Unpopular government in the United States

by Albert Martin Kales

I am one of about 322,000 voters who elect 3 sanitary trustees every two years at the regular November election and a president of the Sanitary District every five years.

I am one of about 350,000 voters who elect the following county officers every other year at the November election: 2 of the 5 members of the Board of Assessors, 1 of the 3 members of the Board of Review, 6 of the 18 judges of the Superior Court of Cook County; also about one-half of the following officers: president of the Board of County Commissioners, judge of the Probate Court, judge of the County Court, state’s attorney, recorder of deeds, clerk of the Circuit Court, clerk of the Superior Court, clerk of the Criminal Court, clerk of the Appellate Court, clerk of the Probate Court, coroner, sheriff, county clerk, county superintendent of schools, and county surveyor. I am one of about 350,000 voters to elect, every other June at a special election, about 5 of the 15 judges of the Circuit Court of Cook County.

I am one of about 380,000 voters to elect 1 of the 7 justices of the Supreme Court of the state every nine years.

I am one of about 1,100,000 to elect at the regular November election every two years about one-half of the following state officers: a governor, a lieutenant-governor, a secretary of state, an auditor, a treasurer, a state superintendent of public instruction, 6 trustees of the state university, clerk of the state Supreme Court, and 2 congressmen at large.

I am one of about 15,000,000 voters who elect a president and vice-president of the United States every four years at the regular November election.

When I entered the voting booth at the regular November election in 1912, the ballot given me to mark was 22 × 28 inches in size. It called upon the voter to do his part in filling, exclusive of presidential electors, 34 offices. It presented for his consideration, exclusive of presidential electors, 181 names from which to make selections.[3]

An enumeration of the offices to be filled by election merely emphasizes the number of candidates whom the voter should inform himself about. The extent of the burden upon the voter is not fully appreciated until it is perceived how difficult actual conditions make it for him to obtain information regarding candidates for office. The least important and most inconspicuous state and local offices, as well as the most important and conspicuous, must engage the attention of the electorate of the entire governmental district. But the candidates for inconspicuous and unimportant offices must usually be men who are inconspicuous or unimportant in the community. Furthermore, the importance and conspicuousness of subordinate offices do not increase in proportion to the increase of population. The clerk of a court or a county surveyor is not a more conspicuous officer because he holds his office in a county having over two million inhabitants. He is, therefore, proportionately less conspicuous and important as the population increases. The voter is, therefore, constantly presented with candidates whose reputations are in inverse ratio to the size and population of the electoral district. The more electors there are in the district the smaller in proportion is the reputation of the candidate. The more the character and qualifications of the candidates are hidden, the more difficult it is for the voter to obtain the information which he should have in order to vote intelligently. For instance, the 600 voters in the village where the writer resides are called upon to select a clerk, a treasurer, a marshal and collector, 2 police magistrates, and library and school trustees. In so small a community the voter may with some effort actually know who the candidates for these places are. As a matter of fact, however, that effort is considerably more than the large majority of voters will push themselves to perform. The 2,000 voters in the township where the writer resides are called upon to elect a supervisor, a clerk, an assessor, a collector, a commissioner of highways, 5 justices of the peace, 4 constables, a poundmaster, and high-school trustees. These offices are not intrinsically more conspicuous or more important than the village offices just enumerated. Hence the enlargement from 600 to 2,000 voters causes the candidates for office to be proportionately less conspicuous in the community. To the same extent the difficulty to the voter of obtaining information as to the character and attainments of the candidates has been increased. The members of the state Senate and House of Representatives are important officers because they exercise the legislative power of the state. The conspicuousness and importance of each of these offices is, however, weakened by the existence of the other, for between the representatives and senators the legislative power is divided and each is a check upon the other. The members of the House of Representatives in the state legislature are hidden to some extent from the voters because 3 are elected at large from a senatorial district containing 18,000 voters. It is more difficult for the voter to find out about a legislator when he is one of 18,000 than when he is one of 6,000 voters. Twenty-eight thousand electors of the County of Cook outside of the city of Chicago are called upon to vote for 5 of the 15 county commissioners. The office is not likely to be held by men whom it is easy for the average voter of the district to pick up direct information about. To elect one member of the state Board of Equalization 42,000 voters are called upon. Again, the size of the electorate makes it difficult to know who the candidates for the place may be. Three hundred and twenty-two thousand voters are called upon to elect 7 sanitary trustees. Here the darkness of the average voter becomes Egyptian, and he is practically excluded from any means of a personal knowledge of who the candidates for the sanitary trustees are. The same is equally true of the members of the Board of Review, members of the Board of Assessors, the 30 judges of Cook County, the president of the Board of County Commissioners, the judge of the Probate Court, the judge of the County Court, the state’s attorney, the recorder, the 5 clerks of the different courts, the sheriff, the county clerk, the county superintendent of public instruction, and the county surveyor. There are 350,000 voters who regularly cast their ballots for these officers. Among a population containing so many voters it is practically impossible, even for the voter who makes an unusual effort, to acquire any personal knowledge of who the candidates for these offices are. Take the most prominent officials in the list—the judges and state’s attorney. The intelligent man who is a voter has very little chance to acquire any personal knowledge of the fitness of the candidates for these offices. A particular judge or a particular candidate for state’s attorney may become to some extent known to the voter and have the confidence of the voter. But these are exceptional cases. The average candidate for these offices is beyond the reach of any thoroughgoing knowledge on the part of the voter. The difficulty of obtaining information about one inconspicuous member of so large a population is too great. In Illinois, to select a secretary of state, an auditor, a treasurer, a state superintendent of schools, 6 trustees of the state university, a clerk of the state Supreme Court, and 2 congressmen at large, 1,100,000 voters are called upon. Here again the inconspicuousness of the offices compared with the size of the electorate is such that the obstacle to the voter informing himself about candidates is practically insuperable.

