of the votes cast, because it is possible that one more than onetenth of the votes may be more than any one else receives. If there are more than two candidates it is probable that the man elected will not be the choice of a majority of the voters. Such a system is undemocratic in so far as it makes possible minority rule.

According to Mr. C. G. Hoag1 there are two distinct objects to be carried out by voting: (1) to make decisions and (2) to choose representative bodies who are capable of making decisions on behalf of the voters. To carry out the first object, he says,

what is obviously required by the fundamental principles of democracy is majority voting, that is, a system that will range the majority of the voters concerned against the minority.

What is wanted to carry out the latter object is a "condensing system" that will insure proportional representation. Proportional representation demands a representative body made up of members of different parties in numerical proportion to the voting strength of the parties in the entire electorate represented.2

To realize this sort of representation in practice and also to make feasible the requirement that a candidate must have at least a majority of the votes cast in order to be elected to any office, various methods of preferential voting have been devised. A preferential ballot allows the voter to express not only his first choice among the candidates for office but also his second and additional choices. If no candidate receives a majority of first choice votes, the additional choices determine, according to specified rules, who shall be elected.

Preferential voting is authorized by the constitutions of Colorado, Ohio and Oregon. Colorado authorizes it only for cities. Ohio requires the passage of a law providing it for

1op. cit., 4-5.

In 1912, judging by the vote for presidential electors there were in the country 6,293,019 Democrats, 4,119,507 Progressives, 3,484,956 Republicans and 901,873 Socialists. Yet the House of Representatives elected consisted of 290 Democrats, 129 Republicans, 18 Progressives and no Socialists. If the vote for president was indicative of party division in legislative matters, these numbers should have been 186, 94, 124 and 31, respectively.

3V, 7.

United States Senators. Oregon provides for both preferential voting and proportional representation as follows,

In all elections authorized by this Constitution until otherwise provided by law, the person or persons receiving the highest number of votes shall be declared elected, but provisions may be made by law for elections by equal proportional representation of all the voters for every office which is filled by the election of two or more persons whose official duties, rights and powers are equal and concurrent. Every qualified elector resident in his precinct and registered as may be required by law, may vote for one person under the title for each office. Provision may be made by law for the voter's direct or indirect expression of his first, second or additional choices among the candidates for any office. For an office which is filled by the election of one person it may be required by law that the person elected shall be the final choice of a majority of the electors voting for candidates for that office. These principles may be applied by law to nominations by political parties and organizations."

In order to obtain proportional representation, to guarantee that the principles for which both minority and majority parties stand may receive adequate consideration in the enactment of the laws under which all the people must live, several methods of voting have been proposed. The most perfect of these is the Hare System. Its essential feature is the elimination of geographical districts for each representative and its provision for each representative a unanimous constituency of voters who think as he does but may be scattered throughout larger territory than a single representative district. Unanimity of will instead of proximity of residence determines the constituency.

The Hare System was first used in the United States in the 1915 election for members of the council of the little Ohio city of Ashtabula. It is, of course, subject to slight changes, but in general is operated in somewhat this fashion,-Suppose that there are three legislators to be elected from the territory in question. The number of persons voting is first ascertained

4II, 16.

"See State v. Portland, 133 Pacific, 62. Such laws have been passed in some states without constitutional authorization. In Ferrell v. Hickman, 147 N. W., 815, it was declared the preferential ballot provided for in the Duluth charter requiring the voter to express his first choice was not an interference with the right of suffrage. But in Brown v. Smallwood, 153 N. W., 593, the expression of second and third choices was declared to deprive the voters of equal suffrage. See Orpen v. Watson, 93 Atlantic. 853.

"Named for its inventor, Thomas Hare; independently devised by M. Andree. About 20,000 inhabitants. See Review of Reviews, LII, 653.

and one-third of that number is the number of votes necessary to elect because each third of the voters of the entire county should have one of the three representatives. If one-third agree upon a particular candidate they become his "unanimous constituency." If the voters number 1,000 and the persons to be elected three, 334 first-choice votes will elect. Each voter is allowed a certain number of choices, first, second, third, etc. Whenever one's first choice has already received enough votes to be elected, his vote is counted for his second choice, and so on. If one's first choice candidate has so few votes as to make election hopeless, the candidate is accordingly eliminated, but the voter's ballot is not wasted, for it is transferred to the first of his additional choices whom it can benefit.

The chief practical difficulty with this scheme is the necessity of assembling all ballots at one place in order to count them. It would be extremely difficult to use it in elections in which the voters of an entire state take part, but by dividing the state into districts each large enough to be apportioned several representatives, the Hare System is entirely practicable for the election of legislatures. Its use is, of course, limited to the election of representative bodies from districts having several members apportioned to each.8

Minority representation can be obtained, also, by the very simple process called cumulative voting." Where it is allowed, if the district has three representatives in the lower house of the legislature a minority party, controlling one-third of the votes, can cast all of its votes for one candidate and so be certain to obtain representation. The trouble with the system is that it does more than enough: the members of another party, with two-thirds of the votes may by "plumping" votes for the most popular of their candidates, give him far more than enough to elect while leaving the others with insufficient

The simplest proportional system for electing a representative body is the provision that members shall be elected at large and that each voter shall vote for only one. The requisite number of members having the higest votes are elected. This method is used for electing the Japanese house of representatives. Another interesting method is the grouping of candidates of similar political beliefs into lists. A vote for any one name in a list counts (1) in determining the number of candidates who shall be chosen from the list and (2) which candidates in the lists shall be chosen. The so-called Gove or Schedule system partakes of some of the characteristics of both the Hare and list systems.

