Long sessions in presidential years are short ones in the sense that the conventions dictate earlier and more definite limits than even Washington weather invites. Moving to such an end, the recent session could not escape the season's contagion. Yet presidential politics hardly set the tone of the session. Its work had unusual inherent interest. The array of questions before it, mingling economic and technical elements, was indicative of the trend of problems of public policy. It presented the paradox of all Congresses, of course: partisanship in building the machine; eclectic voting or bipartisan combinations in the actual passing of bills.

Membership. The Republican majority in the House had been cut by the 1926 elections and by a party shift in one of five by-elections from 61 to 40—a margin safe enough for purposes of organization, even apart from the relaxed mood and leaderless condition of insurgency in the lower chamber.

In the Senate, however, the Republican lead had been reduced to a hair. Even if Smith of Illinois and Vare of Pennsylvania were counted, those called Republicans numbered only 48, against 47 Democrats and a Farmer Labor member. Deaths chanced to net the Republicans a seat, so that at the session's close, although lacking Smith and Vare, they still had a plurality of one. Two empty seats in the meantime were evidence of the weakness of the regular Senate Republicans when deprived of the aid of House amendments and House conferees.

The year 1928 will witness national elections in at least three of the great western democracies of the world. The first of these important electoral contests took place in France on the last two Sundays in April. Following a campaign of unique character, some 8,000,000 voters went to the polls to pass judgment upon the record of M. Poincaré's National Union government—a government headed, strangely enough, by the same man whom the electorate had seemingly repudiated four years earlier. Not only was this contest unusual in that it brought into play certain new kinds of campaign technique, but when carefully analyzed in the light of the operation of the new electoral law, the outcome almost defies any logical interpretation. On the surface, it has been heralded as a great personal triumph for Premier Poincaré as the “savior of the franc.” But more than that one cannot say; for he presented his case without the least semblance of a political program, and the party complexion of the newly elected Chamber of Deputies is baffling. Nor is one certain that it faithfully reflects the existing state of public opinion in the nation.

A resumé of the provisions of the latest electoral law, enacted in July, 1927, is necessary for a full understanding of what happened at the polls. In France, as all students of politics know, “electoral reform” is a perennial question. Since 1871 five successive systems of voting have been used: to 1885, the scrutin uninominal, or d'arrondissement; from 1885 to 1889, the scrutin de liste; from 1889 to 1919, the scrutin uninominal again; from 1919 to 1927, the scrutin de liste, with partial proportional representation; and now a reversion once more to the old scrutin uninominal.

The elections which were held throughout Germany on May 20, 1928, are of considerable interest and importance not only to Germany but also to the rest of the world. These elections, to be sure, did not have the dramatic interest which attended the Reichstag elections of December, 1924. But they deserve attention for a number of reasons: first, because they are the first elections to be held in the Reich under what may be called normal conditions; second, because elections for five Landtags and several city councils were held at the same time; and third, because the elections gave a further test, and supplied additional evidence of the operation, of the German system of proportional representation.

Despite the intensive work of the political parties, the people were not aroused to much enthusiasm during the campaign. The old Reichstag was dissolved before Easter, but not until the last week of the campaign could one detect any excitement. Never before had the electors been bombarded with so much printed matter, posters, and, last but not least, loud-speakers and films. All the modern methods of appealing to the voters were tried by the numerous political parties. There were lacking, however, the overpowering issues and the battlecries which were so effective in 1924. Parades, demonstrations, meetings, and all the rest were carried through successfully on the whole, but they were quite dull and uninteresting. Only the two extreme parties, the National Socialists or Hitlerites on the right, and the Communists on the left, could appear enthusiastic. Nevertheless, the lack of what the Germans call a “grosse Parole” and the lack of excitement are not to be deplored; their absence probably indicates progress toward social and political consolidation.