Page:A History of the Australian Ballot System in the United States.djvu/84

Rh which have adopted the compulsory direct primary the convention, if it exists at all, is only supplementary to the primary law.

The form of the ballot is yet a subject of controversy. The blanket type is almost universal. Missouri is in fact the only state which has abandoned the blanket form for the separate-party ballots. But there is a great controversy between the office-group and the party-column arrangement. At first the office group was the more popular, but from 1891 to about 1900 the party column surpassed its rival. Since 1900 the office group, or Massachusetts form, is again gaining in popularity, but it is impossible to predict the final result. The party circle and emblem are being attacked, and should be abolished. There is little excuse for the party circle and emblem. They are a concession to the ignorant voter, and tend to divert the attention from present-day issues to past traditions. Although the circle and emblem are popular with the party bosses, because they insure a large party vote, they are detrimental to the best public interest.

There is no doubt, however, that our ballot is too long and unwieldy. There are so many officers to be elected that even the most conscientious electors cannot possibly know the merits of all the men, and the average voter knows very few of those for whom he votes. The result is that the citizen votes only for the men he knows, or else he blindly votes for the party slate. The demand of the reformer is stated by Jesse Macy (see article in the Cyclopedia of American Government): “Make the ballot so short and so important that the average citizen must know whom he elects, and then hold those chosen responsible by good appointments to fill all the other state offices. Better centralize power in the hands of a few known and responsible office-holders than leave it in the hands of unauthorized party committees. The people can usually call the former to account, but the latter, never.”

The question is sometimes asked. Has the Australian ballot been a success? To answer this question accurately would require a study of the operation of the ballot in each state by persons familiar with the conditions of the state. It is safe to say, however, that the results achieved by this reform have not measured up to the extreme views of some of its most zealous friends. But it cannot be denied that the Australian ballot has been a decided advance over former systems. It has not made bribery or intimidation impossible, but it has lessened the amount of bribery by removing the knowledge, or proof, that the bribe-taker has delivered the goods. But a number of ways have been found to circumvent the safeguards of the law. One method was to