Page:A History of the Australian Ballot System in the United States.djvu/33

 Another argument strongly urged in favor of the reform was that it would protect the weak and dependent against intimidation and coercion by employers and creditors. The New York Times stated this argument: "It [the unofficial ballot] also gives a chance for coercion and intimidation of such voters as are in a position of more or less dependence, and makes the secrecy of the ballot impossible for a large proportion of the electors. The bill [Yates's] is intended to do away with all these evils and corruptions." This point was not squarely met by the opposition. They tried to dodge the issue either by claiming that the amount of intimidation was small and diminishing, or by declaring that the economic conditions in the particular state made such protection unnecessary.

Thirdly, the Australian-ballot law would place upon designated officials the duty of furnishing correct ballots to the electors at the expense of the state. This would stop the abuses springing from the private printing of ballots. It would prevent the assessment of candidates, and do away with the excuse for raising such great sums of money. Post, Australian System of Voting, pp. 2–3. Mr. Ivins (Machine Politics, pp. 86–87) thus summarizes the evil and the remedy: