Now the results of the election in the wards dominated by those nationalities might rationally be held to show a pronounced effect of that propaganda, but it was no secret, the old “aristocratic” wards were presumably as keen about pro-Germanism as those inhabited by voters of alien origin, and there, if anywhere, would be the seat of the prejudice against Witt on the ground of alleged radicalism. Why, then, did the native-born conservatives waive their prejudices against Witt, the supposed radical, and overlook the charges of pro-Germanism? And why did the foreign born, who are conventionally expected to be radical, suddenly turn and vote against the only candidate who was accused of being radical? Why did Mr. Witt gain nothing in the heavily German wards (as in fact he did gain nothing) from his German name, his remote German ancestry, and the accusation of pro-Germanism? It was further noted at the time that among the Russian Jews the attack upon Witt turned many normally Democratic votes to the Davis Republican candidate. Why?
The following tables show what happened in the precincts studied:
TABLE XLIV
Distribution of Democratic and Republican Votes in Cleveland in 1913 and 1915 Among Certain Racial Groups
| Precincts | Number of Votes | Number of Votes | ||
| 1913 | 1915 | |||
| Baker | Davis | Witt | Davis | |
| Native born | 945 | 1,091 | 1,039 | 925 |
| Czech | 343 | 223 | 275 | 373 |
| Magyar | 207 | 204 | 302 | 204 |
| Polish | 263 | 208 | 205 | 473 |
| Jugo-Slav | 283 | 135 | 279 | 137 |
| Italian | 239 | 282 | 136 | 394 |
| Jewish | 260 | 256 | 273 | 212 |
The three elections following—the presidential in 1916, the mayoralty election in 1917, and the governorship election in 1918—exhibit no tendencies attributable either to the war or to any special causes from which one may generalize anything with regard to the political activities and attitudes of the foreign-born voters which would distinguish them from the native-born. In 1912 Wilson carried Polish, Magyar, and Czech precincts. In 1916 he repeated—this presumably not because of any aspect of the war, but because those precincts are normally Democratic.
The Cleveland nonpartisan ballot provides for three choices. One of the objections urged against the nonpartisan ballot has been that the second and third choices would be used only by the more intelligent voter; that the less intelligent would vote for but one. In the elections studied in which this three-choice system was used, 20 per cent of the native born expressed second choices; the foreign born followed in this order:
TABLE XLV