The elective franchise in the United States

Preface

The Author of this book has given a great deal of thought and study to our systems of election. He has set forth in a clear, full way the action of political parties and the degree to which they modify the theories of our government. His work can be read with profit by all who care to learn the actual workings of our systems of election. In doing his work he brings into view many facts in our political history. He also urges changes in our laws and Constitution which he' thinks will cure the mischiefs of which he speaks. With regard to his plan there will be differences of opinion. But if it should not meet with favor, in devising and stating it, he puts the wrongs he would remedy in a strong light. The value of his book does not alone grow out of the wisdom of his scheme, but arises more from the recital of the evils he would cure, and his facts and reasonings about the theories of our government. I commend it to public attention as one that can be read with profit and interest.

It will be of value even if it does not lead to any

8 PREFACE.

changes in our laws ; for, while it proves how much is brought about by the activity and organization of a few, it also shows how large a share of public evils are chargeable to those who neglect their political duties. There is no small number who feel that close attention to their own affairs and utter neglect of their country's interests are meritorious. This class, in truth, are most guilty. As their indifference grows out of their ignorance of our political institutions, they, beyond all others, will be benefited by reading Mr. McMillan's work about the elective franchise in the United States.

HORATIO SEYMOUR.

Deerfield, September 23, 1879.

NOTE.

The first edition of this work was called out by a discussion, pending in Congress about two years ago, relating to the mode of electing President. Its matter was hastily prepared, and some defects may yet appear to the critical reader. They have been leniently passed over by public men and the public press, and, almost without exception, the views have received a hearty endorsement.

The caucus, which it is sought to reconstruct, has the highest influence in the settlement of every public question, and a discussion of its relations to politics necessarily calls for a comprehensive review of political history.

The independence now prevalent, the rebellion against caucus domination, the disruptions of parties, the disregard of conventional precedents of party organization, and the rise of new parties, are tokens of popular clamor for an avenue of escape from the monster characterized as " The Machine." They indicate the popular repugnance of the idea that the action of the caucus and convention is the

IO NOTE.

action of the party. It is hoped that this examination points in the direction of the remedy, and presents the means of reform at once the most conservative and natural. It does not propose to revolutionize the caucus. Recognizing the necessity for its existence, it aims to improve its mechanism by removing every obstacle which repels from its precincts the moderate, unbiased, and peaceful citizen, while affording an inducement to him by vesting his vote with a positive, and not an indirect, power in the councils of his party. By this means he may possess an equal influence with those, who, incited by the allurements of patronage, make party management a profession.

The plan presented herein is intended to illustrate the views and to indicate the method of reform rather than for adoption. The most popular plan, briefly adverted to, is more in accord with the opinions of the author. But the first duty is to suggest the indispensable elements which must enter into a perfect system, leaving the outline to be filled by experienced statesmen and the wider range of vision of public assemblies. A power of selection by the masses of each party from among several candidates ; a legal nominating election attended by the members of all parties; and a final choice by an absolute majority, are requisites which

NOTE. 1 1

cannot be dispensed with without danger to the body politic.

So far as is known, the methods proposed are the only ones which ensure the divorce of State and local frona-J^atiojial. politics, and bring every branch of government under the equal control of the people. Aside from the graver importance of local affairs, it seems absurd and unrepublican for hundreds of thousands of citizens to attend elections for State officers, when the contest has already been settled by the nominations of the convention of the leading party, whose only link of sympathy with the voter is their agreement upon national issues. If the application of these views should result in the establishment of evenly-matched parties in each State, based upon its internal issues, they present a solution of a question which for a century has baffled the most ambitious efforts of statesmen.

A change has been made in the arrangement of the matter, and three new chapters, which did not appear in the first edition, have been added — one refers to third parties and their functions, another relates to the divorce of local and State from national issues, and the third presents the proposed " Democratic system."

Contents

PAGE

Political Issues 15

The Nature of Paramount Issues 23

Chapter I. Political Issues

The attempt to establish a system of free government on the western continent may now be examined in the light of the experience of a century. The union of the thirteen States was dictated, not alone by a sense of insecurity to the blandishments of foreign intrigue, but by a remembrance of the heroic struggle in which all had united to secure the blessings of political independence and individual freedom. Confederated during the war by devices less consistent with national energy than the sovereignty of the States, the desirability of union was conceded by all.

