Problems in American Democracy

by Thames Williamson

After 1825 the caucus declined in importance. In the lawmaking bodies of both nation and states there continues to be a legislative caucus, but its influence upon the choice of public officials has greatly diminished. Outside of the state and National legislatures the caucus is now found only in towns, wards, and other small areas. In these areas it is used for the purpose of nominating candidates for local offices, and for the purpose of electing delegates to nominating conventions. Except in some parts of New England, it should be noted, this local caucus is now generally known as the primary.

436. RISE OF THE NOMINATING CONVENTION.—After 1825 the caucus was largely superseded by the convention. The convention is a relatively large meeting of party delegates chosen for the express purpose of deciding upon party policies and candidates. The convention device was developed, partly because party bosses had come to dominate the caucus, and partly because the increasing population of the country necessitated larger congregations of party members. The convention was made possible by improved means of transportation, which allowed relatively large groups of individuals to come together for deliberative purposes. By 1850 all of the political parties had adopted the convention plan for the nomination of candidates for most local, state, and National offices.

437. DECLINE OF THE CONVENTION.—The convention was an improvement upon the caucus in that it allowed a greater number of party members to participate in nominations. Unfortunately, delegates to the convention continued to be chosen in local caucuses, where the party "ring" or machine usually determined the choice of delegates. Bosses prepared "slates," bribed delegates, and otherwise manipulated what was supposed to be an expression of the party will in convention. In many cases the convention became-merely a cut-and-dried affair in which party members ratified nominations previously agreed upon by party leaders.

In the latter part of the nineteenth century, and especially after 1900, these defects stimulated the development of measures designed to reduce or eliminate the abuses of the convention system. The most important of these reform measures is the Direct Primary.

438. NATURE OF THE DIRECT PRIMARY.—The terms caucus, primary, and direct primary are easily confused. We have seen that the local caucus is now generally known as the primary. The essential difference between this caucus or primary and the Direct Primary is this: in the Direct Primary, party members vote directly for the party's candidates at the forthcoming election; in the caucus or primary, on the other hand, party members do not vote directly for the more important of these candidates, but instead vote for delegates to a convention. Later these delegates meet in convention and there vote directly for party candidates. Thus the Direct Primary is really an election within the party, held for the purpose of allowing party members to choose the candidates who will represent the party at the approaching regular election. When adopted, the Direct Primary abolishes the convention by allowing party members to cast their ballots directly for their party's candidates. Those individuals are nominated who receive a plurality of all votes cast.

In most states the Direct Primary has recently been placed under detailed legal control. Such laws generally prescribe the time and place of holding the Direct Primary, the qualifications of those who may participate, and the organization and general management of this party election. There is provision for polling places, official ballots, and election of officials, just as there is provision for similar machinery in the regular election which follows the Direct Primary.

439. EXTENT OF THE DIRECT PRIMARY.—Heralded as a cure for the defects of the convention, the Direct Primary spread rapidly after 1900. By 1919 every state in the Union had adopted it in some form, and about forty states were applying the state-wide primary. At first the Direct Primary was used only to nominate candidates for local offices, but at the present time state officers, and even Federal Senators and Representatives, are often nominated by this method. In more than a third of the states the voters at the Direct Primary are allowed to express their preference directly for one of the candidates for the presidential nomination. Altogether, the Direct Primary has largely supplanted the convention in about three fourths of the states.

440. ADVANTAGES CLAIMED FOR THE DIRECT PRIMARY.—A number of important advantages are claimed for the Direct Primary. It is said that the device reduces the power of the party boss, and insures democratic control within the party. Party members are more interested in the Direct Primary than in the local caucus or primary because in the Direct Primary they actually aid in the direct selection of party candidates. The local caucus or primary, on the other hand, does not directly select the more important party candidates, but can only choose delegates to a nominating convention. Because the Direct Primary increases the control of the individual over party policies, it encourages active political work on the part of the rank and file. It is maintained that the Direct Primary brings out a larger vote than would otherwise be possible. Better candidates are secured by means of the Direct Primary, it is claimed, because the nomination of individuals depends upon the presentation of their claims to the voters, rather than upon winning the favor of party bosses.

441. OBJECTIONS URGED AGAINST THE DIRECT PRIMARY.—The opponents of the plan claim that the Direct Primary has serious faults. It is said that in supplanting the convention the Direct Primary has made more difficult the exchange of views and opinions among party members. It is declared that the Direct Primary has disorganized the party and has therefore broken down party responsibility. It is claimed that the Direct Primary has not eliminated the boss, for rather than voting directly for candidates of their own choice, electors must make a selection from a list of candidates previously arranged by party leaders. All of these candidates may be objectionable to the voter. It is also pointed out that many worthy candidates have not the money to defray the expense of competing in the Direct Primaries. Frequently the "ring" brings out a number of candidates to divide the voters, while the henchmen of the ring concentrate their votes upon one man. Lastly, it is pointed out, the excessive number of candidates to be selected renders it impossible for the average individual to make an intelligent selection. In such a case, the average individual attends the Direct Primary only to confirm the choice of party leaders.

442. OUTLOOK FOR THE DIRECT PRIMARY.—Although there is much to be said for and against the Direct Primary, the belief is gaining ground that this device does not offer the final solution of the difficulty which led to its establishment. After an exhaustive study of the subject, Professor Munro concludes as follows: "In a word, the primary seems to afford protection against the worst fault of the convention, which was the frequent selection of incapable and corrupt candidates at the behest of a few political leaders. But it has not, in twenty years or more of experience, demonstrated that it can achieve positive results of a measurably satisfactory character. It has not rid the state of boss domination; it has increased the expense which every candidate must incur, and it gives a marked advantage to the man whose name is well known to the voters, whether he be a professional politician or not. To say that the primary secures on the average somewhat better results than the old convention may be stating the truth, but it is not high praise."