One would think that the voter had difficulty enough in finding out about candidates as a result of the simple process of requiring comparatively inconspicuous and unimportant offices to be filled by a very numerous electorate. But his difficulty has been enormously increased by the process of requiring the voter to do the larger part of his investigating for the purpose of voting at a single election. For instance, the writer is called upon at a single election in November to investigate the qualifications for office of a president and vice-president of the United States, a congressman for his district, 2 congressmen at large, about one-half of the state officers, and about one-half of the county officers. To be exact, he must look up candidates for 34 different offices (not including the presidential electors) presented upon the long ballot given supra ([opposite p. 29]), to the number of 181. Assuming that information about some of the candidates for the more important offices, such as members of Congress and members of the state legislature, could be looked up and reliable information obtained, the chances are that this will not be done because other more important offices, like that of president of the United States and governor of the state, are to be filled. This process of preventing the voter from investigating candidates for even important and conspicuous offices by putting so much investigating upon him at a single election that he cannot do it has operated to produce political ignorance on the part of the electorate as to candidates for Congress and the state legislature. These are important and conspicuous offices. The candidates come from comparatively small districts. If selected at an election where they were the only offices to be filled, a very considerable amount of intelligence might be displayed by the electorate. But these offices are hidden among half a hundred other offices for which several hundred other candidates are running. In the mass the voter is distracted and fails to a considerable extent to distinguish the important from the unimportant. The extraordinary amount of investigating to be done overwhelms and discourages him, and he goes to the polls too frequently utterly ignorant of the qualifications of candidates for members of Congress and the state legislature.

That the decentralization of governmental power and the increased application of the elective principle has necessarily cast upon the electorate an enormous burden in order that it may vote intelligently is clear enough from the everyday experience of the voter at the polls. At least one political scientist has directed an experiment to emphasize it. President Judson, a few years ago, gave to a graduate class at the University of Chicago, four weeks before the regular fall election in Cook County, a list of all the candidates for office on a ballot substantially similar to that which appears supra (p. 29), and required them to report at the time of the election such facts as they could ascertain about the candidates and their qualifications. With diligent work on the part of the really mature men in Dr. Judson’s class a satisfactory report was turned in with regard to only a small percentage of the entire list. This, Dr. Judson thought, fairly indicated what the average voter could do on his own responsibility in the way of securing information respecting candidates if he had spent the same amount of time with that object in view.

Not only is it obvious that the voter is under a great burden with respect to seeking and securing information about the candidates for office he is called upon to vote for, but it is clear that the task is so great as to be impossible of fulfilment by the large mass of the electorate who have their place in competitive industry to maintain. A small handful of intelligent men of commanding position in the community, after many years of experience, may be able with comparatively little expenditure of time to inform themselves accurately concerning a large number of the candidates of the two or three principal parties on the ballot. But the average man whose position in the community and experience with affairs is more limited could not obtain the proper amount of information without an actual neglect of his business or profession—a neglect which he dare not permit. The voter who occupies a salaried position which demands a full day of work for his employer throughout the year has no time, inclination, nor opportunity for prolonged investigation into the qualifications of candidates for public office. The residuary mass of the electorate have neither the time, the experience, nor the interest to investigate in advance and inform themselves of the qualifications of candidates to be presented for a large number of offices.