Four thousand years had elapsed before a free government was thought possible in a widely extended

i5 territory. To the statesmen who framed our Constitution belongs the honor of first attempting the experiment by the extended application of the principle of representation. They erected a government suited to a wide territory, to an increasing population, and adapted to the varying needs of the material interests of citizens. The very vagueness of the Constitution, in which the powers conferred are described in general language, contributed to these ends.

In tracing the history of the Republic, the student must be satisfied that States' Rights were viewed in the Federal convention from a standpoint very different from that in which the subject is now examined. The circumstances under which the union was formed and the debates of the convention will also present convincing evidence of a wide variance between the expectations of the founders of the government and the developments of experience. They cannot be scanned without discovering a jealous regard for the sovereignty of the States, as the controlling spirit of its councils. Every incident bearing upon the subject would seem to point to the assumption that, in the new confederation, the states, possessing the highest sovereignty, would exercise authority more important to their fellow-citizens than that conferred upon the nation. Its members had before them facts then existing. Before the union each State was a separate and independent government, and to the majority of its citizens was accorded the exercise of power. Within each were existing factions or parties around which grouped the political classes into which the masses will ever divide ; and no fact would lead them to suppose that the new Constitution would change the centre of political thought or alter the allegiance of the citizen. Under the Articles of Confederation, the will of the people was concentrated within the limits of each State, and uttered by the independent agency of State authority in the councils of the nation in which each commonwealth was entitled to an equal vote. The existence of great national parties seems not to have been expected.

Confirmation of this view is afforded by the Constitution itself. The careful regard to State representation in the Senate and House of Representatives ; the structure of the Electoral College and the provision that the electors should meet within their respective States, point to the assumption. The jealousies of the States are evidenced on every page of the records. The small States feared the great ones, and the body was on the point of dissolution while discussing their equal representation in the legislative branch of the proposed union.

The existence of slavery was a characteristic which distinguished the Southern commonwealths from their

Northern brethren. It was the one great interest not common to every portion of the union ; and had the transfer of popular allegiance, following the exercise of the sovereign authority, from the States to the nation, been anticipated, the erection of the national government would never have been consented to by the South. It brought within the control of its enemies the institution of slavery. A brief period only elapsed, before wise statesmen saw with dismay that the new government which included within its domain the staid Puritan and the sensitive Southerner, sooner or later, would be disturbed by a violent conflict.

Thus was left unsettled the vital question of political sovereignty, and a union of doubtful sovereignty was acquiesced in, as the only one which would meet with acceptance in every section.

Once formed the union exhibited a characteristic which seems never to have been alluded to in the convention. The nature of the powers conferred upon the general government, which though few in number, were of a most important character, led to the concentration of public attention to the nation at large. The distinctive interests of classes of people began to appear, and saw in the government of the union an enemy or a benefactor. States' Rights became then a principle of a class of believers, not a thing to be asserted as a reserved power by a single community.

IN THE UNITED STATES.

J 9

The thousand industries which had formerly looked to the respective States, as the possessors of sovereign power, for assistance or protection, now fastened their eyes on the union clothed with the authority of regulating commerce, and representing its relations to foreign production. The manufacturer saw his interests affected in every adjustment of the tariff, and demanded protection. The producer sought for a free commerce. The creditor wanted hard money and the debtor a flexible currency.

These interests, diverse as they are, were common to the people of all the States of the union, and represented the wants of living flesh and blood. New formations resulted. The States, no longer sovereigns, were degraded into units, each of which was powerless when arrayed against his neighbors. The centre of attention and authority was transferred to the halls of Congress, and upon its floors the interests of the people, differing in shades, began to combine into congenial associations. A majority was necessary to control ; one less than a majority, in the legislative branch, was as inefficient as a hundred ; and combinations became a necessity. Two political parties were the result of the compromise of these influences, and since the foundation of the government to the present time, they have divided the sentiments and the votes of the people.

Immediately after the adjournment of the convention the contest between the advocates of State and national sovereignty broke out with violence, and the arena of debate was transferred to every portion of the union. The incomplete character of the structure was exhibited by the wide divergence of views expressed on the one hand by those who had sought to establish a Constitution suited to the needs of a nation, and, on the other, by those who wished to avail themselves of the mantle of State sovereignty to protect a " peculiar institution." * The violence of discussion which had aroused the most threatening forebodings in the convention, from the formation of the union until the deep passions were aroused to open warfare, disturbed the tranquillity of the masses.

In another view, the framers of the government were equally mistaken, and to this day the erroneous impression exists in the public mind. It was assumed that in the selection of officials the people would devote their attention chiefly to the personal qualities of candidates for their favor and judge aspirants for leg-

* Mr. Baldwin, of Georgia, a member of the Federal Convention, stated in the House of Representatives, Febuary 12th, 1790, that the subject of slavery caused pain and difficulty in the Convention, and the members from the South consented to union only because of an extreme desire to obtain an efficient government. Mr. Smith, of South Carolina, said the States never would have consented unless their property had been guaranteed to them. Debates of Congress, vol. i. pages 209-210.

islative or executive offices by those merits which elicit popular respect. Honesty and capacity, first of all, it was supposed would be sought for. To ensure the selection of these qualities as attributes of the chief magistrate of the nation, and at the same time to make that office independent of legislative power, the founders confided his election to an independent body. In the Federalist, contained in a chapter written by Alexander Hamilton, we find these words with reference to the purpose of the electoral college :—

" The mode of appointment of chief magistrate is almost the only part of the system of any consequence, which has escaped without severe censure from its opponents. It was desirable that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations."

Such were the expectations of the ablest advocates of the Constitution with regard to the electoral system. How different is theory from practice ! Political organizations have usurped its functions, and have devolved upon their instrumentalities the " discernment " and "intelligence " needed for such " complicated investigations," while the electors have become silent automatons to execute their will.

The agency which contributed in the highest degree to change the character of the government was the growing influence of the people which accompanied the extension of the elective franchise. Under the Constitution the electors were to be chosen by the state legislatures. The college was a body invested, not only with the power of election, but that of selection ; and so long as the legislatures elected its members, it acted with some degree of independence. Gradually, however, their power was surrendered, State after State making the sacrifice to the growing influence of the masses, until in 1824, the electors in a majority of the commonwealths of the union were chosen by the people.* The people were vested with full capacity to make a final choice, but as a selecting agency they were impotent. Instrumentalities hitherto unknown were the resort to enable them to perform both functions which were embodied in the electoral college. The operation of the system, based upon facts existing no longer, on several occasions, has threatened the perpetuity of the union, and brought the people to the threshold of civil war. The electoral college was divested of its deliberative character the moment when

* In Delaware, Georgia, Louisiana, New York, South Carolina and Vermont, the Legislatures chose the electors.

deliberation was rendered unnecessary by the exercise of the power of selection by another authority. It was finally supplanted by agencies unknown to the lav/.

A brief examination of the principles urged by political parties and their tendencies will serve to exhibit the nature of the responsible functions of government.

THE NATURE OF PARAMOUNT ISSUES.

We have alluded to the discovery by citizens living in one State, of interests which bound them to the inhabitants of every other locality in the union— interests, national in their character, and mostly relating to the commercial transactions in which every adult is constantly engaged. The general authority to regulate these affairs is reposed in Congress, the legislative branch of government. Laws, " the rules of action of citizens," are universal in their operation. All other powers are obedient to the body which enacts them. The executive, the only other active branch, is the servant and agent of Congress to execute its decrees. Within the limits of the highest law, the Constitution, established by themselves, the people in their national relations have reposed in Congress the supreme authority of making all laws to protect and control all their interests.

Out of the exercise of these powers arises the bulk of the issues submitted for popular determination. The requirement that a majority shall concur to enable it to control legislation, forces a coalition of a class having common national sentiments into combinations with other classes with views least repugnant to their own to such an extent as to possess the reasonable hope of having that majority. Without that hope, combination is feeble and ineffective. All classes outside of such a combination represent the opposite force, with which it disputes the authority of government.

The legislative power touches a thousand questions, each of which presents an issue, which is discussed in Congress. Ability and discretion are required to examine and comprehend their details. If they were submitted to the people, a thousand elections would be necessary, at each of which the masses would vote yea or nay. But our system permits of but one election every two years for members of the legislative branch of government, and each year one election in a portion of the States.

Hence, the many questions are grouped together, and only the general principles which underlie them are presented for popular approbation or disapproval, and the political party friendly to the administration votes yea, while the one opposed votes nay. Those who do not act with either, throw away their ballots, and substantially vote blanks.

