Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

An Election Official's View of Preferential Voting

MR. ZEMANSKY: Has the primary election accomplished the purpose for which it was intended?

My answer is, it has not. A great many voters appear to be satisfied when they vote for candidates either at the primary or at the general election.

At the primary election held September 28, 1915, 119,105 citizens voted, and at the general election held six weeks later, November 9, 1916, 83,297 citizens voted-35,908 voters who voted at the primary failed to appear and cast their ballots at the general election. Now, mind you, there was at that time 180,204 citizens registered.

There is something radically wrong with the system in vogue, or the people are careless.

To my mind, the voter is required too often to decide who shall govern, which makes him careless and indifferent. We have held as many as seven elections in one year, and the number who vote vary from forty-five per cent to 80 per cent of the registration.

The system now in operation has added considerable cost to the county and to the candidate.

To the candidate it is very unfair, because he may just nose in at the primary and his friends say to him, "You can make it at the general sure." So he borrows, mortgages and raises all the money he can for what he thinks are necessary expenses, and spends all he raises and creates a lot of bills that he is unable to meet, and finally is defeated at the general election. This is what the dual election system has done in the past.

The preferential system recommended will have the effect of consolidating the primary and general elections.

It will cut the cost of two elections one-half and will make a saving to the city of about $50,000, and it will also make a large saving to the candidate whose expenditure is now larger than under boss rule.

The preferential system also introduces a new method of counting and must be done by the Registrar of Voters and his assistants, who are all civil service employees, duly certified by the Civil Service Commissioners, and who are all experts and familiar with this kind of work.

We now appoint about 4,000 election officers. This system will reduce the number to about 2,700, and after my long experience I will say that the election officers who now serve are as good as can be had under the method now provided by law.

Under this system election officers will be employed thirteen hours

only; under the old method they are employed continuously from eighteen to twenty-four hours, which is too long for accurate and careful work.

The work of counting should be done by clerks who are familiar with this kind of work, when it will be done accurately and quickly, and recounts would be of the past.

This system also provides for a statement made under oath to be filed by each candidate and the same to be mailed to each voter at least ten days before the election, which contains a very good account. of each candidate.

The ballot you have before you tonight is made up from the ballot used at the last primary municipal election held September 28, 1915, and is very little larger than the ballot then used.

It can be easily marked and very little education will be found necessary to inform the voter how to vote.

The instruction at the top of the ballot contains all the information that is necessary.*

The other provision proposed by your committee is-how can we assist the voter to register with the least possible trouble and save the cost of the same to the city.

Your committee has prepared an amendment to the Political Code which provides that any registration which may be made at the main office may be taken in any place in the city and county.

This amendment will permit the Department of Elections to make a house to house registration, and this will include registration where employed or place of business.

The registration can be done by regular employees and can be done in four months and will eliminate the temporary employee who is not familiar with the law and whose work is continuously being experted by an office force.

This method of registration will save to the city and county about fifty per cent of the present cost of registration, and it will increase the registration to over 200,000.

The joint cost of the two propositions, if approved, will reduce the expenses of elections over $100,000. (Applause.)

*See page 219.

Discussion by the Meeting

Remarks by President Hodghead

THE PRESIDENT: Of course, we expect a very interesting discussion on this report of the committee, because, while its members seem to agree very generally, it by no means follows that the preferential system will meet with universal approval. Before inviting discussion, however, the committee suggests that they have a sort of an election clinic here which will demonstrate the operation of the preferential system which they have recommended, and to that end they have taken a reproduction of the last ballot in San Francisco, arranged in a form in which it would be had the preferential system been in vogue at that time, and they are going to invite you to hold the San Francisco election over again.

After the ballots are cast and collected, they propose to count them, not under the old method of counting by the precincts, but by delivering them all to the Registrar of the City and County of San Francisco, who has, for the evening, moved his office down here.

[A recess was here taken to permit members to vote the ballot prepared under the proposed system.]

THE PRESIDENT: The committee have been very obliging in making their reports short and leaving ample time for discussion by the members. We have many here who can give us interesting experiences and must have opinions regarding the proposed system.

Remarks by M. S. Kohlberg

MR. KOHLBERG: I would like to say a few words on this proposed preferential ballot. I believe that the facts will bear me out that during the last and previous elections "plumping" was done to a great extent that is, the voters voted for one, two, three or four supervisors when they had the right to vote for nine. Under this preferential system an organization of thirty thousand voters, such as there is in this city, could arrange so that ten thousand would vote for three candidates for first choice, and three for second choice, and three for third choice; then ten thousand voters could put the second choice in as first choice, and the first choice in as second choice, the third choice remaining the same, and then put out ten thousand more ballots voting for the same three candidates, voting for the third choice as first choice, and the result would be that each one of those three candidates would have 30,000 votes. In an organization like there is in this city that could be done, and you would simply be swamped.

THE PRESIDENT: You think that the proposed system would exaggerate the evil of plumping as you described it?

MR. KOHLBERG: No doubt about it. A well-organized political organization such as there is in this city could do that, and our voting haphazard without organization we could not overcome it.

THE PRESIDENT: Have you observed whether that result has followed in the cities that have tried this system?

MR. KOHLBERG: That I do not know. They have not probably an organization such as we have here. There is only one organization in this city, and that is well organized. You might as well admit it. After all is said and done, the local campaign becomes a personal campaign. It is not what the candidate represents, or his record, but is he a good fellow? Therefore, if an organization should adopt some such method, in the matter of the second and third choice, as suggested above, added to that of the good fellow vote, what opportunity would there be for the election of the proper kind of officials, unless an organization equally as well organized could battle for them?

Remarks by C. E. Grunsky

MR. GRUNSKY: I doubt whether the objection that has just been suggested has any force, for the reason that the second and third choices are not counted until it becomes necessary to count them; and I know that the preferential system has been in successful use, and I know that if this evil really existed it would have been developed before now.

There are several points that I think our committee might have dwelt upon that were only indicated in a superficial way. I think, for example, as one remedy of an evil that exists—and it has no relation to preferential voting-is the matter of the place from which the electors may register. I think it should be made optional whether to register from the place of residence or the place of business. think the choice should be given to every voter to vote from that place where his interests are largest; and I would suggest that as a thought for the consideration of the committee and further deliberation.

I

Then it was very clearly brought out that our electors are negligent in their civic duties. When out of the 180,000 registered voters only 83,000 go to the polls at a final election, there is certainly something wrong. It may be simple indifference; it may be simple carelessness; but I believe, although it may sound somewhat un-American, that some punishment should be inflicted upon the elector who fails, when properly registered, to exercise his privilege and go to the polls; and I wish to throw that out as a thought for the consideration of the committee, whether a remedy cannot be found and some compulsion exercised that will bring the voters to the polls on election day.

THE PRESIDENT: Don't you think, Mr. Grunsky, that the added

interest which would be given to this proposed election, which is the primary and the final election combined, would to some extent overcome that evil?

MR. GRUNSKY: It will tend to, yes.

Remarks by Victor J. West

MR. WEST: I would like to interrupt to say that there is no gain from this dividing up and crossing. If there are only 30,000 voters, the most they can vote for any one candidate is 30,000; so for the whole nine it is only 30,000. There is no advantage coming out of that.

Remarks by Brainard C. Brown

MR. BROWN: The suggestion made by Mr. Grunsky that the committee might possibly have considered the giving of the option to the voter to register at his residence or at his place of business could not be taken into consideration by this committee, for this committee is considering amendments to city charters. That is a change that could only be brought about by a change in the constitution.

Remarks by Frank D. Stringham

MR. STRINGHAM: It has occurred to me, in making out my ballot, that there would be a way of meeting Mr. Kohlberg's objection. I think that the law should provide that no one should indicate a second choice unless he votes his full quota for first choices. I know on my ballot, not being a voter in San Francisco, I could not pick out nine first choices for supervisors, and I do not think anyone should make a second choice until he has filled out the first choices.

Remarks by Byron Mauzy

MR. MAUZY: I have seen the evil of "plumping" in San Francisco in our elections. I suggest, as a remedy, that, for instance, on judges or supervisors, unless the full quota is voted, the ballot should not be counted for that particular office. When there are four judges there should be four choices made, either for first, second, or third choice. You can avoid the plumping that way. The evil has been fully proven here in San Francisco in a number of offices where they single out one judge. For instance, if there were four judges to be elected, they would elect their one man in the primary and then the second judge could easily be elected in the general election. If you will study how this has been done, even in the last election, you will see that just such a concerted movement as Mr. Kohlberg mentions operates that way. For instance, of the supervisors they elected four, and they plumped for those four. Among the various candidates-some fifty

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »