The University of Oklahoma 
 
 QUARTERLY BULLETIN 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY EXTENSION 
 
 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INFORMATION AND WELFARE 
 
 The Preferoj^'J^ Ballot 
 
 PUBLISHED QUARTERLY BY THE UNIVERSITY 
 NORMAN, OKLAHOMA. 
 
-t 
 
 ■r._- 
 
 
 Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2017 with funding from 
 
 University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Alternates 
 
 
 https://archive.org/details/preferentialballOOuniv 
 

 FOREWORD 
 
 ! 
 
 ^ZAlfci 
 
 OV h\ 
 
 S1811 
 
 
 J 
 
 i 
 
 z 
 
 The literature of the Preferential Ballot is still very limited, 
 and most that has been published on it favors the affirmative. 
 The published discussion is so limited that we have had to re¬ 
 sort to private letters and conversations for most of the material 
 in this bulletin. Three of the letters received are reprinted. On 
 the affirmative side of the question we refer those interested to 
 a pamphlet written by Prof. C. G. Hoag, Haverford, Pa., and 
 reprinted as a U. S. Senate Document on motion of Senator 
 Robt. L. Owen, from whom it may be obtained. 
 
 As in former bulletins, the editors assume no responsibility 
 for the soundness of the arguments adduced. Those given are 
 arguments which are actually used. The student needs the dis¬ 
 cipline of testing arguments and detecting fallacies. The effort 
 is made to so word the question that the arguments on both 
 sides will be as nearly equal as possible. While our constant 
 aim is to so balance the arguments that both sides have an equal 
 chance to win, it is evidently not always possible to realize this 
 aim. The editors cannot of course create the arguments; they 
 can only arrange such as they find with such skill as they may 
 command. 
 
 Notwithstanding a wide correspondence and much inquiry 
 there are doubtless many excellent arguments which the editors 
 failed to get. After the subject has been more fully discussed 
 in the public prints a new edition will be published. The ob¬ 
 vious timeliness of the discussion will justify the present early 
 publication. 
 
 QUESTION 
 
 Resolved: That the Preferential Ballot should be 
 adopted in the several states. 
 
THE PREFERENTIAL BALLOT 
 
 INTRODUCTION 
 
 The voter often finds it difficult to decide between two or 
 more candidates whose qualifications seem about equal. Per¬ 
 sonal relations to the candidates may add to his perplexity. 
 When he votes for one he votes against all the rest equally. 
 Even if his vote truly represented his first choice it is evident 
 that it does not at all indicate his attitude towards the other 
 candidates. Among them he may have very decided preferences 
 which the present single ballot does not enable him to express. 
 If we are to be governed by the ballot, it is evident that the 
 voter should be able to express by it as much as possible of his 
 wishes and decisions. All admit this; the only difference is as 
 to the method of securing this result. The method proposed 
 in the present discussion is The Preferential Ballot. 
 
 WHAT IS THE PREFERENTIAL BALLOT? 
 
 Its aim is to enable the voter to indicate as fully as possible 
 his preferences among all the candidates. It does this by pro¬ 
 viding that the voter may indicate not only his first choice as 
 at present but also his second and other choices. Where all 
 voters are able to write, the easiest way to express the different 
 choices is to write the figure “1” after the first choice, the figure 
 “2” after the second choice, etc. Another method is to have a 
 separate column for each choice; the first column for the first 
 choice, the second column for the second choice, etc. The 
 voter places an “X” opposite the name and in the proper column 
 to indicate his different choices. 
 
 In Wisconsin and Minnesota only two choices are permit¬ 
 ted, so only two columns are needed. When a third choice is 
 permitted, three columns would be used. In many places where 
 the preferential ballot is used the first two columns indicate the 
 first and second choices, but the third column is used for third 
 “and other” choices. That is, he may use the third column to 
 indicate his third choice, or he may use it to indicate which ones 
 
Preferential Ballot 5 
 
 of the remaining candidates he prefers. This enables him not 
 only to vote for his first and second choices but to vote against 
 those he does not mark in the third column. This gives him 
 power to express his attitude towards every candidate on the 
 ballot. 
 
 Experience seems to prove that the use of numerals to ex¬ 
 press the different choices is attended by fewer mistakes than 
 the use of columns; it is purely a matter of expediency as there 
 is no difference whatever in the principles involved. The fol¬ 
 lowing is an illustration of the first form: 
 
 Candidate Choice 
 
 John Smith_3 
 
 Jack Robinson- 
 
 Harry Jones_2 
 
 Tom Brown_1 
 
 Dick Johnson_ 
 
 Ben Davis_4 
 
 Concerning Robinson and Johnson no preference is expressed. 
 
 The following illustrates the column plan of expressing the 
 same vote: 
 
 Candidate 
 
 1 st Choice 
 
 2nd Choice 
 
 3rd or Other 
 
 
 1 
 
 | 
 
 Choices 
 
 John Smith 
 
 
 X 
 
 l 
 
 Jack Robinson 
 
 
 
 Harry Jones 
 
 X 
 
 
 Tom Brown 
 
 l 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 Dick Johnson 
 
 
 
 l 
 
 Ben Davis 
 
 
 X 
 
 This ballot means that the voter’s first choice is Tom Brown 
 and his second Harry Jones, and of the remaining candidates he 
 would prefer John Smith or Ben Davis to the others. 
 
 II. COUNTING PREFERENTIAL BALLOTS. 
 
 All the methods which have been used may be classed under 
 
6 University of Oklahoma 
 
 three heads: The Ware system, the Bucklin system, and the 
 Nanson system. 
 
 1. The Ware System. 
 
 In this system the first choices are counted first, and if any 
 candidate receives a majority of the first choice votes, he is de¬ 
 clared elected, and no attention is paid to the other choices; the 
 election is exactly as it is now. But if no one has a majority the 
 candidate having the lowest number of first choices is dropped 
 and the second choices of those who voted for him are counted 
 instead of their first choices. After the second count the candi¬ 
 date then having the lowest vote is dropped and the third 
 choices of all who voted for him are counted in the third count. 
 This process may be continued as far as choices are indicated, 
 but usually the one having the largest plurality in the third count 
 is declared elected, as it is generally unnecessary to carry the 
 process farther. 
 
 The chief objection urged against the Ware system of count¬ 
 ing is the dropping of the lowest first choice candidate at the 
 end of the first count. It often happens that the one having the 
 lowest number of first choices has the highest number of sec¬ 
 ond choices, and that usually means the best candidate. To 
 remedy this is the' - chief object of the next system. 
 
 2. The Bucklin System. 
 
 This differs from the Ware system only in that no candidates 
 are dropped; all stay in the count to the end. If no one has a 
 majority in the first count, then the second choices are added 
 to the first; if any candidate has a majority he is declared elect¬ 
 ed; but if not then the third, choices are also added in, and so on 
 to the last choice. If but three, choices are given there are three 
 counts; if there is no majority on the last count the one having 
 the largest vote is declared elected. 
 
 The chief objection to this is that first choices do not count 
 any more than second or lower choices. This is not so much a 
 defect as a failure to reach perfection. But it has been remedied 
 by the proposal of Prof. E. J. Nanson of the University of Mel¬ 
 bourne, Australia. 
 
 3. The Nanson System. 
 
 In this system numerals are used instead of columns. Candi¬ 
 dates are ranked in order of their preference by the voter by 
 placing 1 after the first choice, 2 after the second choice, 
 3 after the third choice, etc. If the voter fails to indicate his 
 choic.e as to the entire list of candidates, each of the remaining 
 
7 
 
 Preferential Ballot 
 
 ■candidates is given the average of the choices not indicated. 
 For example, if there are seven candidates and the voter indi¬ 
 cates only four choices, each of the remaining three would be 
 marked 6, the average of 5, 6, and 7. 
 
 Since 1 indicates the first choice, in the sum of the ranks the 
 smaller total indicates the higher preference. This method has 
 been in use for a long time in judging oratorical contests and 
 debates. 
 
 This method can be made more accurate by the additions of 
 the Nanson system, by which after the ranks have been added 
 their average is found by adding the totals and dividing by the 
 number of candidates. Then all the candidates having a total 
 larger than this average are dropped because their election is 
 absolutely impossible. The object of the Nanson procedure is 
 to insure that the one finally declared elected is preferred to 
 every other candidate comparing them two by two. The fol¬ 
 lowing rules are a good summary of the system: 
 
 Rules for Counting, Nanson System. 
 
 1. The ballots must be transferred to a prepared sheet, copy¬ 
 ing only the exact figures made by the voter. 
 
 2. The candidates not marked by the voter must each be 
 given the average of the ranks unmarked. 
 
 3. All the figures of each candidate indicating the ranks 
 given him by the voters are then added, and the average rank 
 of all the candidates obtained. 
 
 4. Exclude each candidate whose rank equals or exceeds 
 this average. 
 
 5. If only one remains he is elected. 
 
 6 . If two remain the one is elected who was preferred by 
 
 the greater number of voters. 
 
 7. If three or more remain, repeat the processes of 3 and 4 
 until only one or two remain and then apply 5 or 6. 
 
 III. HISTORY. 
 
 \The Preferential Ballot in some form has been studied for 
 several hundred years and has received the attention of many 
 eminent mathematicians. 
 
 The Ware system is known in England as the “alternative 
 vote,” and in Australia as the “preferential vote.” The present 
 form was suggested by Prof. W. R. Ware of Harvard Univer¬ 
 sity. The use of columns for the choices was suggested by Mr. 
 
 D. S. Remsen of New York. This continues the use of the “X” 
 
8 
 
 University of Oklahoma 
 
 stamp with which voters are already familiar and permits the 
 counting to be done at the voting precincts as at present. This 
 system is used in the primary elections of Wisconsin and Minne¬ 
 sota, but limited to two choices. 
 
 The Bucklin system was first proposed by a Frenchman, 
 Condorcet, in 1793. Its present form is chiefly due to the Hon. 
 James W. Bucklin, Grand Junction, Colo., where it was adopted 
 in 1909. It is also used in Spokane, Wash.; Denver, Colo.; Port¬ 
 land, Ore.; Cleveland, O.; North Dakota, etc. It aims to be 
 practical rather than theoretical; it is easily voted and easily 
 counted. 
 
 The Nanson system shows the almost marvellous possibili¬ 
 ties of preferential voting as a means of ascertaining the real 
 will of the people. 
 
 Some form of preferential ballot has also been introduced in 
 Western Australia, Tasmania, Colorado Springs, Pueblo, Fort 
 Collings, Colo., Nashua, N. H., La Grande, Ore., New Iberia, 
 La. It is being rapidly introduced into cities. 
 
 Results of the First Trial of the Bucklin System.f 
 
 The first trial was in Grand Junction, Colo., Nov. 2nd, 1909. 
 A new charter had just been adopted and the two local parties 
 were Pro-charter and Anti-charter; the former about twice as 
 large as the latter. There were four pro-charter candidates and 
 two anti-charter. The total number of votes was 1,847, a ma¬ 
 jority of which was 924, and a majority of first choices was 900. 
 The following was the entire vote: 
 
 Candidates First 
 
 Second 
 
 Other 
 
 Combined 
 
 Combined 
 
 Choices 
 
 Choices 
 
 Choices 
 
 1st and 2nd 
 
 1st, 2nd, 3rd 
 
 D. W. Aupperle 465 
 
 143 
 
 145 
 
 608 
 
 753 
 
 *W. H. Bannister 603 
 
 93 * ** 
 
 43** 
 
 696 
 
 739 
 
 N. A. Lough 99 
 
 231 
 
 328 
 
 330 
 
 658 
 
 *E. B. Lutes 41 
 
 214** 
 
 88 ** 
 
 155 
 
 243 
 
 E. M. Slocomb 229 
 
 357 
 
 326 
 
 586 
 
 912 
 
 Thomas M. Todd 362 
 
 293 
 
 396 
 
 655 
 
 1051 
 
 1799 1231 1326 
 
 *Anti-charter candidates. The others were pro-charter. 
 fSee article by Prof. L. J. Johnson, National Municipal Re¬ 
 view, Jan., 1914. 
 
 **The light anti-charter vote in the second and third columns 
 is due to the fact that the anti-charter voters concentrated on 
 
Preferential Ballot 9 
 
 Under our present system, Bannister would have been elect¬ 
 ed though two-thirds of the voters were opposed to him. Ex¬ 
 amination of the fourth column shows that under the system 
 adopted by Wisconsin and Minnesota Bannister would still have 
 been elected by the simple device, of concentrating the anti¬ 
 charter, and dividing the pro-charter vote. But since the anti¬ 
 charter voters concentrated on Bannister as first choice they had 
 but few votes left for second and other choices. Examination of 
 the fifth column shows that Bannister came out fourth in the 
 final count,—which result is consistent with the facts. The elec¬ 
 tion of Bannister would evidently have made the entire election 
 a farce, but no possible management could have elected him 
 tinder a preferential ballot. 
 
 It is clear that although the anti-charter vote was only about 
 one-third of the total, all that was needed to elect the anti-char¬ 
 ter candidate was to concentrate the anti-charter vote as much 
 as possible, and see to it that enough pro-charter candidates were 
 brought out t-o divide the vote sufficiently. 
 
 As Bannister got all but 41 of the anti-charter votes it is evi¬ 
 dent that 52 of the 93 second choice votes for him must have been 
 cast by pro-charter voters, but still he was far from winning. 
 While under the Wisconsin and Minnesota plan Bannister could 
 not have been elected without these 52 pro-charter votes, it is 
 ■evident that the addition of the third column of “other” choices 
 greatly safe-guards the will of the majority for with it added 
 Bannister’s election is rendered practically impossible. That 
 is, it is practically impossible for a small minority to impose its 
 will upon the majority. 
 
 The preferential ballot has never been used except in pri¬ 
 mary elections and in elections where the primary and final 
 elections are combined in one. The preferential ballot form 
 could be used in a final election after nominations had been 
 made, but the results would be exactly the same as now. For 
 if there were but one candidate on a democratic voter’s ticket, 
 for example, there would be no preference and he would vote 
 his first and only choice. Of course no voter would select his 
 second and third choices from other party tickets for that would 
 be voting against his own party ticket. If there are several 
 names, a preferential ballot gives the voter opportunity to ex- 
 
 Bannister. The total vote of Bannister and Lut,es was 644,—the 
 total anti-charter vote. 
 
10 
 
 University of Oklahoma 
 
 press his preferences among them if he wishes, but of course 
 he is not compelled to. 
 
 In the Grand Junction election given below, 1847 votes were 
 cast. There were 1799 first choices and only 1231 second choices. 
 From this it appears that 48 did not express their first choice,, 
 and of those who did 568 did not indicate their second choice. 
 But the fact that about one-third of the voters did not use their 
 privilege did not prevent 'the admirable result. That some of 
 the voters do not use their privilege of choices does not in the 
 least impair the work of those who do. All the cities which 
 have adopted the preferential ballot have but one election, and as 
 the public become accustomed to it, the same policy would doubt¬ 
 less become universal. Of course in a combined election it would 
 be necessary for the voter to indicate his choice of parties as 
 well as of candidates; this could easily be done as in Belgium. In 
 voting for amendments there could of course be but two choices 
 expressed by “yes” or “no.” 
 
 While the preferential ballot does not require or presuppose 
 any particular method of nomination or getting names on the 
 official ballot, the usual custom is to nominate by petition. The 
 candidate has only to file a petition signed by the required num¬ 
 ber of voters who have not signed a petition for any other can¬ 
 didate for the same office. Any one can run when a sufficient 
 number of his fellow citizens thus endorse his candidacy. The 
 same principle is now followed in initiating bills. 
 
 IV. LETTERS. 
 
 Cambridge, Mass., Feb. 18, 1914. 
 
 Profesor J. W. Scroggs, 
 
 University of Oklahoma, 
 
 Norman, Okla. 
 
 Dear Sir: 
 
 Replying to your favor of the 11th inst. regarding preferen¬ 
 tial voting, I beg to say that I know of no printed matter oppos¬ 
 ed to preferential voting to which I can refer you. Of course, 
 in our compaign for the charter there was more or less ephemer¬ 
 al matter printed by the opposition—but it is nothing of any 
 dignity or validity, merely the politician’s customary sort of ef¬ 
 fort to protect his preserves. You can find more or less in print 
 pertaining to imperfections in preferential voting systems and 
 urging one system as against another, but I know of nothing 
 
Preferential Ballot u 
 
 •of sufficient dignity to be noticed by your Bulletin against pre¬ 
 ferential voting as a whole. 
 
 Preferential voting should be viewed simply as the best 
 known method for economically and conveniently safeguarding 
 the majority interest in the election of public officials or their 
 nominations in a primary. No system yet devised is entirely 
 free from all possible objections, nor is any other human insti¬ 
 tution that I can think of. The preferential ballot simply of¬ 
 fers voters an improved opportunity to get good results if they 
 wish them. It is not automatic- nor fool-proof, nor can it be 
 expected to be, but it has brought highly satisfactory results in 
 a number of important cities and it seems clear is destined to 
 spread rapidly. 
 
 Objectors to it allege that it is “complicated,” “keeps voters 
 away from the polls,” and is not certain to elect the “best man.” 
 The idea that it is complicated, vanishes in the fact of mock 
 elections held with audiences met to hear it explained. Experi¬ 
 ence in Spokane would not indicate that it keeps voters away 
 from the polls, though the first vote in Denver with it was com¬ 
 paratively light. In Denver it doubtless had not been generally 
 ■explained. The more ignorant voters may have been deterred 
 from facing a somewhat unfamiliar task and for that reason 
 •stayed away from the polls. 
 
 Regarding the kind of a candidate it will elect, that depends 
 upon what kind of a candidate the voters vote for. The pre¬ 
 ferential ballot will not elect anybody unless the voters vote 
 for him. The Bucklin system, which in substance is the only 
 ■one which has thus far gone into effect in American cities, and 
 which in my judgment is unquestionably the best one known 
 for such purposes, may occasionally lead to the election of the 
 voters’ second choice, but it has the off-setting advantage that 
 it affords a very substantial safeguard against thoroughly objec¬ 
 tionable candidates, such as are frequently elected under the old 
 system. The gain from the Bucklin system—although it is not 
 a panacea—is a substantial one and sufficient to justify the rapid 
 -expansion of that system. It tends to elect nearly the best if 
 not the best, while the old systems tend toward the worst or 
 nearly the worst. At least the latter offer insufficient barriers 
 against the worst or nearly the worst. The other offers the 
 best now known. 
 
 One stock argument against the preferential ballot vocifer¬ 
 ously urged by politicians of the Tammany type, is that the win¬ 
 ner ought to be required to get a majority of all choices ex- 
 
la University of Oklahoma 
 
 pressed. Although this might obviously require a vote for a. 
 candidate in excess of the total number of voters, they make a 
 lot of talk on this point and lead a lot of people to suppose that 
 the preferential ballot is no substantial advantage, since it can¬ 
 not insure a majority based on such a definition, and of course, 
 it cannot insure a majority based on any rational definition. All 
 it can do is to offer a means for the majority sentiment to crys¬ 
 tallize on some one candidate, if there is any candidate running 
 both widely enough and favorably enough known to attract the 
 vote of the majority, as is frequently the case. 
 
