candidates-it was easy to get those four nominated in the primary election, and then, if they centered again on those four at the general election they were pretty sure to elect them.

Remarks by R. S. Gray

MR. GRAY: I ask your indulgence to express my appreciation of the work of the committee along the lines of efficiency and economy in the city and, I believe, in the state and national government as well. I think the committee has done most excellent work and I certainly approve of it. I would be in favor of Mr. Mauzy's remedy, but can you deprive a citizen of his right to vote that way? He has a right to vote as he sees fit, and could you deprive him of that right?

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Mauzy, there may not be any candidate whom you approve of, and the law cannot compel you to vote for anyone you do not approve of.

Remarks by William H. Jordan

MR. JORDAN: In reply to the remarks of Mr. Grunsky, permit me to say that the committee has had the matters referred to under serious consideration for several weeks.

First, we considered the question as to whether or not it would be possible to enact a law compelling citizens to vote, and, incidentally, whether an inducement, or reward, could be held out to them, such as would stimulate their desire to vote. We found that compelling voters to exercise the elective franchise depended upon the question as to whether or not such exercise is a duty or a privilege. This question led us to examine the constitution of the state, and also to find out whether or not the question had been passed upon by the courts. On examining the decisions of the courts, we were unable to find that this question had been definitely determined by any court of last resort, but we did find that the matter had arisen in a nisi prius court in Missouri, by which court it had been decided, upon reasoning which strongly appealed to this committee, that under constitutional provisions similar to ours voting was a privilege and not a duty. That it is a privilege, rather than a duty, in this state under our constitution we believe it to be clear. Being a privilege, it necessarily follows that no law which the Legislature can enact can transform that privilege into a duty.

THE PRESIDENT: That is, the Legislature could not declare it to be a duty?

MR. JORDAN: No. It follows that, in order to compel a citizen. to vote, an amendment to the constitution must be proposed creating a duty which does not now exist, which duty the Legislature would

then have power to enforce. Since the preparation and submission to the Legislature of an amendment to the constitution was not within the province of your Committee upon Election Laws, they were necessarily obliged to drop the subject from their report.

We next considered various suggestions with reference to offering an inducement to voters to attend the polls and exercise their franchise privilege, such as exempting all who voted from the paying of poll tax, and we also considered a suggestion as to dropping from the register the names of all persons who did not vote for two successive elections, and thereby compelling them to go to the trouble of reregistering. Neither of these suggestions met with the approval of the committee and they received no further consideration.

As to the other matters suggested by Mr. Grunsky, namely, the right of a voter to register at the place of his selection, permit me to say that they received very careful consideration by the committee, and at one time we were inclined to incorporate such provisions in an amendment to the election laws; but, after discussing the matter fully, we finally concluded that at this time an attempt to effect such a radical change in the law would be unwise, and that we had better conserve our forces by adhering to amendments to city charters. It seemed to your committee quite logical and proper that a voter should be given the privilege of registering either at his place of business or at his residence, instead of being compelled, as now, to register at his residence. If the law could be so amended it would naturally result that many of our merchants who now live in trans-bay cities would elect to vote in San Francisco rather than at the place of their domicile. In order to arrive at some correct estimate as to the number of voters whom we might reasonably expect would vote in San Francisco by this change in our laws we, through the assistance of the Railroad Commission, collected data from the various railroads entering the city, and thereby obtained the number of commuters, which gave a very clear basis upon which to estimate the number of voters doing business in San Francisco, either as merchants or laborers, and residing across the bay and down the peninsula. The number was somewhat disappointing to the committee, but, in addition to that fact, there came to us a strong hint from trans-bay cities, such as Berkeley, that decided opposition to the proposed amendment might be expected, it being claimed over there that if such a law were enacted the result would be that Berkeley would lose the better part of its electors and the reins of government be taken over by the most undesirable element in the community. In view of this condition of affairs, and the further

fact that we deemed it unwise to attempt an amendment along that line at the present time, your committee decided not to incorporate that feature in the report now before you.

Remarks by Leo 1. Sussman

MR. SUSSMAN: While a member of the committee, and I had the pleasure of attending as many of the sessions as I was able, I found myself in the position of a man who served on a jury for the first time. He afterwards said that he found eleven very stubborn men on the jury, and that was my position in regard to this preferential voting.

I do not think that the present election laws of San Francisco should be changed unless we are sure we are going to make an improvement by the change, and I do not believe that this proposed system of preferential voting will improve matters in the slightest; in fact, it might have the opposite effect.

