each candidate, but also with missioner of common schools, treasurer of state, auditor of state, and secretary of

state.

a separate statement of the principles and purposes professed by each. In other words, the further improvement of the form of the ballot involves either the further reform of the general structure of state government or a radical change in the methods of conducting political campaigns.

ACTUAL CONDUCT OF ELECTIONS

The further steps in the conduct of elections are the casting and counting of the ballots, and the canvass and declaration of the returns. Originally these duties were placed upon the regular local and state officials, and seem to have been performed in a fairly satisfactory manner. With the growth of party spirit, however, the original system became less satisfactory. Local officials were not unlikely to belong to one party. Under such circumstances, even if honest men, they were subject to the temptation to favor the candidates of their own party in the decision of questions involving the exercise of administrative discretion, such as the right of a challenged voter to cast his ballot, or the validity of a ballot prepared or marked in an irregular manner. Prior to the registration of voters and the adoption of the official ballot, the purity of elections depended in no small part on the exercise of a wise discretion by the officials charged with the conduct of elections, and the records are filled with contested election cases in which party spirit clearly got the better of discretion. If the local officials were not honest, particularly if they were supported by a majority or a well-organized minority of the local electorate, there was almost no limit to their power to prevent a free ballot, a fair count, and a full return. Thus the notorious Boss Tweed of New York City is reported to have said: “I don't care who does the voting, so long as I do the counting."

The conduct of elections has been improved by the application of two principles: publicity, and bipartisanship. First, all political parties, in some cases, all candidates, are now generally authorized to be represented at the polls by watchers. The watchers are entitled to see everything that is done by the election officials, both at the casting and at the counting of the ballots. The canvassing of the returns from the several election districts and the declaration of the results is also generally done