 Hoping that this will cover the ground satisfactorily, I am, 
 Very truly yours, 
 
 LEWIS JEROME JOHNSON. 
 
 To this letter we add the following from the same writer: 
 
 Summary of Advantages of Preferential Voting. 
 
 1. It permits the abolition of primaries without interference 
 with the democratic method of nomination by a merely nomin¬ 
 al number of petitioners. 
 
 2. It permits the nomination of a large number of candi¬ 
 dates with the practical elimination of split tickets. 
 
 3. It fosters campaign methods which greatly reduce the 
 difficulty of getting high grade men to stand for office. It min¬ 
 imizes the unattractiveness of the campaign and effectively dis¬ 
 courages mud-slinging,—the candidate who might otherwise de¬ 
 scend to slander of his opponents is deterred by fear of alienat¬ 
 ing second or other choice votes which might come his way. 
 The responsibility on any one nominee to win may become so 
 slight that a man may accept a nomination in the midst of an 
 absence from the state which is prolonged till after election 
 day—and still be elected. This actually happened when the 
 president of the Spokane Chamber of Commerce was thus elect¬ 
 ed in 1911 as one of a commission of five to a four-year term 
 and from a list of ninety-two nominees for the commission. 
 Other results in preferential voting cities show that the voters 
 are quick, as might be expected, to elect a better grade of of¬ 
 ficials as soon as they are brought within their reach. 
 
 4. It is believed to be the safest known means for protect¬ 
 ing the majority interest against the machine or special 4, inter¬ 
 ests. It cannot, of course, insure a majority for the winning 
 candidate—no system of voting can do so in any literal sense— 
 but, in case no one is widely enough and favorably enough 
 
Preferential Ballot 
 
 known to command a majority in a free, open expression of 
 choice, it offers a greater likelihood than any other known sys¬ 
 tem that the winner will be of a type loyal to the majority in¬ 
 terest, rather than to any machine. 
 
 5. It greatly simplifies the supremely important problem of 
 securing high-grade, non-place-hunting, and competent elective 
 officials. The reasons are suggested in the two preceding sec¬ 
 tions, but this advantage is important enough to warrant sep¬ 
 arate emphasis. 
 
 Of course the easily obtained nomination, freedom from 
 machine control, improved campaign conditions and good 
 chance for victory for an honest, competent, non-self-seeking 
 candidate, which are features of preferential ballot elections, 
 must be supplemented by holding out to such candidates prop¬ 
 erly attractive office-holding conditions. This part of the prob¬ 
 lem has fortunately, however, been pretty well solved in our 
 commission-governed cities, and the preferential ballot comes 
 in as a most welcome means of filling out a hitherto most 
 troublesome gap in our election methods. 
 
 In closing it should be once more emphasized that allowing 
 voters merely a first and second choice does not in a proper 
 sense constitute preferential voting. Since the purpose of the 
 new system is to offer the easiest and most nearly certain 
 means for the majority sentiment to crystallize behind some one 
 of a large number of nominees for an office, it is obvious that 
 voters must be permitted to vote—in one order or another— 
 
 FOR ALL THE CANDIDATES THEY WISH TO SUP¬ 
 PORT. Only a small minority of the cities mentioned have 
 fallen into the seductive, dangerous, and wholly needless error 
 of limiting the allowed number of choices and it is to be hoped 
 that this erroneous practice will not spread. 
 
 The following letter explains itself: 
 
 THE LEWIS AND CLARK HIGH SCHOOL 
 Spokane, Washington 
 
 March 7th, 1914. 
 
 Dr. J. W. Scroggs, 
 
 University of Oklahoma, 
 
 Norman, Oklahoma. 
 
 Dear Sir: 
 
 A short time ago Supt. B. M. Watson placed in my hands a 
 letter of inquiry from you concerning the objections to the pre- 
 
14 University of Oklahoma 
 
 ferential voting system in use here. Aside from what he did in 
 furnishing you a copy of the city charter providing for prefer¬ 
 ential voting, he has asked me to summarize the objections to 
 this system as used here. 
 
 Apart from my incidental observations, I have made inquiry 
 of various men interested in civic affairs and find that there is 
 little objection urged against this method of voting. Of .course, 
 the experience under it is brief, two city elections and a recall 
 election representing all of the experience under the system. 
 
 The first city election under the present charter and prefer¬ 
 ential system found about ninety-five candidates in the field for 
 commissioners,—five to be elected. 
 
 In the opinion of not a few this first election resulted in the 
 choice of one or two men by reason of second or third choice 
 votes who otherwise were not first choice men, i. e., from the 
 standpoint of desirability. So many candidates made the selec¬ 
 tion depend upon pluralities determined by counting all second 
 and third choice votes. In only one instance was a candidate 
 elected by a plurality of first choice votes. This means that four 
 of the commissioners were elected by second and third choice 
 votes—indifferent votes, as some regard it. In one or two in¬ 
 stances, according to the man one may be interviewing, this 
 resulted in unfortunate selections,—selections which would not 
 have been made if voters had not voted for other than their 
 first choice. In other words, the second and third choice votes 
 of voters “snowed under” the prospects of their first choice 
 candidates. 
 
 The first objection then is— 
 
 A weaker candidate in the first choice of voters may win by 
 reason of second or third choice votes against a stronger can¬ 
 didate with more actual first choice votes but far fewer second 
 or third choice votes. 
 
 A man with clearly advanced views who can be plainly under¬ 
 stood by the people will fail or succeed on first choice votes. 
 A man less forceful, but popular, will have a large following of 
 positive friends who give him first choice votes, but who will 
 not succeed in electing him by these votes. The indifferent vote 
 of second and third choice gained by advertising or street talk 
 about a “good fellow” will carry in this popular sport of politi¬ 
 cians. The positive and aggressive candidate will win first 
 
Preferential Ballot 15 
 
 choice votes, but few indifferent second or third choice votes. 
 Those who are not entirely for him are entirely against him,— 
 hence a lesser qualified man may be elected. 
 
 The boomerang character of this feature of preferential vot¬ 
 ing is shown in the experience of the author of the preferential 
 system as used here. This man, Mr. Coates, who was postively 
 active in helping frame the city charter, became a candidate for 
 commissioner among ninety-four others in the first city election. 
 His character and tenets were favorably regarded by many who 
 gave him first choice votes, but not a plurality. Second and 
 third choice votes elected him. He made a strong, aggressive 
 city commissioner, won many friends and made many enemies. 
 He was defeated for reelection last November' because of lack 
 of support in the second and third choice columns. Voters were 
 for him absolutely or absolutely against him. 
 
 The second objection— 
 
 The system cannot be controlled by the “interests.” No one 
 can tell beforehand how voters will act in the election, and no 
 employer can control votes. This objection is obviously not 
 made by men who entertain the objection. It is pointed out for 
 them,—but it exists. A man who is solicited for a vote may say 
 that he voted for every man he promised to vote for, since the 
 charter permits him to vote for every candidate,—as third choice. 
 Saloon interests, under this circumstance, cannot as definitely 
 tell what will be the result of selecting and promoting a candi¬ 
 date acceptable to the churches; for instance, employers cannot 
 determine the action of employees at the polls as definitely. 
 
 The third objection— 
 
 In case there are few candidates, as in the election last No¬ 
 vember, campaigning to control the election takes place in the 
 form of efforts to defeat what looks like a winning candidate by 
 concentrating the second choice votes on some notoriously weak 
 candidate who has no standing, and who may receive only five 
 hundred to seven hundred first choice votes, or less, in a total 
 registration of twenty-two thousand voters, thus subtracting 
 the second choice votes from the more desirable candidate’s 
 strength. 
 
 Perhaps I have been unnecessarily wordy,—but I hope I 
 have served you to some extent. 
 
 Very truly yours, 
 
 Department of History. 
 
 M. M. BEDDALL. 
 
16 University of Oklahoma 
 
 PREFERENTIAL BALLOT. 
 
 A few words on the workings of the preferential ballot first 
 adopted this year. The new charter of the city of Portland pro¬ 
 vides for making nominations by the filing of a relatively small 
 number of individual certificates, the method being designed to 
 make the nomination exceedingly easy. At the election each 
 voter is allowed to indicate among the candidates thus nomi¬ 
 nated a first, second, and third choice for each office, no two 
 choices to be for the same candidate, however. If no one has 
 a majority the third choice votes are counted in. At the election 
 held in June, 1913, only a few weeks after the charter was adopt¬ 
 ed, there were some 87 candidates for the four commissioners 
 to be elected. They included, along with a modicum of very 
 good men, about every species of undesirable, from strong and 
 experienced machine politicians to saloon hangers-on and ticket 
 takers at five-cent “movies.” A voluntary committee of citizens 
 published candid and impartial biographies of them all, and late 
 in the campaign, in response to an urgent popular demand, in¬ 
 dicated the twelve whom they considered the best. The twelve 
 were all excellent men, but only one of them received enough 
 first choice votes to have elected him if the old plurality sys¬ 
 tem had been working, and under that method the men elected 
 to the new commission would have been no whit better than 
 the ordinary type of councilmen from whom our cities have suf¬ 
 fered so long and so grievously. But by use of the second and 
 third choice votes the tables were turned. The candidates elect¬ 
 ed were all from among the twelve named by the committee, 
 and by the consensus of intelligent opinion among the very 
 best of them. The new plan accomplished exactly what its 
 advocates hacl claimed. It focuses upon the best men the suf¬ 
 frages of the voters enabling them to concentrate on a single 
 candidate; a thing which the professional politician with his 
 better organization and better discipline can always do. It is 
 too early to predict that the brilliant success achieved in this 
 election will be permanent, but as explaining it in part I may 
 quote the naive comment of a voter who said to me a few days 
 after the election, “This new way is just what I have always 
 wanted. You see a fellow really has to give a vote to his per¬ 
 sonal friends or to the men who have done something for him, 
 but he can do that with his first choice vote, and these second 
 and third choice votes, I figure they belong to the city.” 
 
 The tale of Oregon’s experience in self-government may be 
 
Preferential Ballot 17 
 
 ■dull enough in the telling; it has not been so in the living. It 
 has been alive with the energies of struggle, shot through with 
 humor, strong with constancy of purpose, sustained by the lift 
 of great and grave hopes. We have been groping our way in 
 no spirit of rash innovation nor unreasoning anger, but with a 
 deep sense of the perfectibility as well as of the imperfections 
 of our political institutions, toward that goal of “government of 
 the people, for the people, and by the people” to which gener¬ 
 ous hearts have aspired in all ages, and we dare to hope our 
 blind and stumbling feet are set on the path where is found the 
 safety of this Republic and the future of democracy itself. 
 
 W. S. U’REN. 
 
18 University of Oklahoma 
 
 DIGEST OF VARIOUS ARTICLES. 
 
 Affirmative. 
 
 1. The preferential ballot has proved a sifting process. Each 
 successive choice acts as a sieve which eliminates the less 
 worthy candidates. 
 
 2. To deprive a voter of any power he can legitimately use 
 and needs to use at the polls is to partially disfranchise him. 
 The preferential ballot gives the voter more power. 
 
 3. It is the regular practice for political rings to run pseudo¬ 
 reformers to divide the vote of the true reformers, and under oul 
 present system the advocates of honest politics are helpless. 
 
 4. Good men have been defeated under the preferential bal¬ 
 lot; but it has never been due to any defect of the system; it was 
 the fault of the voters which no system can cure or attempt to 
 cure. 
 
 \ 5. The convention system is completely discredited; the pri¬ 
 
 mary system is little better; the only other plan suggested is 
 the preferential ballot, and it has succeeded wherever it has 
 been tried. 
 
 6. The preferential ballot is in practice an instruction to 
 those who count the ballots that if the voter’s first choice was 
 lost, count his second; if that was lost also, count his third. Of 
 course no vote can be counted twice. 
 
 7. The gist of the preferential ballot is that if a voter’s first 
 choice is not elected his vote is not lost,—he still has his second 
 choice; if that is lost also, he still has his third choice. So he 
 has three chances to make his vote effective instead of one. 
 
 8. Under the present system a small minority may nomi¬ 
 nate. Under the preferential ballot each nominee would, in 
 most cases, have a majority, and if not elected by a majority he 
 would at least be preferred by a majority to any other candidate. 
 
 9. It is very remarkable that the preferential ballot should 
 have been successful to such an unusual degree from the very 
 first. No serious defect has even yet developed. Even where 
 it has been only partly introduced, it has proved infinitely su¬ 
 perior to the present system. 
 
 10. The preferential ballot would almost if not entirely do 
 away with bribery of voters. If a corrupt candidate wished to 
 bribe a voter he could only buy one choice, and that would not 
 pay. The results would be so uncertain that bribery as now 
 practiced would be impracticable. 
 
 , 11. There is universal complaint at the lack of interest in 
 
 elections, especially primary elections. It is one of the gravest 
 
Preferential Ballot 19 
 
 •dangers which can threaten a free government. One reason 
 for it is that even very intelligent men feel that their vote can 
 affect the result so little that it is not worth the trouble. 
 
 12. If a man vote for a candidate who gets more than a ma¬ 
 jority his vote is not needed,—it does not affect the result. If 
 he vote for a man who gets less than a majority his vote is 
 lost, “thrown away” as the common phrase has it. Under the 
 preferential ballot he has as many chances as he has choices. 
 
 \ 13. It cannot be said that because a man votes for one can¬ 
 didate he therefore forfeits all right to any voice whatever con¬ 
 cerning the others. His convictions concerning them are just 
 as valid as those concerning his first choice and just as im¬ 
 portant to the public, and he has an equal right to express them. 
 
 14. The preferential ballot is certainly worth a trial. It 
 could not well be worse than the present method, and has prov¬ 
 ed far better wherever it has been tried. Essentially the af¬ 
 firmative argument is that it should have a fair trial. The es¬ 
 sential issue is, “Do the arguments in favor of it justify giving 
 it a trial?” 
 
 15. Mankind can only grope its way in political reforms. 
 The present system MUST be improved in some way; all must 
 admit this. The preferential ballot is the only new proposal 
 before the public. Those who are opposed to the present pri¬ 
 mary system, then, must favor either the preferential ballot or 
 a return to the convention system. 
 
 16. A good citizen is often in doubt which of two good 
 candidates to support. Very often they are equally good in his 
 estimation but he inclines to one because of personal reasons. 
 The second choice of a corrupt voter is practically always a 
 better man than his first choice. In such cases the second 
 choice is an immense public advantage. 
 
 17. It is less and less common for any candidate to get a 
 majority over all. This means, of course, that most officials are 
 elected by a minority. This gives an immense advantage to 
 corrupt rings and cliques which are held together by the hope 
 of plunder. It would be impossible to conceive of a method 
 more acceptable to the enemies of society. 
 
 \ 18. Under the preferential ballot a VERY objectionable 
 
 candidate cannot be elected. The successful candidate is the 
 LEAST objectionable if he is objectionable at all. This is of 
 itself an immense gain. Under our present system the very 
 
20 
 
 University of Oklahoma 
 
 worst candidate has an equal chance of election, and often the 
 best chance if his support is compact and undivided. 
 
 19. The preferential ballot would minimize the incentive 
 for mud-slinging and vilification so characteristic of present- 
 day campaigns. If a candidate could not get a voter’s first 
 choice he might get his second choice, thus placing a premium 
 on fairness, courtesy, and gentlemanliness, and upon frankness, 
 candor, and moral earnestness, which we now seldom see. 
 
 20. Experience has demonstrated that with the preferential 
 ballot it is not necessary to have either primary elections or 
 conventions; after the people get accustomed to it one election 
 will be entirely sufficient; thus saving an enormous expense 
 both to the state and to the candidates, and at the same time ex¬ 
 pressing the public will far more fully and clearly than is now 
 possible. 
 
 21. The whole object of an election is to get the choice of 
 the people. But if there are six candidates and the voter can 
 support but one, the election does not register the choice of the 
 people at all, but only one-sixth of-it. If we really wish to get 
 the will of the people every voter should have the opportunity 
 of expressing his will concerning every candidate, or as many 
 of them as he wishes. 
 
 22. Any method which makes it easier to elect worthy men 
 and harder to elect unworthy men commands serious attention; 
 it cannot be put aside lightly. Nothing but the most cogent and 
 convincing reasons would justify its rejection. No such reasons 
 appear. Most of the so-called objections are either fears which 
 have been completely disproved by actual experience; or mere 
 quibbles entitled to little consideration. 
 
 \ s 23. The choice is not between the Preferential Ballot and 
 an ideal, flawless system. The choice is between the Preferen¬ 
 tial Ballot and the most intolerable system in the world. Show¬ 
 ing that some form of the Preferential Ballot has imperfections 
 or that it is unable to meet all demands is not valid argument. 
 The question is, “Is the Preferential system better than the 
 plurality system now in common use in this country?” 
 
 24. The old convention system got so rotten that it is no 
 longer endurable as a means of making nominations, and pri¬ 
 mary elections are substituted for it. But in the convention 
 system each delegate had opportunity to vote for different can¬ 
 didates in the successive ballots taken. Under the present pri¬ 
 mary system the enemies of the public welfare are always unit- 
 
Preferential Ballot 21 
 
 ed, and its friends almost always divided. Such a plan is as 
 stupid as it is suicidal. 
 
 ' 25. The ideal of Democracy is majority rule. This will be 
 conceded by all without discussion. It follows, then, that where 
 we cannot get a majority we should get the largest possible 
 plurality. To demand that we should submit to pluralities of 
 less than one-tenth of the vote is to be false to democratic ideals 
 and principles. Any policy or method which gives the largest 
 possible plurality where majorities are not obtainable is self- 
 evidently and axiomatically preferable. 
 
 ^ 26. The trend of public opinion is to give more and more 
 power to the people. Everywhere the people are be'ng given a 
 greater voice in the control of their government. 7 hat the will 
 of the people is the supreme law is no longer discussed; we are 
 rather trying to find ways of realizing its truth and embodying 
 it in the forms and procedures of our political life. Even if the 
 will of the people is sometimes mistaken and wrong, the world 
 has learned that there is nothing better. 
 
 27. Of course corrupt interests and their tools and dupes do 
 not wish a full, free, and complete expression of the voters’ will 
 at the polls; it would ruin their occupation entirely. A “machine” 
 or a small selfish minority could never hope to dominate an elec¬ 
 tion if the people had full opportunity to express their will at 
 the polls. As it is, when the ballot proves to be futile the peo¬ 
 ple must either submit or rebel with the minority in control of 
 courts, police, and army. Such a condition is intolerable. 
 
 28. Under the present system multitudes are tempted to 
 run for office because a man’s chances for election do not de¬ 
 pend so much on how many votes he gets as upon how much 
 the vote against him is divided. A man who can command one- 
 tenth of the total vote has a chance of election if there are can¬ 
 didates enough. In the primary election in Oklahoma in 1914 
 the democratic nominee for governor received less than 27 per 
 cent, of the total party vote, and the candidate for attorney 
 general only a little over 23 per cent. 
 
 29. If six voters should vote for six candidates there would 
 be no election. In a convention there would be successive bal- 
 lotings giving opportunity for varying the choices; but we have 
 seen that this is impossible in a primary election. At present, 
 one additional vote for either candidate would elect him, and 
 we would say that “the people elected him.” Could any farce 
 be more evident? He might be utterly repugnant to the other 
 
22 University of Oklahoma 
 
 four voters and yet they are charged with electing him because 
 they took part in the election. 
 
 30. The preferential ballot will be especially advantageous 
 to farmers. As a class they are too widely separated to get 
 together either for consultation or cooperation. At present the 
 most dangerous candidates are those supported by the criminal 
 classes in the cities or by corrupt interests. Though a few 
 farmers might be deceived into supporting such under our pres¬ 
 ent ballot it is inconceivable that they would vote two or three 
 choices for such. By giving the farmers three choices their 
 vote would be practically three times as influential as it now is. 
 
 31. Experience has abundantly proved that voters do not 
 duplicate their first choices in their second. The order in which 
 human nature usually responds to such a situation is: First 
 choice, which man do I like best; second choice, which will 
 make the best official. To the public the second choice has 
 usually more value than the first, of which it is entirely depriv¬ 
 ed by our present system. Actual tests where the preferential 
 primary is in use show that an excellent candidate will receive 
 a small first choice vote but an overwhelming second choice 
 vote. 
 
 32. The Object of elections is to ascertain the people’s will 
 concerning candidates. There are only four alternatives: Muz¬ 
 zle the voters at the polls, go back to the convention, limit the 
 number of candidates, or the preferential ballot. The first is un¬ 
 thinkable, the second has failed, the third is impossible, and the 
 fourth has proved one of the most successful devices in political 
 history. Even if the objections to a preferential ballot were a 
 hundred-fold greater than they are, it would still be by far the 
 best method known of dealing with the problem of nominations. 
 It is right, just, and expedient. 
 
 33. The preferential vote is endorsed by all the leading 
 statesmen in the United States and in foreign countries. Presi¬ 
 dent Wilson is president of the Preferential Voting League of 
 the United States. Ex-President Roosevelt and ex-President 
 Taft are among the leading members of the League. It is op¬ 
 posed only by corrupt politicians and by those who profit by 
 the present inefficient voting methods, by all those who seek to 
 thwart a full and complete expression of the will of the peo¬ 
 ple. The preferential ballot would put an end to the pernicious 
 activities of the corrupt party boss. 
 
 34. The preferential ballot could dispense with one election, 
 thus saving the state and the tax payers hundreds of thousands 
 
Preferential Ballot 23 
 
 of dollars every two years. It will also save the expense of 
 thousands of candidates in making their campaigns for nomi¬ 
 nation. This item will total millions of dollars for every elec¬ 
 tion. And the people pay the bill. They pay not only the legi¬ 
 timate expenses of holding the election, printing ballots, rent for 
 the polling places, salaries of judges of election and returning 
 and canvassing officers, but in the long run they pay the cam¬ 
 paign expenses of the candidates as well. 
 
 35. We must understand, then, that any effort to prevent a 
 full expression of the people’s will is really an effort to limit 
 the rule of the people. The people must speak their will before 
 it can be made effective. It follows that any effort to muzzle 
 the people at the ballot box is in reality an attack on popular 
 government. To refuse to provide full and complete facilities 
 for the expression of the people’s will is to deny the right of 
 the people to express their will. The real question, then, is 
 whether the Preferential Ballot will afford greater facilities for 
 full and complete expression of the popular will. 
 
 36. Few delegates would attend a convention if only one 
 ballot were taken; it would not pay. The same feeling will soon 
 prevail concerning primary elections. Since successive ballots 
 cannot be taken in a primary election, evidently the most just 
 and expedient method is to allow each voter to express several 
 choices. If then after counting it appears that the first choices 
 give no one a majority, the second choices could be counted; if 
 there were still no majority, the third choices could be counted, 
 and so on. Experience proves that two or three choices are 
 sufficient to remedy the worst defects of the primary election. 
 
 37. It seldom happens in any primary election that there 
 are not two or more candidates for either of whom an elector 
 would be willing to vote, but several for whom nothing could 
 induce him to vote. By limiting his power to the expression of 
 only one choice he can vote for one and must treat all the others 
 exactly alike. It is perfectly evident that his ballot so limited 
 does not express his will or his attitude towards the candidates, 
 and so such an election would not show the real acceptability of 
 the candidates, the very thing for which elections are supposed 
 to be held. The method of voting should reveal the public 
 opinion. 
 
 38. Under the present system a voter must often sacrifice 
 his principles for the man. If he votes for a man who is not 
 elected he fails to effectively support the principle for which 
 he stood. If he has a second choice he can vote for another 
 
24 
 
 University of Oklahoma 
 
 man holding the same principles and may help elect him. So 
 that principles are safer under a preferential ballot than under 
 the present system. It is common to see principles sacrificed 
 to the ambition of candidates. A man will run for office when 
 he knows full well that he will divide the support of his prin¬ 
 ciples and elect a man holding the opposite. This is constantly 
 happening. 
 
 39. In some cities and countries the plan has been adopted 
 of requiring a second election when no candidate has a ma¬ 
 jority. This is not only an enormous expense but it fails to 
 express the real will of the people. The candidates at the second 
 election must necessarily be those who had the highest vote at 
 the first election. But these are very likely to be the ones sup¬ 
 ported by the machines, and the voters at the second primary 
 must choose between two candidates both of whom they re¬ 
 pudiate. It looks more like a method of defeating the people’s 
 will than a method of ascertaining it. It is but little if any bet¬ 
 ter than the present system. 
 
 40. The only rule which conserves the public welfare is, 
 as President Wilson says, the rule of right and reason. We 
 believe in the rule of the people only because history shows 
 that they are more likely to give us the rule of right and 
 reason than any monarchy or oligarchy. Beyond all question 
 the preferential ballot is an aid to the rule of the people, and 
 so of right and reason. It makes it harder for an oligarchy of 
 any kind to control or defeat the will of the majority. Its sole 
 purpose is to make sure that the will of the majority is fully and 
 clearly expressed. And experience is proving that it really does 
 this, even where only partly tried. 
 
 41. They hdve had primary elections in Arkansas for a long 
 time. The tactics of those who wished licensed saloons was to 
 get one license man and several anti-license men to run for 
 county judge. This would divide the temperance people and 
 elect the license man by a plurality vote. This often happened 
 when not one-fourth of the voters favored the successful candi¬ 
 date. We know that such things are done in every election. 
 Our present method enables a determined faction however cor¬ 
 rupt to keep itself in power indefinitely by the simple device of 
 dividing its opponents. And the characteristic American hun¬ 
 ger for office will continue this condition. 
 
 42. The abuses of our present system are already enormous 
 and rapidly increasing. The voter is overwhelmed with candi¬ 
 dates at every primary election. No one can possibly obtain a 
 
Preferential Ballot 25 
 
 majority and nominations are by smaller and smaller minorities. 
 No man who supports the present system can plead ignorance 
 of the facts; and pretexts and excuses will no longer avail. All 
 must admit that the present system must be improved or be 
 abandoned. It is the best possible system for enabling a few 
 selfish men to dominate the state for their own interests. There 
 are objections to everything, but there are fewer valid objec¬ 
 tions to the preferential primary than to any similar proposal. 
 
 43. The most unanswerable argument for the preferential 
 ballot is successful experience. It has already been introduced 
 in Grand Junction, Pueblo, Colorado Springs, and Denver, Colo¬ 
 rado; Spokane, Washington; Duluth, Minnesota; Portland, 
 Oregon; Cleveland, Ohio. It is used for final elections in West 
 Australia, Queensland, Victoria, and Tasmania; and for pri¬ 
 mary elections in Wisconsin, Minnesota, and North Dakota; 
 and has been partially introduced in Idaho, Washington, Ne¬ 
 braska, California, Oregon, New Jersey, and South Dakota. 
 Different methods are being tried but the universal testimony 
 of all but the corrupt or ignorant is that any form is an infinite 
 improvement. 
 
 44. Experience demonstrates that candidates for corrupt or 
 selfish interests poll their full strength on the first choice bal¬ 
 lot. Nobody else is interested in them so they get almost 
 nothing on the second choice ballot. The experience is that the 
 largest choice vote goes to the ablest and cleanest candidates, 
 to the men of the highest character and reputation. Cases have 
 occurred where a man receiving a small first choice vote was 
 the almost unanimous second choice. That is to say, in the 
 second choices the chances are in favor of the public and against 
 its enemies. A voter prefers “A” as his first choice. Of the 
 remaining candidates he thinks “B” is the safest, the least ob¬ 
 jectionable so he gives him his second choice. 
 
 45. The present system is absolutely intolerable. What¬ 
 ever is done, this cannot continue. We are deceiving ourselves 
 with mere forms when we are governed by the machine. The 
 ballot box is the arbiter of all our political fortunes; we cannot 
 afford to make it a farce. Experience proves that the prefer¬ 
 ential ballot reduces this evil to a minimum, as in Wisconsin. 
 It shows that while first choices are influenced chiefly by per¬ 
 sonal or party reasons, the second choices are prevailingly for 
 the ablest and best known and best trusted men. This is not 
 mere theory; it actually happens. And when the machine finds 
 
26 
 
 University of Oklahoma 
 
 that nothing is gained by dividing the anti-machine vote they 
 quit trying, and the number of candidates diminish. 
 
 46. All arguments against the preferential ballot are abso¬ 
 lutely negatived and discredited by the overwhelming success 
 it has achieved wherever it has been tried. It is useless to argue 
 that the preferential ballot will not work when it IS working, 
 and working better than anything else that has ever been tried. 
 While the first steamboat was crossing the Atlantic a learned 
 engineer read a paper proving conclusively that it could not be 
 done. When the electric light was first discovered experts at 
 Madison, Wisconsin, proved to their own satisfaction that it 
 was impossible. The opponents of the preferential ballot are 
 equally mistaken. They are trying to prove that it will not work 
 when it is working with complete and triumphant success. 
 
 47. Because a voter expresses his preference for one can¬ 
 didate is no possible reason why he should forfeit his right to 
 express his preference among the other candidates. If there 
 were a dozen candidates the voter has an qual right to indicate 
 his opinion concerning each of them. Voting for one rejects the 
 others as first choice of course but expresses no preference be¬ 
 tween them; he is powerless to prevent the worst one of the 
 eleven from being elected. In other words he loses eleven- 
 twelfths of his voting power; and if there were twenty candi¬ 
 dates he would lose nineteen-twentieths, and so on. He could 
 have his full power only when there were but two candidates. 
 His ballot should enable him to indicate all the names most 
 satisfactory to him. 
 
 48. Under our present system there is an increasing number 
 of good citizens of all classes,—farmers, preachers, teachers,, 
 business men, laborers who feel that it is not worth while to 
 go to the polls on election day. They see that politics is 
 manipulated by the professionals who make every effort to de¬ 
 feat the popular will. The effect of a single choice at the polls 
 is so insignificant, so easily offset or annulled, their vote would 
 not make much difference so they stay away. No democracy 
 can survive the loss of such voters and for such a reason. When 
 there is only one machine candidate, who will get any consider¬ 
 able vote and a dozen anti-machine candidates what is the use 
 of voting? The inevitable result is just as certain before the 
 voting as after the counting. 
 
 49. It is objected that an intelligent voter can use the pref¬ 
 erential ballot more effectively than an ignorant, incapable voter 
 
 No legislation can make ignorance equal to intelligence. 
 
 can. 
 
Preferential Ballot 27 
 
 The state goes to enormous expense to give every voter an op- 
 portunity to become intelligent and capable; if he does not avail 
 himself of it the fault is his own. If the intelligent citizen can 
 use the ballot more effectively than the hobo or the ignoramus 
 nobody is wronged and the state is the gainer. The primary 
 object of the ballot is public service, not private gain, else a 
 man could sell his vote. Incompetent service is barely service 
 at all. A ballot which gives the advantage to intelligent citizen¬ 
 ship and at the same time makes selfish, unsocial schemes almost 
 impossible is as near the ideal as we can well hope for. 
 
 50. The theory and practice of free government centers at 
 the ballot box. If the ballot' fails rightly to express the will of 
 the people we have a clear perversion of free government. It 
 is notorious that the result of an election is often contrary to 
 the wishes of a great majority of the people. These facts are 
 becoming so well known that men can no longer hold up their 
 heads among patriotic people and advocate the continuance of 
 cur present methods. The will of the people is so often defeat¬ 
 ed that many are losing confidence in free institutions and popu¬ 
 lar government; and the determination to introduce methods of 
 voting which will give a fuller and freer expression of the popu¬ 
 lar will is rapidly becoming irresistible. The people can no 
 longer be tricked by plausible arguments; they demand results. 
 
 51. In the practical working of the preferential ballot the 
 voter indicates his first choice exactly as in the present ballot. 
 If any candidates has a majority of the first choices he is duly 
 elected and the election is over. If, however, no candidate has a 
 majority of the first choices we have to choose between the 
 present method of declaring the one with the largest minority 
 elected or permitting another choice. If it were not for the ex¬ 
 pense and delay of a second election that would be universally 
 resorted to, as in Germany, and a second ballot as in conven¬ 
 tions. But a second election is not necessary. A second choice 
 can be indicated on the same ballot which indicates the first 
 choice, and all the expense and delay of a second election re¬ 
 duced to merely a recount of the first ballot and adding in the 
 second choices. 
 
 52. We all know that a multitude of candidates means that 
 a minority is trying to nominate an unworthy man by dividing 
 the opposition to him. Both theory and experience demonstrate 
 that the preferential ballot makes it impossible for a small mi¬ 
 nority to triumph over an unorganized and divided majority. 
 It involves no possible favoritism or injustice to any voter for 
 

 28 University of Oklahoma 
 
 all have exactly the same privilege. The essence of the remedy 
 is in removing all restrictions from the voters at the polls and 
 allowing them the fullest possible expression of their will. 
 What honest objection can possibly be made to that? The 
 delegate whom the voter sends to a convention may vary his 
 choices in successive ballots as much as he pleases, but in the 
 primary eletcion the voter himself is allowed but one choice, 
 however inadequate it may be as an expression of his will. 
 
 53. Suppose the issue in a city election is the granting of a 
 corrupt franchise by the city council. Those who favor the 
 franchise are in the minority but by nominating a single fran¬ 
 chise man in each ward and concentrating on him, and getting 
 a number of candidates to run who are opposed to the fran¬ 
 chise they easily divide the opposition, elect their men and get 
 their franchise When it may be that three-fourths of the people 
 are opposed to it. This happens again and again. But with sec¬ 
 ond choices all this is changed. The first choices would be 
 divided exactly as now, but the best men would get the largest 
 vote of the second choices while the franchise candidates could 
 get no second choices for they have only one candidate in each 
 ward. Now under the preferential ballot since the pro-fran¬ 
 chise candidates did not get a majority the second choices must 
 be counted. While the anti-franchise voters would divide on 
 candidates they would all vote against the franchise. The re¬ 
 sult would be that the second ballot or choice would double the 
 anti-franchise vote while the utmost strength of the franchise 
 supporters was given in the first choice ballots and cannot pos¬ 
 sibly be increased, for in each ward they concentrated their 
 strength on a single candidate and have no second choice. 
 Under the preferential ballot, then, their case would have been 
 absolutely hopeless from the first. Their only chance to win 
 is to muzzle the voters at the polls so that there cannot be a 
 full, free, fair expression of their will. 
 
Preferential Ballot 29 
 
 DIGEST OF VARIOUS ARTICLES. 
 
 Negative. 
 
 1. The preferential ballot is sometimes called a “majority 
 system.” It is not, and no system yet proposed will, in all cases, 
 secure a majority for one candidate. 
 
 2. It is no argument to say that unworthy men are some¬ 
 times elected under our present system. That will happen under 
 any system. If bad men get votes enough under any system 
 they will be elected. 
 
 3. But if a vote is so complicated that its results cannot be 
 determined it creates a condition closely akin to anarchy. When 
 in the excitement of an election different results are announced 
 there would undoubtedly be strife and possibly civil war. 
 
 4. The affirmative are advocating a system where the chief 
 thing is not how you vote but how you count. Enough men get 
 “counted out” now with a single choice; what could we expect 
 when each voter tried to express three or more choices? 
 
 5. Whatever the purposes of the proposed system it must 
 be held responsible for its failures. One could not criticise the 
 purpose of perpetual motion; it is magnificent. It is not the 
 purpose that counts but the efficiency. Folly may easily be a 
 crime. 
 
 6. The advocates of the preferential primary have no right 
 to urge the change till they can agree on how to count. To 
 adopt a system which has three ways of counting, all giving dif¬ 
 ferent results, could only result in greater confusion and uncer¬ 
 tainty than now exists. 
 
 7. The complications of the preferential ballot are inherent 
 in the system. There is no possibility that they can ever be elimi¬ 
 nated. And as' every system tends to become more complicated 
 and involved with use, if a ballot begins by being incompre¬ 
 hensible what can be its future? 
 
 8. According to the showing made by the affirmative the 
 very same vote may elect different men according to the way 
 the vote is counted; and the decision is arbitrary as to which 
 method shall be used. You would have to have fine mathema¬ 
 ticians for election judges, and then they would not agree as to 
 what should be the result. 
 
 9. The preferential ballot, by means of its second and other 
 choices, enables several candidates to combine against another, 
 thus opening the way to far more corrupt bargaining and trad¬ 
 ing than is possible under our present straight-forward, clean- 
 
30 University of Oklahoma 
 
 cut, single-choice ballot. The possibilities of corruption would 
 be far greater than under our present system. 
 
 10. The preferential ballot is illusory in that with all its 
 fuss and feathers it does not secure a majority of all the choices. 
 Even though each voter had five choices the so-called winner 
 would still have a minority in perhaps most cases. As all the 
 choices after the first indicate but little real preference, it is 
 evident that but little at most is gained by the innovation. 
 
 11. While the “high brows” who advocate the complicated 
 ticket required by the advocates of the preferential primary may 
 possibly see through all its intricacies it is certain to be and to 
 remain a mystery to the common man. And no free people will 
 ever trust the correctness of a vote to a method of counting 
 which they do not understand. This is self-evident and unques¬ 
 tionable. 
 
 12. Every added complication gives the trickster an im¬ 
 mensely increased advantage. Every additional count gives op¬ 
 portunity for renewed manipulations and tamperings. Where 
 voters must vote for not only a first choice but for two or more 
 otb^r choices the possibilities for fraud which cannot be de¬ 
 tected are indefinitely increased. To advocate a system which 
 aids fraud is neither patriotism nor good citizenship. 
 
 13. The advocates of a preferential primary do not agree 
 among themselves as to how the vote should be counted. Two 
 of the methods are admitted to be defective even by their ad¬ 
 vocates, and under the third method if the voter does not ex¬ 
 press all his choices they must be filled in for him by the judges. 
 That condemns it. That such changes would greatly increase 
 the opportunities for fraud is absolutely undeniable. 
 