In a general sense, one political party represents the Radical or progressive classes of sentiment ; the other, the Conservative. One wants statute law; the other insists upon the supremacy of natural law, or the unrestrained inclinations of citizens. Law being a rule of action which every one must follow, it restrains that portion of the people whose habits or inclinations would lead them to do what it forbids. These classes are ordinarily found in the resisting or Conservative party — the party opposed to new enactments. A certain degree of comprehension is required to understand the purpose of new laws, and most of those who possess it are found in the organization which claims to be progressive. Intelligence and riches increase wants, and the classes whose wants or desires, which can be satisfied by government, are greatest, are found in the Radical forces ; and, as the want is satisfied, the issue changes. That organization is, therefore, constantly presenting new issues and undergoing new transformations ; the other, representing the masses who have no special interest to gratify, and whose liberty is affected by the touch of the law, remains the same, lives always, and contains substantially the same elements. In it is found the foreigner, who, bringing his customs into a new country, discovers that its laws interfere with their enjoyment. He finds the most congenial association with those who advocate the least law. The Radical believer discovers right from the appearance of abstract questions, while the thoughtful Conservative examines issues in their relations to the circumstances which surround them.

The grouping together of questions into general principles, confines the people to a choice between the two classes of principles most prominent ; and a description of them discovers, first, their entire harmony with each other, and their intimate relations to the most important interests of mankind — commerce and liberty.

We write only of standard issues. Slavery was a special issue, arising from circumstances which existed temporarily, and it was the course of nature which made the Radical forces the advocates of the law for its extermination, and the Conservatives, the resisting agents. Commerce always exists, and government always requires taxes, which commerce and production must pay. The difference in methods of procuring taxes and controlling commercial transactions, is, therefore, a subject of constant agitation.

The Conservative party, representing the non-interference view of political economy, wants a money whose intrinsic value renders unnecessary legislative interference to vitalize it ; it wants a commerce, free

IN THE UNITED STATES.

2/ from legislative restrictions ; it opposes sumptuary laws ; it demands that the Constitution which confers powers upon government shall have a strict construction so as to limit the extent of power exercised. The effect of these principles is to extend liberty by restraining law. It is on one side of that happy mean which makes the law the preserver of liberty, by restricting and restraining passions to that extent which permits of the highest enjoyment of happiness, free from tyranny on the one hand and anarchy on the other — thereby securing the largest degree of true liberty. The extreme of Radicalism, is unlicensed tyranny ; of Conservatism unlicensed liberty. Both are equally destructive of real liberty.

The other party represents a special policy, and groups together special interests. It claims that the greatest degree of prosperity accorded to these interests, will inure to the greatest advantage of all. Mr. Clay initiated the protective policy for the manufacturing interest, and internal improvements for the producing class. The National Bank, which aimed to cure financial ills by the issue of an artificial currency, found its strongest defenders among the Whigs. The Republican party represented the sense of the people in the moral question of slavery, and now tends to the adoption of Whig principles upon the permanent issues.

There were other questions which, in the early days of the Republic, naturally took precedence. They related to the liberty of citizens, and to the repositories to which that liberty should be confided. The Federalists aimed to extend the power and strengthen the arm of the general government. The Democratic or Conservative party sought to strengthen the States as the best bulwarks of popular liberty. As it wished to preserve the greatest degree of liberty to the people, so it sought to repose many important powers which were necessary to government, in those agencies which were nearest to the people.

These, then, are the general policies and principles which are presented for the public decision. The attention of the citizen cannot be fastened upon any less important issues, and there are none more important No special State interest can be considered by a national party ; and a division of sentiment within a State upon its local questions, would impair the strength and integrity of the national organization. A party that attempted to father the special interests of a State, would soon destroy itself. To enable it to cope for national power, the national organization deals exclusively with national questions, and State organizations are only parts of the structure by which it is sustained.

State, and even municipal elections, in the main, do not exhibit the strength of certain local or State policies or interests, but the views of citizens upon national questions. Although the policies to be followed by the mayor are different from those of the governor, and those of president differ from those of either, at the same election, no appreciable difference appears in the number of votes which the candidate for each of these offices receives, when sustained by the same party organization.* Either the local or national issues are subordinated. The votes for all being the same the controlling attention is attracted by the one class of questions referred to. State Conventions seldom waste paper to record an opinion on State policy ; and when an election is held in any State, the people throughout the union look to it as an indication of public opinion upon some recent legislation discussed in the halls of Congress. Even the results of local elections are examined with reference to their bearing in this direction.