There are several evils which it was designed to correct. One is lack of interest among voters. Well, you cannot legislate interest into the voters. Any attempt to do that will fail. There is a feeling that if you could only get a lot of voters, who do not vote, to vote, everything would be better. That is doubtful, because the vote of a man who is compelled by some method to go to the polls and exercise his choice is probably not going to be a very intelligent, or very earnest, or very patriotic vote. The chances are we are just as well off in the long run if they do not vote. If people do not take sufficient interest to go to the polls and spend about ten or fifteen minutes of their valuable time two or three times a year, they probably would not add much in the long run to the general welfare by being compelled to go. There was also the disposition to make things easier for the candidates, on the ground that two elections cause great strain on them. If we look back to the time when we had a single election, you will find that the campaigns lasted just as long for one election as they do now for the two. The average political candidate does politics about thirteen months of the year anyhow, and it is not very much more additional strain on him to have two elections.

There is a very practical objection to this proposed system. It will probably work out all right for the office of mayor and auditor and county clerk, and these other offices for which only one candidate is to be elected. But when it comes to voting for supervisors it would break down. The gentlemen here present who have attempted to vote on this ballot probably found difficulty in exercising an intelligent choice on nine names. It is hard enough for voters, even informing themselves to the best of their ability, at any election to pick out nine

names for the office of supervisor. Now, if they will attempt to vote for twenty-seven, the result will be that the great majority of voters will vote for nine names, and then they will sort of go through mechanical motions with the other eighteen. Probably they will simply vote for nine and let it go at that, and the merit of the system will then have no opportunity to operate. This present system of having two elections, a primary and a final election, was worked out in San Francisco after years of experience, and it has worked very well as far as registering the choice of the voters is concerned. It has cost an extra $50,000, according to the registrar, but that seems money well expended. For years in San Francisco we had the evil of a minority of voters electing to office almost anyone whom they organized upon, simply because the opposition to them, while in the majority, split; and we have overcome that. We probably would continue to overcome it under this proposed preferential system, with all offices on the ballot excepting the office of supervisor, and for the reasons that are stated, I believe this preferential system would entirely fail to fill the bill in that respect—that is, of so arranging matters that the majority will elect and not a minority.

Of course, what we are trying to correct is fundamental. We are trying to make our government efficient, and we cannot do it by tinkering with the election laws. If we will adopt the short ballot-which, of course, was not within the province of the committee to discuss— and if we will do away with the system of checks and balances in our city government, and organize our city government on sensible lines, such as any corporation has, these evils of election will do away with themselves; and until we do that we can tinker with our election laws as long as we want to, until we have the voter disgusted in having to learn a new system every few years, and we will find we are not any nearer the question of efficient government. If you want to make the government efficient, you will have to have a sensible organization of government, and you cannot do it by changing the laws. (Applause.)

Remarks by H. D. Hawks

MR. HAWKS: May I state that under the head of compulsory voting it has been found in Switzerland, where such a system prevailed, that at every election a great many blank ballots are cast, showing conclusively that we may force a man to go to the polls, but we cannot force him to vote.

Remarks by E. R. Zion

MR. ZION: I would like to ask if the committee has given any attention to the matter of proportional representation or cumulative voting? There have been some suggestions made here tonight of permitting the voter to vote for the same man for first, second and third choice where there are three or more candidates, and you want to overcome the difficulty in voting for supervisors. Wouldn't it be preferable to have effective cumulative voting, where you have three or more to be voted for, when you can vote for the same candidate for first, second and third choice? A voter who did not have nine first choices for supervisor could cumulate his vote on one man and thus bring about proportional representation as they have it in New Zealand. That could be embodied in the plan.

Mr. Mauzy suggested under the dual system. it has been possible for a strong minority possibly—although they have to get a majority finally at the election-to vote for three or four men at the first election, and secure their election that way, and at the second election vote for three or four more and secure their election in that manner, thus securing a greater representation than they are entitled to. I think his criticism just, if they succeed in doing that. But that criticism would not apply in a case where they could cumulate their votes and have only one election, as is proposed here, and could get only the first three if they cumulated their votes on the three. They are undoubtedly entitled to them if they elect that way. Has the committee given. that phase of proportional representation, where there are three or more candidates to be elected, any consideration?

THE PRESIDENT: They have not reported on it. Possibly the chairman can state whether or not they considered it.

MR. HAWKS: I can say that it has not been considered.
MR. ZION: I offer that as a suggestion.

Remarks by Victor J. West

MR. WEST: I wish to say that, in a way, we did consider proportional representation. We took it up and rejected it, not because we did not believe in it but because we were after something else at the present time. Proportional representation offers so many complexities and difficulties that we thought it much more advisable as a matter of policy to take up preferential voting first. So far as different systems of voting are concerned, I do not think the cumulative system is the best.