 14. There is little or no demand for the preferential ballot 
 among the leaders and successful statesmen. The demand 
 comes chiefly from professional agitators and disappointed of¬ 
 fice-seekers who have failed to secure any solid and influential 
 following among the present parties; men who know that they 
 are nobody’s first choice think that if second or third or tenth 
 choices could be counted they would have some chance for 
 election. 
 
 15. A justice of the supreme court in Pennsylvania says 
 that in 1910 more than 100,000 defective ballots were voted in 
 that state. This was under a perfectly simple, uncomplicated 
 ballot with only one choice. The fact must be reckoned with 
 that men become confused when they undertake to fill out a bal¬ 
 lot. It is useless to criticise or deny this statement. This fact 
 
Preferential Ballot 31 
 
 is one of the limitations of democracy which we must recognize 
 and provide for as best we can. 
 
 16. It is very difficult to get the vote counted correctly when 
 each voter has but one choice. A recount very rarely shows the 
 same result as the first count; and very often the recount elects 
 a different man. To count a vote and make absolutely no mis¬ 
 takes is a. well-night impossible feat. The most we can hope 
 for is that the errors should not be large enough to change the 
 right result. To further complicate a count already difficult is 
 not only inexpedient but suicidal. 
 
 17. The chief consideration in any proposed political reform 
 is “will it work?” It may be fine in theory but utterly impractic¬ 
 able. The philosopher, John Locke, wrote the colonial constitu¬ 
 tion for Georgia. It was fine in theory but a ridiculous failure 
 in practice. Plato, one of the greatest men of all time, wrote a 
 description of an ideal republic, but it will never be even tried 
 by rational men. That political theories are plausible is no 
 evidence that they are practicable. 
 
 18. The first question with every device of government is 
 its expediency, its practicableness. If it will not work, then 
 there is nothing more to be said about it; it is not only useless 
 as an expedient of government, but dangerous. All uncertainty 
 as to whether a thing will work or not is the very strongest 
 argument against it. We do not need to show that it will work 
 badly; we only have to show that it has not been proved that it 
 works well. The presumption is against every political device 
 until it has been proved to be expedient and practicable. 
 
 19. It has been fully demonstrated that political parties are 
 absolutely necessary to a free government. Even though they 
 are sometimes abused they are still indispensable. It is evident 
 that one of the purposes of the preferential ballot is to destroy 
 political parties. All political organization must go to pieces at 
 the polls when a voter must annul his first choice by his second, 
 and both his first and second by his third choice. It is hard 
 enough to line up voters in support of party principles with 
 only one choice; with three or more it would be utterly im¬ 
 possible. 
 
 20. It has been demonstrated in Oklahoma and elsewhere 
 that a great many voters do not have even a first choice. It is 
 worth thousands of votes in a state election to be near the top 
 of the list of candidates on the ballot. This fact is admitted 
 and the legislature has tried to remedy it by rotating the names 
 on the ballot in alphabetical order. Now if there are thousands 
 
32 
 
 University of Oklahoma 
 
 of voters who do not even have a first choice, what is the use of 
 giving them two or more choices? What possible gain? And 
 after all, no voter has more than one real choice. His second 
 and third choices only mean that he would tolerate those if he 
 had to. 
 
 21. Again, the advocates of a preferential ballot cannot even 
 agree as to how a ballot should be marked. Some would have 
 separate columns for first and second choices and a column for 
 all other choices. Some would have five choices with as many 
 columns. If any voter should put the “X” indicating his choice 
 in the wrong column it would vitiate his ballot. Others would 
 have the voter designate his choice by placing the number after 
 each name which indicates the rank of his preference for each 
 candidate; so that each voter would have to distinguish clearly 
 between his fifth and seventh choices, for example, or run the 
 risk of defeating his purpose. 
 
 22. Under the preferential ballot system, if a strong party 
 man cannot elect his own candidate he would prefer to have the 
 weakest and most disreputable candidate of the opposite party 
 elected. Although this may seem incredible treason to free in¬ 
 stitutions it is notorious that partisans would do this. Under 
 the present system a man can vote only his own ticket; he is 
 powerless to meddle with the ticket of any other party. But 
 under a preferential system, schemes and tricks and complica¬ 
 tions would be beyond the control of human intelligence. As 
 soon as politicians learn to use it they would have the public 
 more at their mercy than ever. 
 
 23. The affirmative offer us three systems of counting votes, 
 and they cannot agree among themselves as to which is best. 
 Champions of the Bucklin system claim that it is far superior 
 to any other. Advocates of the Ware system are sure that no 
 other system is practicable but theirs. While advocates of the 
 Nanson system demonstrate mathematically that both the other 
 systems are hopelessly defective. Supporters of both the Ware 
 and Bucklin systems admit the superiority of the Nanson method 
 but claim that it is far too complicated to ever be used except 
 in very small communities. Its superiority can only be demon¬ 
 strated by the use of higher mathematics with which not one in 
 a thousand is familiar enough to see any force in the alleged 
 arguments. 
 
 24. The ethical maxim, principles before men, is fundamental 
 in politics. We cannot sacrifice it without self-destruction. The 
 preferential ballot clearly emphasizes men more than principles. 
 
Preferential Ballot 33 
 
 In fact, principles must be lost sight of almost entirely. When 
 it comes to principles, we cannot have first, second, and other 
 choices. A man’s first choice cannot be protection and his sec¬ 
 ond choice free trade; license his first choice and prohibition his 
 second choice. If there are three choices but only two candidates 
 how can the elector vote the third choice and regard his prin¬ 
 ciples? He must evidently forsake his principles if he votes for 
 a third choice, for there are only two candidates representing 
 his principles. It is evident that the preferential ballot relegates 
 principles to an inferior place. 
 
 25. One of the serious objections to the Ware system is the 
 fact that a man who is personally the best man for the office may 
 not command a very high first choice vote, because he may be¬ 
 long to a minority party, and party lines may be strongly drawn. 
 As a second choice, however, he might be the overwhelming 
 choice of a large majority. Nearly all the voters might feel that 
 if they cannot elect their party man they would much prefer 
 this minority party man to any other candidate. Under the 
 Ware plan such a man would be excluded if he had the smallest 
 first choice vote, even if he were the unanimous second choice. 
 This defeats the chief end of the preferential ballot; and in the 
 judgment of most advocates of the preferential ballot is of little 
 if any advantage over the present system. 
 
 26. The preferential ballot will keep practically every one 
 away from the polls who does not thoroughly understand it or 
 who is even uncertain as to his thorough knowledge of it. This 
 actually happened at Denver. Thus to complicate a method of 
 voting so that many will not and maybe cannot understand it is 
 practically to disfranchise them. Men are very prone to neglect 
 their electoral duties anyway, and they will be very much more 
 apt to if they think it is not worth while to vote. Such a feel¬ 
 ing will be very much intensified if they feel that because of a 
 complicated ballot and their insufficient knowledge of how to pse 
 it they may not express their real wish even if they do vote. 
 It is all too easy for voters to say, “What’s the use?” already 
 without giving any more justification for it. 
 
 27. One state having the preferential ballot had this experi¬ 
 ence. It had a chronic candidate for governor who had been 
 trying for twenty-five years to get the nomination. Under the 
 convention system he sometimes got a few complimentary votes 
 but no one really took his candidacy seriously. After the adop¬ 
 tion of the preferential primary there were on one occasion 
 three candidates, one of whom was the chronic candidate. The 
 
34 
 
 University of Oklahoma 
 
 rivalry between the other two candidates was so great that 
 their supporters naturally voted for the joke as second choice; 
 they had to in fact, to prevent the election of the rival they op¬ 
 posed. Of course the chronic candidate was nominated by a 
 laree majority. Under the preferential ballot system such occur¬ 
 rences would be the rule rather than the exception. 
 
 28. The affirmative do not seem to be aware of or to realize 
 the seriousness of the situation which would result from any 
 doubt or uncertainty as to the correctness of the count of a vote. 
 It could not be expected that any one would accept or abide by 
 the result unless he were sure it was true and correct. To do so 
 would be treasonable indifference to public duty. It is inevit¬ 
 able that charges of fraud would be made under such conditions, 
 dissatisfaction and strife would result, and possibly even war. 
 The affirmative do not seem to realize that acquiescence in a vote 
 is absolutely impossible unless the people are satisfied that the 
 vote was actually cast as counted and reported. We cannot af¬ 
 ford to introduce the least uncertainty here; and that the pro¬ 
 posed preferential ballot system undoubtedly does. 
 
 29. When voters are uncertain as to the correctness of the 
 count it is impossible that they should acquiesce quietly in an 
 adverse vote. It is hard enough to submit to the election of a 
 bad man when we are sure that a majority of the voters wished 
 him; but when we feel that his election is due to a method of 
 counting the vote which no ordinary man understands and can 
 demonstrate it may often be that acquiescence and submission 
 are not a duty at all. People will not and ought not to submit 
 to be governed by laws when they are not assured of their 
 legality. The refusal to do so has always been characteristic 
 of the Anglo-Saxon race. A method which introduces any un¬ 
 certainty as to the result of an election is not to be even con¬ 
 sidered. It is a stab at the vitals of free government. 
 