We reach the conclusion, then, that the people subordinate every other question to those of a national character, and, so far as their ballots are concerned, they only decide upon the general principles underlying purely party policies.

* In New York State, where the vote for Hayes for President was 489,207, and Morgan, for Governor, 489,371, the difference (if any) in the issues involved seems to have been understood by very few voters.

The questions are presented in the vague resolutions of National or State party Conventions; but under the declarations may be discovered the distinctive tendencies which we have discussed. How, then, do the people decide upon the issues submitted ?

Not from a thorough comprehension of the details of the policies, either undertaken or promised, nor even a reasonable comprehension of the principles announced. The laws or principles are so varied in their character, and extensive in their operation, that they puzzle the deepest and most philosophical student of political economy. The citizen, therefore, if independent in his judgment, will decide from the apparent effects of policies ; if sturdy in his political faith, he is valuable as an automaton to jump at the beck of his party leaders, and useless for anything else in the political drama. He gets his politics from his party as the Russian gets his religion from the Czar, or the Brahma from his priest. Yet there are ten of this kind to one of the other ; and Tweeds rise and fall, heaping curses on their heads in the shape of debts. Powerless or disinclined to do otherwise, the party man votes from habit, without variation, to sustain his party. The changes in the margins between the strength of a political organization from one election to another, frequently represent the number of those who, under the stress of hard times, attributing their misfortunes to the policy of government, burst asunder their party trammels and demand a reform.

These changes represent, in the period intervening between one presidential election and another, scarcely enough to make a balance of power in the most closely contested states. During the half century between 1824 and 1870, out of 185 elections held in States, at which they voted, for president, only 15 times have been witnessed a variation from their natural party predilections. These changes were confined in each instance to States where majorities were insignificant. The elections in the Northern States during and since the war exhibit with even more distinctness the certainty of partisan success in every State where majorities exceed three per cent of the total vote. Notwithstanding the changes in the issues presented, the Democratic party have been successful, at presidential elections, through a period of nearly twenty years, only in the States of New York, New Jersey, Indiana and Connecticut — in each of which the majority for either party has seldom exceeded the margin mentioned.

The sole privilege exercised by the citizen in his direct relation as a factor influencing the action of his government is that performed in exercising the franchise. The only instrument which makes him an active agent in the government is the ballot, and the exact limit of his expression by its use, the purposes to which it can be devoted, and the circumstances which control or restrain its power, are subjects demanding the most careful attention.

Forced by the limited opportunity which our present system of elections affords to bestow his attention upon national issues alone, the conclusion is irresistible that whatever effective expression is ensured to the citizen upon questions relating to State and local policies, must be had through the only other agency through which his voice is exerted, the machinery of political organizations wherein he speaks as a member of the leading party. The organization which controls a State, a city, a county or even a town, where certainty of success is ensured by the large political preponderance in its favor, not only nominates but elects. In States it chooses governors and legislators, and in smaller localities, all officials vested with the functions imposed by law upon them.

From these considerations it is apparent that an individual receives his political character only from his association with a force co-extensive with the borders of the nation, and that parties are responsible only so far as they speak with reference to subjects of universal interest. Yet it may be safely declared that not one-twentieth of the legislation of Congress is of this nature. The bulk of enactments relate to private or local interests. Unity of action is had .only when those opinions conforming to the natural and universal tendencies of the constituency which a party represents are to be advanced, and cannot properly be demanded upon questions in which those principles, interests, or tendencies are not involved. Though division may result in defeat, localities, whose temporary advantage may be subserved by a brief departure from permanent principles, will not be slow to rebel.

Having, then, examined those issues in reference to which parties may appropriately represent the convictions of voters, and as to which officials perform responsible functions, it remains to touch upon those relations of a subordinate character, substantially unaffected by the results of elections. In regard to these, officials are invested with despotic, or perhaps more properly, with a discretionary authority, and government is practically irresponsible. The exercise of power is unrestrained by the influence of the popular will expressed at the ballot box. To ascertain the distinction more clearly, we will summarize the conditions upon which responsibility depends : —