"Authorized for Ill. House of Representatives-Const. IV, 7 and 8.

votes. While securing minority representation it may deprive the majority of its proportional number of representatives.

This waste of voting strength is obviated and majority election made more likely by means of preferential voting. The simplest form of preferential voting is known as the Bucklin System' and is in use in Cleveland, Portland (Oregon), Spokane, and other American cities. Generally speaking, its ballots provide after each candidate's name three columns, for marks of first, second and additional choices. If no candidate has an absolute majority of the first choice votes, the second choices are counted and added to the vote of each candidate and, if necessary, the third choice votes and so on. As a method of voting this is simple and easily operated, but a person by expressing a second choice runs the risk of having it count against his first choice candidate if the latter does not get a majority of all the first choice votes."

This defect is remedied by the Nansen System,3 under which

a first choice is given more credit than a second throughout the entire count, a second more than a third, and so forth. Then, in accordance with simple rules formulated . . . on the basis of a complete mathematical solution of the problem, those candidates whose total credits show them to be unquestionably inferior to other candidates in the opinion of the voters as indicated on the ballots are successively dropped out as defeated until the candidate preferred to any other is left and declared elected.*

Named for James H. Bucklin of Grand Junction, Col., under whose leadership it was adopted in that city.

Somewhat similar is the Ware System-named after its proposer, a Harvard professor. "The voter is allowed to indicate his preferences among the candidates as many or as few as he pleases by putting the figure 1 opposite the name of his first choice, the figure 2 opposite the name of his second choice, and so on. "The first count is only of the first-choice votes. If no candidate has a majority, the lowest candidate is excluded and his rotes only are scrutinized again and added to the votes of the other candidates as the preferences indicate. The candidates are thus successively excluded until only two are left, of whom the higher will have a majority vote [as between the two left] and be elected.'"' -Hoag, op. cit. 6. A modified form is used in Wis. and Minn. primary elections.

Named for its inventor, a professor in the University of Melbourne (Australia).

Hoag, op. cit. 8. Ib. 9.-The ultimate criterion of the correctness of a majority system of voting would seem to be that clearly defined by Condorcet in 1785 in a passage translated as follows:

There exists but one rigorous method of ascertaining the wish of a majority in an election. It consists in taking a vote on the respective merits of all the candidates compared two by two. This can be deduced from the lists upon which each elector has written their names in order of merit,-Oeuvres de Condorcet, Vol. XV, pp. 28, 29; ed. 1804.

98.

Object of

Laws.

All of the various requirements concerning elections have, of course, one general object, that of making elections more perfect means for ascertaining the true popular will. As has been seen, this object is sought in numerous ways. But whether (1) Election guarding against the undue influence of a few politicians, as in the case of the direct primary laws and other methods of regulating nominations, or (2) seeking to prevent dishonesty, as in the case of the corrupt practices acts and the provisions governing registration, the holding of elections and canvassing the votes, or else (3) seeking to encourage discrimination and discourage blind partisanship in voting, and to enable the voters to elect as nearly as possible their true choices among candidates and parties, as in the case of the provisions for the Australian Ballot and for preferential voting and proportional representation; the purpose of election laws, constitutional and statutory, remains the same. The electorate must govern through the polls and only as the polls furnish it an adequate method of expression can its government measure up to its ideals.

TENNESSEE NOTE.-The constitution of 1870 like that of 1796, confines its election requirements to freedom and equality and voting by ballot. The days for holding elections are not the same as in the first constitution. The elections for members of the legislature and governor must be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November in the even numbered years; for judicial and county officers on the first Thursday in August.'

The election laws of the state have been compiled and published in two pamphlets obtainable at the office of the Secretary of State. The administration of the election laws is entrusted to a bi-partisan state board of elections consisting of three members, appointed by joint vote

Rgistration requirements intended to render certain classes of voters eligible must be excepted.

Other interesting efforts look to the separation of national, state and local issues by separating in time elections for national, state and local officialsalready much in practice as between the latter two. The underlying idea is that, since the issues are in no wise connected, candidates for one set of offices ought not to be allowed to ride into power on the popularity of those of another through the vote of the undiscriminating. See Proceedings of Academy of Political Science, V, p. 41,-article by Albert Shaw. It is often suggested that the schools should be used as voting places for instance by Miss Margaret Wilson in a speech at Milwaukee, Nov. 5, 1915. (Knoxville Sentinel, ib.) sons who have voted in the places usually selected for holding elections, the propriety of this suggestion needs no comment.

To per

I. 5; II. 7; III, 2; VII, 5; IV, 4; IV, 3-electors guaranteed privileges from arrest to and from polls.

The compilation is not entirely complete.

"Acts of 1907, ch. 435, 436; Acts of 1909, ch. 103, 104.