The qualifications for voting, while varying in the different states in details, are in their main features the same throughout the Union. A residence in the state is required of from three months to two years. Residence is also necessary, but for a shorter period, in the county, city or town, or voting precinct. A few states require the payment of a poll tax. Some require that the voter shall be able to read and understand the Constitution. This latter qualification has been introduced into several of the Southern states, partly at least to disqualify the ignorant coloured voters. In all, or practically all, the states idiots, convicts and the insane are disqualified; in some states paupers; in some of the Western states the Chinese. In some states women are allowed to vote on certain questions, or for the candidates for certain offices, especially school officials; and in four of the Western states women have the same rights of suffrage as men. The number of those who are qualified to vote, but do not avail themselves of the right, varies greatly in the different states and according to the interest taken in the election. As a general rule, but subject to exceptions, the national elections call out the largest number, the state elections next, and the local elections the smallest number of voters. In an exciting national election between 80 and 90% of the qualified voters actually vote, a proportion considerably greater than in Great Britain or Germany.
The tendency of recent years has been towards a decrease both in the number and in the frequency of elections. A president and vice-president are voted for every fourth year, in the years divisible by four, on the first Tuesday following the first Monday of November. Members of the national House of Representatives are chosen for two years on the even-numbered years. State and local elections take place in accordance with state laws, and may or may not be on the same day as the national elections. Originally the rule was for the states to hold annual elections; in fact, so strongly did the feeling prevail of the need in a democratic country for frequent elections, that the maxim “where annual elections end, tyranny begins,” became a political proverb. But opinion gradually changed even in the older or Eastern states, and in 1909 Massachusetts and Rhode Island were the only states in the Union holding annual elections for governor and both houses of the state legislature. In the Western states especially state officers are chosen for longer terms—in the case of the governor often for four years—and the number of elections has correspondingly decreased. Another cause of the decrease in the number of elections is the growing practice of holding all the elections of any year on one and the same day. Before the Civil War Pennsylvania held its state elections several months before the national elections. Ohio and Indiana, until 1885 and 1881 respectively, held their state elections early in October. Maine, Vermont and Arkansas keep to September. The selection of one day in the year for all elections held in that year has resulted in a considerable decrease in the total number.
Another tendency of recent years, but not so pronounced, is to hold local elections in what is known as the “off” year; that is, on the odd-numbered year, when no national election is held. The object of this reform is to encourage independent voting. The average American citizen is only too prone to carry his national political predilections into local elections, and to vote for the local nominees of his party, without regard to the question of fitness of candidates and the fundamental difference of issues involved. This tendency to vote the entire party ticket is the more pronounced because under the system of voting in use in many of the states all the candidates of the party are arranged on one ticket, and it is much easier to vote a straight or unaltered ticket than to change or “scratch” it. Again, the voter, especially the ignorant one, refrains from scratching his ticket, lest in some way he should fail to comply with the technicalities of the law and his vote be lost. On the other hand, if local elections are held on the “off” or odd year, and there be no national or state candidates, the voter feels much more free to select only those candidates whom he considers best qualified for the various offices.
On the important question of the purity of elections it is difficult to speak with precision. In many of the states, especially those with an enlightened public spirit, such as most of the New England states and many of the North-Western, the elections are fairly conducted, there being no intimidation at all, little or no bribery, and an honest count. It can safely be said that through the Union as a whole the tendency of recent years has been decidedly towards greater honesty of elections. This is owing to a number of causes: (1) The selection of a single day for all elections, and the consequent immense number voting on that day. Some years ago, when for instance the Ohio and Indiana elections were held a few weeks before the general election, each party strained every nerve to carry them, for the sake of prestige and the influence on other states. In fact, presidential elections were often felt to turn on the result in these early voting states, and the party managers were none too scrupulous in the means employed to carry them. Bribery has decreased in such states since the change of election day to that of the rest of the country. (2) The enactment in most of the states of the Australian or secret ballot (q.v.) laws. These have led to the secrecy of the ballot, and hence to a greater or less extent have prevented intimidation and bribery. (3) Educational or other such test, more particularly in the Southern states, the object of which is to exclude the coloured, and especially the ignorant coloured, voters from the polls. In those southern states in which the coloured vote was large, and still more in those in which it was the majority, it was felt among the whites that intimidation or ballot-box stuffing was justified by the necessity of white supremacy. With the elimination of the coloured vote by educational or other tests the honesty of elections has increased. (4) The enactment of new and more stringent registration laws. Under these laws only those persons are allowed to vote whose names have been placed on the rolls a certain number of days or months before election. These rolls are open to public inspection, and the names may be challenged at the polls, and “colonization” or repeating is therefore almost impossible. (5) The reform of the civil service and the gradual elimination of the vicious principle of “to the victors belong the spoils.” With the reform of the civil service elections become less a scramble for office and more a contest of political or economic principle. They bring into the field, therefore, a better