Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-03T07:16:05.725Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Direct Primaries and the Second Ballot

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

A. N. Holcombe
Affiliation:
Harvard University

Extract

One of the unsettled questions in direct primary legislation is the test of party affiliation. Upon what terms should the voter be permitted to participate in the selection of partisan candidates? Should he be required to prove past action with the party whose primary he would attend, or should a mere declaration of present intention to give it his future support suffice?

The former requirement may take the form of an oath that the voter has generally supported the candidates of the party in the past, or at least at the most recent election. Such a test of party affiliation has the apparent advantage that it protects the party primary from invasion by members of other parties for improper purposes, and thus preserves the purity of the partisan nominating system. This advantage, however, is more apparent than real. There is no effective way of discovering a case of perjury without at the same time violating the secrecy of the general election ballot. An oath which can be neither gainsaid nor corroborated excludes only the conscientious voters, who do not need it, and admits the unscrupulous members of all parties.

A less objectionable test of party affiliation may take the form of a declaration that the voter has not participated in the primary election of any other party within a prescribed interval. This declaration may be enforced by a system of party registration, which will impose material obstacles to capricious or dishonest changes of party affiliation.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1911

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 537 note 1 Locatelli, A. F.: Considerazioni intorno all' opportunità di abolire il ballottaggio, in La Riforma Sociale, 1910, pp. 556570.Google Scholar

page 539 note 1 Cf. John R. Commons: Proportional Representation, 2d edit., 1907; also, John H. Humphreys: Proportional Representation, 1911.

page 540 note 2 Taken from L'Italia Economica, Anno II, 1908.

page 542 note 1 Elections of 1871, 1874, 1877, 1878, and 1881: Statistik des Deutschen Reichs, 1° Reihe, B'd 8, S. II, 73; B'd 14, S. V, 1; B'd 37, S. VI, 1; B'd 37, S. VI, 40, 70; B'd 53, S. III, 1. Elections of 1884, 1887, 1890: Monatshefte zur Stat. d. D. R., 1885, S. I, 105; 1887, S. IV, 1; 1890, S. IV, 23. Elections of 1893, 1898, 1903, 1907: Vierteljahreshefte zur Stat. d. D. R., 1893, IV; 1899, I; 1903, III, IV; 1904, I; 1907, III.

page 547 note 1 Cf. Shepard, W. J., Tendencies Toward Ministerial Responsibility in Germany. The Am. Pol. Sci. Rev., Vol. V, No. 1 (Feb., 1911); pp. 5769.Google Scholar

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.