Page:The New International Encyclopædia 1st ed. v. 06.djvu/855

* ELECTORAL COMMISSION. certificate boiiig in form aworjiii'; to law, as those iii favor of the Hei)ui>lieaii candidates were — it was competent for (.'inijjress or the com- mission to yo lichiiid the same and take evidence modifying or cxphmatory [iiliiimU) in support of alleijcd irreijularitics and frauds committed before such certiticale was issued. Ijion this question the Democrats in Congiess and in the commission took the allirmative, while the Re- publicans took the negative. The full proceed- ings of the conunission were published as part iv., vol. V. of the ('iiiHinfsiDmil Record of 1877. ELECTORAL REFORM. In general, any improvement by law or custom in the manner of conducting elections to jniblic office. Specifically. the ])hrase describes the movement of the last hundred years for the pvirification of elections in Great Uritain and the Inited States. It is of the utmost importance, in a State whose government rests wlioUy or in great part on popular sullrage, that ]iublic elections should be free and honest. When they are of this char- acter, public officials are true representatives of the people, and the legislation and policies which such officials adopt fairly reflect the popular will. The tendency, however, in every representative government is toward the control of nominating conventions and of elections by small bodies of men whose energies are ehielly directed to the manipulation of caucuses and party machinery. While the great mass of electors are engrossed in the conduct of their private affairs, these pro- fessional politicians, taking advantage of the popular apathy, dictate nominations to office, force party conventions to register their secret choices, and control the entire machinery of elections. Accordingly, agitation for electoral reforms has usually been directed toward one of three ends: (1) A cnange in the qualifications of electors; (2) securing to electors the free and effective expression of their choice of oHicers: (3) the punishment of those guilty of corrupt practices in connection with elections. ( 1 ) (K ALiFlCATioxs OF ELECTORS. Both in Great Britain and in tJie United States the State has treated the elective franchise as a privilege of its citizens, and not as one of their natural rights. Hence it has bestowed that privilege from time to time upon those, and those only, who it has been considered would use it wisely and for«the best interests of the State. Public opinion concerning the proper qualifications of voters has undergone many changes during the last hiindred years. In the main, these have I>een in the direction of extending the franchise to new classes of voters, of broadening the basis of the electorate. When the I'nited States became independent, suffrage was limited in every one of the commonwealths to property-owners. In Massachusetts it was re- quired not only that the voter be of age. but that he be the owner of real estate worth £60 sterling, or of a freehold yielding £3 annual income. In Xew York it was necessary that he be seized of a freehold worth £20. or pay a rent of 40 shillings a year, and have his name on the list of tax- payers. South Carolina insisted upon the voter l>eing a white freeman and freeholder, and be- lieving in the existence of a Hod and in a future state of rewards and pimishnient. During the last century. howcAcr. most of the States accepted the theory of universal man- hood suffrage, and extended the elective franchise 743 ELECTORAL REFORM. to all male citizens of twenty-one years and up- ward, while a few of the States have granted to women also the privilege of voting. Although the tide of electoral reform in this country has set mainly in I lie direction of universal suffrage, in some States lis purpose has been to impose restrictions upon the elective franchise. Cali- fornia, for exam])le, has enacted that no |>erson who is unable to read the State Constitution in the English language and write his name shall ever exercise the i)rivilege of a State elector. Connecticut and Massachusetts impose somewhat similar restrictions upon voters. Several of the Southern States have recently limited the suf- frage by imposing educational qualifications upon voters, or by requiring them to pay certain taxes. This policy has for its prime object the dis- qualification of ignorant and indigent negroes. In Louisiana and some other States persons are per- mitted to vote who do not possess the prescribed qualific.ltions, provided they were entitled to vote on January 1, lS(i7, or are sons or grandsons of persons thus entitled. The class thus e.xcepted includes poor and illiterate whites. In Great Britain the trend of electoral reform has followed the same general course as in the United Slates, although it has not yet reached the goal of universal manhood suffrage. The electorate has been extended several times, until it includes not only copyholders, leaseholders, and householders of premises of small values, but also men occupying lodgings of the yearly value of £10. Agitation is still in progress for extending the elective franchise to all men of proper age and sound mind, without regard to the ownership or occupation of property, and also for enabling women to vote. See Woman Suf- FBAGE. ( 2 ) Protection of Votebs. It is of prime im- portance that perfect freedom of choice should be secured to electors. Hence the secret ballot has been substituted for the viva voce vote (see Ballot), and bribery and intimidation of elec- tors are treated as grave criminal offenses. Xot only should the elector be allowed to exercise his free choice at the polls, but that freedom ought not to be rendered ineffective by the inipro])er ma- nipulation of caucuses or primaries, or by giving to the voters of some districts undue advantage over others. The caucus or primary is a meeting of the members of a particular political jiarty or group for the purpose of nominating candidates for office within a prescribed district, or of elect- ing delegates to larger conventions of the partv. or of declaring party principles. These gather- ings have often been controlled by unscrupulous persons, who have not hesitated to resort to fraud and violence. In order that the ])arty caucus or primary should reflect the views of the majority of the party electors of the district, statutes have been enacted in several States sur- rounding these voluntary gatherings with manv of the legal safeguards which protect general elec- tions. The place and time for the caucus or primary is fixed by law: the manner of registra- tion and voting is prescribed, and severe criminal penalties are affi.xed to fraudulent or violent manipulations of these meetings. While this legal regulation of (he primary has done much to mitigate its evils, it is still open to the objection that it leaves the control of the nominating system in the hands of the party numagers. and practically excludes the inde-