class of candidates. (6) The enactment in a number of states of various other laws for the prevention of corrupt practices, for the publication of campaign expenses, and for the prohibition of party workers from coming within a certain specified distance of the polls. In the state of Massachusetts, for instance, an act passed in 1892, and subsequently amended, provides that political committees shall file a full statement, duly sworn to, of all campaign expenditures made by them. The act applies to all public elections except that of town officers, and also covers nominations by caucuses and conventions as well. Apart from his personal expenses such as postage, travelling expenses, &c., a candidate is prohibited from spending anything himself to promote either his nomination or his election, but he is allowed to contribute to the treasury of the political committee. The law places no limit on the amount that these committees may spend. The reform sought by the law is thorough publicity, and not only are details of receipts and expenditures to be published, but the names of contributors and the amount of their contributions. In the state of New York the act which seeks to prevent corrupt practices relies in like manner on the efficacy of publicity, but it is less effective than the Massachusetts law in that it provides simply for the filing by the candidates themselves of sworn statements of their own expenses. There is nothing to prevent their contributing to political committees, and the financial methods and the amounts expended by such committees are not made public. But behind all these causes that have led to more honest elections lies the still greater one of a healthier public spirit. In the reaction following the Civil War all reforms halted. In recent years, however, a new and healthier interest has sprung up in things political; and one result of this improved civic spirit is seen in the various laws for purification of elections. It may now be safely affirmed that in the majority of states the elections are honestly conducted; that intimidation, bribery, stuffing of the ballot boxes or other forms of corruption, when they exist, are owing in large measure to temporary or local causes; and that the tendency of recent years has been towards a decrease in all forms of corruption.
The expenses connected with elections, such as the renting and preparing of the polling-places, the payment of the clerks and other officers who conduct the elections and count the vote, are borne by the community. A candidate therefore is not, as far as the law is concerned, liable to any expense whatever. As a matter of fact he does commonly contribute to the party treasury, though in the case of certain candidates, particularly those for the presidency and for judicial offices, financial contributions are not general. The amount of a candidate’s contribution varies greatly, according to the office sought, the state in which he lives, and his private wealth. On one occasion, in a district in New York, a candidate for Congress is credibly believed to have spent at one election $50,000. On the other hand, in a Congressional election in a certain district in Massachusetts, the only expenditure of one of the candidates was for the two-cent stamp placed on his letter of acceptance. No estimate of the average amount expended can be made. It is, however, the conclusion of Mr Bryce, in his American Commonwealth, that as a rule a seat in Congress costs the candidate less than a seat for a county division in the House of Commons. (See also [Ballot].)
ELECTION, in English law, the obligation imposed upon a party by courts of equity to choose between two inconsistent or alternative rights or claims in cases where there is a clear intention of the person from whom he derives one that he should not enjoy both. Thus a testator died seized of property in fee simple and in fee tail—he had two daughters, and devised the fee simple property to one and the entailed property to the other; the first one claimed to have her share of the entailed property as coparcener and also to retain the benefit she took under the will. It was held that she was put to her election whether she would take under the will and renounce her claim to the entailed property or take against the will, in which case she must renounce the benefits she took under the will in so far as was necessary to compensate her sister. As the essence of the doctrine is compensation, a person electing against a document does not lose all his rights under it, but the court will sequester so much only of the benefit intended for him as will compensate the persons disappointed by his election. For the same reason it is necessary that there should be a free and disposable fund passing by the instrument from which compensation can be made in the event of election against the will. If, therefore, a man having a special power of appointment appoint the fund equally between two persons, one being an object of the power and the other not an object, no question of election arises, but the appointment to the person not an object is bad.
Election, though generally arising in cases of wills, may also arise in the case of a deed. There is, however, a distinction to be observed. In the case of a will a clear intention on the part of the testator that he meant to dispose of property not his own must be shown, and parol evidence is not admissible as to this. In the case of a deed, however, no such intention need be shown, for if a deed confers a benefit and imposes a liability on the same person he cannot be allowed to accept the one and reject the other, but this must be distinguished from cases where two separate gifts are given to a person, one beneficial and the other onerous. In such a case no question of election arises and he may take the one and reject the other, unless, indeed, there are words used which make the one conditional on the acceptance of the other.
Election is either express, e.g. by deed, or implied; in the latter case it is often a question of considerable difficulty whether there has in fact been an election or not; each case must depend upon the particular circumstances, but quite generally it may be said that the person who has elected must have been capable of electing, aware of the existence of the doctrine of election, and have had the opportunity of satisfying himself of the relative value of the properties between which he has elected. In the case of infants the court will sometimes elect after an inquiry as to which course is the most advantageous, or if there is no immediate urgency, will allow the matter to stand over till the infant attains his majority. In the cases of married women and lunatics the courts will exercise the right for them. It sometimes happens that the parties have so dealt with the property that it would be inequitable to disturb it; in such cases the court will not interfere in order to allow of election.