favor of recalling an officer, and 499 votes were in favor of retaining him in office, nevertheless, if there were five or six candidates running to secure the place and one of them had only 201 votes he would be elected if it were a plurality, notwithstanding the fact that 499 votes had been cast in favor of retaining the incumbent.

There was one phase of the subject matter touched upon which is of special interest to me, and that is in regard to the law governing the purity of elections. I think there is a big opportunity for making an improvement in the present law. A joint committee representing the various civic organizations of the city of Alameda have recommended to the board of freeholders the adoption of a plan which seems to me has some very good features. The suggestion was this-that the candidate for public office be required to answer a number of questions which would enable the voters, from those answers, to make an intelligent discrimination between the various candidates. As it is at the present time the ordinary voter has no means of ascertaining the relative qualifications of the candidates seeking office. If an individual is seeking appointment in the federal service or is looking for a position with a private company, he is obliged to give them information as to his past record, and whether or not he has had any experience in a particular line of work for which he is seeking employment; they desire to know something of his past history. In the federal service they want to know what he has been doing for the last five or six years. Nothing of that kind is required of the aspirant for a public office, and I think that is where we have made a mistake. We have seen here in San Francisco and in the other large cities of the state during election campaigns every saloon, every vacant store, and nearly all the billboards plastered over with placards declaring that so and so is running for the office of mayor, but these placards do not contain one particle of information of value to the voter. In Alameda we have designed a scheme for improving upon that by requiring the candidates to answer certain questions which would enable the voter to determine for himself some of the relative qualifications of the various candidates, such as, for instance, how long they have lived in the city; whether or not they have ever been employed in the public service either as principal, deputy or employee. We require them to state also whether they own real estate in the municipality; also whether they have taken any active part in civic affairs, and if they belong to any civic organizations or have held any office in them. All these questions give the voter an indication of the relative qualifications of the candidates. We also require them to set forth something about their education. These answers are all required in response to certain set

questions, so that they cannot ramble on and simply tell only those things which they would like the public to know. We also require the candidate to set forth at the end, in a limited number of words, his particular views of the needs of the municipality; and in conclusion we ask him to give references to a dozen or more citizens who know him; in that way, although the voter may not know the candidate personally, he will be likely to know one or two of the persons he has referred to. Then, in case he should meet any of those persons on the street or elsewhere, he will be apt to say, "Hello, Jones, I see that candidate Smith has given your name as a reference. What do you know about him?" Jones will then go on and tell all he knows about the candidate, including whether, in his estimation, he would make a good official. All these things give the voter an opportunity to make an intelligent discrimination and give him the information sufficient to enable him to vote for all the candidates, something he is now unable to do. I thank you. (Applause.)

Remarks by H. D. Hawks

MR. HAWKS: I am very pleased to say that both of the statements made by Mr. Locke have been considered by the committee and will be embodied in a charter amendment which will come before the people. The statement of the personality and qualifications of the candidate is a serious question, and I am glad to say that we have received several very valuable suggestions tonight in addition to the form in which it was proposed to the Club.

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Dunlop is here from Los Angeles. He has been active in civic affairs-he was here a moment ago and if he is here now we would like to hear a word from him.

Remarks by George H. Dunlop

MR. DUNLOP Having just finished six months' service on a board of freeholders drafting a charter which was defeated, I do not know that I can cheer up.

THE PRESIDENT: What particular system of elections did they defeat down there?

MR. DUNLOP: The system of elections that was submitted in a charter proper was the same as we now have-election of nine councilmen at large by a first and second election. In addition to that we submitted two alternatives, one providing for the election of the councilmen, one from each of nine wards. That received a majority vote of about a thousand, but failed to carry because the charter itself did not carry. The other alternative was the election of councilmen on proportional representation, of which personally I am an active advo

cate. That was defeated by some seven or eight thousand votes. Under the peculiar circumstances of the campaign, an active fight was made for the ward amendment, and no campaign for the proportional representation. It was entirely voluntary and we had no newspaper and no public speaker.

This question of preferential voting is one that has interested me for some time. I think there has been some confusion here as to "single-shotting" or "plumping"-down in Los Angeles we call it single-shotting-on the two kinds of offices that are to be filled. There is a great difference where but one man is to be elected-for instance, the mayor-and where several are to be elected. Now, in this preferential voting, single-shotting offers considerable advantage. We will say that you want Mr. A, and I want Mr. B, and another voter wants Mr. C. You vote for Mr. A first choice and Mr. B second choice; I vote for Mr. B first choice and Mr. A second choice. There is a tie; but the third voter votes for Mr. C first choice and Mr. B second choice. Your vote for my man gives him the majority vote.

I was informed a couple of days ago by Dr. John R. Haynes, a friend of mine, whom some of you know

THE PRESIDENT: He is a member of the Club.

MR. DUNLOP: He said that he had been told that at the last election in Grand Junction there were three candidates, one a socialist, who received very much the lowest vote of the three. You know, it is a matter of religion with a socialist not to vote for anybody but a socialist. The others voted their second choices, with the result that no one was elected for first choice, and some from one side, and some from the other side, had voted for the socialist, and he was elected.

That is the question of "single-shotting" where there is but one man to be elected to an office. Where there are a number singleshotting may result in proportional representation, and in some ways it may be desirable. Frankly I think if a third of the voters of San Francisco want to concentrate upon three of the nine supervisors they are entitled to them, but that is a little outside of the discussion. THE PRESIDENT: That is proportional representation.

MR. DUNLOP: Yes. But I feel convinced, Mr. Chairman, that preferential elections will utterly collapse from the intricacies of voting for twenty-seven choices. It will be the longest ballot ever seen in America.

Remarks by William Denman

MR. DENMAN: I would like to know whether or not any of the cities that have had this system of balloting have had any very large group election such as we have for supervisors here.

THE PRESIDENT: I think Mr. Locke referred to Portland, that had ninety candidates and five to be elected.

MR. DENMAN: What was the effect there in regard to plumping? MR. LOCKE: I do not recall.

MR. DENMAN: The real objection to the system applies not to the group elections-as, for instance, an election of nine supervisors at once-but to the elections to the individual executive and administrative offices. In group elections, plumping or single-shotting is, under any system, possible, and in principle and result it is not unlike our cumulative voting for directors of corporations.

Under preferential voting, however, an evil is introduced in the elections for the single offices which does not now exist. It places every man who conscientiously votes his first and second choice at the mercy of the elector who votes merely his first choice. For instance, if voter X votes for A first choice, B second choice and C third choice, and voter Y votes only for B, then B is elected and defeats A, who is X's first choice by virtue of X's vote for B as his second choice. The inevitable result of this will be that a larger and larger number of voters will vote merely their first choice and the system will break down, because the election will tend more and more to be decided by the casual votes for second and third choices of a smaller and smaller minority of the voters. In time the pressure of this evil may drive all voters to the expression of but a first choice, in which event we are back at the old system of single election with a plurality vote.

Remarks by C. C. Young

MR. YOUNG: It seems that the greatest objection that has been urged tonight is that matter of plumping, and we will lay aside the matter of plumping of a single candidate and take this matter of group voting. Mr. Mauzy suggested that the vote be not counted unless you vote for all the candidates. Of course, a great many people are careless in voting for nine candidates. Mr. Stringham, it seems to me, made an excellent suggestion, that if a person did not vote for nine candidates his second and third choices should not be counted. I would like to ask whether either or both of those would be unconstitutional

Remarks by Victor J. West

MR. WEST: It would be my belief that it would be unconstitutional to throw out a ballot in which a voter did not vote for all nine candidates.

MR. YOUNG: How about the other suggestion? Don't you think it would be a pretty good scheme?

MR. WEST: I do not think it is. I am not impressed with this matter of plumping. My idea is, if any group of voters have enough strength to elect their candidate, that is their privilege under a democratic system.

MR. YOUNG: The majority does not rule.

MR. WEST: If you require a majority vote, then it does show absolutely that the majority rules. You can plump all day, but if you cannot get a majority you cannot win. It is up to the other people to organize in the same way and get a majority. That is just what we are trying to get here, a majority vote. We do not elect officers on first or second choice under the preferential system unless we do get a majority. I do not know what majority rule means if any majority, even if it is made up of the worst riff raff in creation, is not entitled to have its candidates elected.

THE PRESIDENT: The hour of adjournment has arrived.

[A demonstration of the simplicity of the system was given as a part of the discussion. The ballot printed facing page 220 was distributed among the members present and marked by them. The ballots were then collected and counted by expert clerks furnished by the Registrar of San Francisco. The results were announced by the Registrar at the close of the meeting and a vote of thanks given the election officials.]