 30. While we are considering the theoretical advantages of 
 a proposal we must also consider what use may be made of it 
 by the enemies of society and good government. A law might 
 have many good points and yet the enemies of good govern¬ 
 ment might make more effective use of it than the friends of 
 good goverhirlerif could. A clause Was put in the Fourteenth 
 Amendment to protect negroes, but i’t has proved' 'the 1 greatest 
 bulwark of the special interests, who have invoked the “due 
 process of law’* provision infinitely more than the negrd'es' haVe. 
 And when “due prbcess” is made to include indefinite appeals 
 with their cost's and'delays, negroes and all 1 other poor are de- 
 
Preferential Ballot 
 
 prived of the very protection the law finearlt to ifive. 'Ar9f y&P, 
 any one who opposed that amendment Wohl'd Wuhtle'ss dia^fe 
 been denounced as an enemy of the poor. 
 
 31. One of the chief objections to the Bucklin system is'that 
 each choice is nullified by the succeeding- choices;—that is, the 
 first choice is nullified by the second, and both tffe 1 first and 
 second by the "third choice. Since it is very seldom that thfe 
 first choice is elected, it is-very evident that the important choice 
 is not the first but the second or third. But the attempts to 
 mass the vote on the second or third choices would require such 
 strategy that ^the “manipulator” or “fixer” would be far more 
 potent than under our present system. It is certainly no im¬ 
 provement to compel a voter to undo with his ‘ second choice 
 what he does with his first choice. It may often be but an in¬ 
 genious way of annulling his vote entirely. At most he would 
 have but one vote left unannulled, and that is what he has now. 
 The preferential ballot is an ingenious illusion. 
 
 32. The objections to the Nanson system are many and 
 serious. In the first place the method of counting is so compli¬ 
 cated that not one man in a thousand will ever be able to under¬ 
 stand it, and he could not explain it. There is little likelihood 
 that the people will ever entrust their political fortunes to such 
 a method. Another objection is that the vote cannot be counted 
 by the local judges where it is cast, but must be transcribed and 
 sent to the state canvassing board. This will offer means of 
 tampering and manipulation such as have never been dreamed 
 of. And if the vote is finally counted wrong its detection would 
 be impossible. It is inconceivable that a free people would ever 
 submit to such a law, even if they could be induced to establish 
 it. It is just as important in a democracy that the people 
 should know there is no fraud as it is that there be none. 
 
 33. The hours following an election while the results are 
 being determined is the most critical time in the life of a free 
 government. Not only are the personal fortunes of the candi¬ 
 dates at stake, but the dominance of parties and the destiny of 
 the nation are also involved. Everything depends on the ac¬ 
 quiescence of the people in the result. Anything that delays 
 such acquiescence prolongs the crisis and increases the danger. 
 Those who can remember the terrific strain of the presidential 
 election of 1876 when the result was in doubt for several weeks 
 will never wish to see. such conditions repeated or vote for any 
 policy which will make them frequent. The supreme question 
 concerning every electoral method is not how well it figures 
 
36 University of Oklahoma 
 
 out to suit the theorists or mathematicians, but how well it 
 operates to prevent such crises, or times of public uncertainty 
 and stress. 
 
 34. In the United States we have carried party organization 
 and government to absurd and monstrous extremes. When men 
 will vote for the devil on their own party ticket in preference to 
 a saint on another ticket we have made our nation a paradise 
 for boodlers and political bosses. If men will not use discrimi¬ 
 nation in their first choice, if they ignore capacity and character 
 when they vote, then we may be sure that no trick of balloting 
 device, or complicated mathematical counting can deliver us 
 from the inevitable result. If we vote for bad or weak or in¬ 
 competent men we shall have unsatisfactory officers, and no 
 fine-spun preferential ballot or any other kind of ballot is going 
 to prevent it. No system of counting ballots can save us from 
 the consequences of our folly. A far easier way is to stop the 
 foolishness. We ought not to encourage voters to think that 
 they can carry folly and treason to the ballot box and then be 
 saved from the results by some ingenious way of counting. 
 
 35. The most conclusive objection to the so-called preferen¬ 
 tial ballot is that it has never been defined; no one knows what 
 it means. If it were adopted nothing would be established. To 
 one advocate it means the Ware system, to another it means the 
 Bucklin system, to still another it means the Nanson system. It 
 is very common to hear an advocate of one of these systems 
 say that it is better to continue the present system than to 
 change to any kind of a preferential system except the one he 
 prefers. It is perfectly evident that the advocates of so-called 
 preferential voting should agree among themselves as to just 
 what they mean by it before they ask to have it adopted. If 
 they cannot agree among themselves why in the name of com¬ 
 mon sense should they seek to confuse the public mind? If 
 those who believe in it and are so interested in it cannot define 
 it, how on earth do they expect the rest of us to do any better 
 when they care nothing about it? Do they wish us to adopt a 
 method of voting that would require a civil war to get counted? 
 
 36. The lack of precise definition puts the negative at great 
 disadvantage in arguing against it. If it attacks one meaning, 
 the affirmative can shift to another and still claim that it is 
 advocating the preferential ballot. If the negative show that the 
 Ware system would normally defeat the best candidate, they 
 will advocate the Bucklin system. When it is shown that under 
 it second choices have equal weight with first choices and may 
 
Preferential Ballot 37 
 
 annuli them, the reply is ready that the Nanson system does 
 not do this. When it is objected that the Nanson system is so 
 abstruse that no ordinary mortal could tell whether it is right 
 or not, the reply is that the Ware and Bucklin systems are both 
 very simple. It is the present system against the field. Its sup¬ 
 porter finds everybody attacking him but when he fights back 
 his opponents hide behind each other. He supports the present 
 system because he sees no better, for these three methods are 
 not a system but confusion. The present method is definite, 
 simple, concrete; the affirmative have no case till their proposal 
 is similarly stated. 
 
 37. Under both the Ware and the Nanson systems the votes 
 cannot be counted in the precincts where the voting is done. 
 The final votes for county officers must be counted at the coun¬ 
 ty seat, and the vote for all offices which include more than one 
 county must be canvassed at the state capital or elsewhere. It 
 would be weeks, then, before the result could be known in many 
 cases; and in the transportation of the ballots or transcripts of 
 them there would be opportunities for tampering far beyond 
 anything now known. At the last congressional election in Ok¬ 
 lahoma there were three candidates to be elected at large and 
 forty-three candidates. This would require forty eliminations 
 each one requiring a shifting of votes caused by dropping the 
 name with the lowest number of votes. Even supposing that 
 the counters were perfectly and phenomenally honest there is 
 no human probability that such a count could be made without 
 many errors. And even if the count were entirely correct no 
 one would believe it. Besides, to make such a count would re¬ 
 quire an army of clerks for months, and then the result could 
 not be accepted with confidence. 
 
 38. The theory of the preferential ballot is contrary to the 
 nature of things. A man may have several choices for a wife, 
 hut there is no way that he can get them all,—unless he is a 
 Mormon, and even then the woman has a say. A man who wants 
 a horse may have several choices, but he has to decide between 
 them; there is no way that he can buy one and partly buy the 
 others. A woman may have several choices for a husband, but 
 there is no way by which she can marry one and partly marry 
 the others. She cannot marry one and then fall back on the 
 others if that choice should fail. In the nature of things men 
 must stake all on their first choice. Even if the results are 
 sometimes tragical, in every affair of life we must make our 
 choice and abide by it. The same is true in voting: an elector 
 
38 University of Oklahoma 
 
 may have several choices but he must decide between them. He 
 must consider not only the qualities of the man but his availa¬ 
 bility, his popularity, for the voter throws his vote away who 
 votes for a man for whom few others vote. The same principles 
 which apply to everything else in life must apply to voting; they 
 deceive themselves who think it can be made exceptional. 
 
 39. Every vote that a voter casts for a second choice helps 
 to defeat his first choice, unless his first should have a majority 
 on the first count. To vote for a man and then endeavor to 
 make his election impossible unless he was also the first choice 
 of the majority is irrational. It follows from this that unless 
 the elector’s first choice is reasonably cert-ain of a majority, a 
 wise elector would dissemble on his first choice and give his 
 really first preference as his second or third choice instead of the 
 first. This would open the way to such bargaining and schem¬ 
 ing and trading as has never been known before. Many an un¬ 
 thinking man would not hesitate to exchange his second for an¬ 
 other man’s first choice. It is perfectly evident that where there 
 were a good many candidates there would be little significance 
 in the first choice, for every man’s second choice would annul 
 his first choice. This trading of choices would introduce an ele¬ 
 ment of gambling, and the possibilities of corruption would be 
 boundless. Furthermore, it would be very difficult to reach it 
 by legislation. A law to prohibit trading certainly could not 
 be enforced; where, then, would the present condition be im¬ 
 proved? Nothing could prevent the second or third choices 
 from being of more importance than the first choice. 
 
 40. With the preferential ballot the election always depends 
 on the second or third choices. When the first choices settle it 
 the second choices are not counted; they are utterly needless 
 and useless, and there really is no preferential ballot. It fol¬ 
 lows, then, that when we have the preferential ballot it is the 
 second or third choices which elect rather than the first choices. 
 That is to say, our elected officers would all'be second choice 
 men instead of first choice men, the choicest men would not be 
 elected. The harmless good fellow, who never antagonizes any 
 body or anything, who stands for nothing except his own inter¬ 
 ests, who conceals his convictions if he has any,—such men 
 would receive the second choice vote and of course be elected. 
 The men with positive convictions and the courage to stand by 
 them would disappear from public life. Political expediency 
 would compel men to straddle as much as possible, and would 
 certainly put a high premium on such a policy. Where an elec- 
 
Preferential Ballot 39 
 
 tion is determined by second choices a man’s chances would 
 depend far more upon the weakness of the opposition to him 
 than upon the ardency of the support of his friends. But, 
 furthermore, these amiable, colorless men would be the very 
 type who would be selected to represent private interests; men 
 with their own axes to grind would naturally take just such an 
 attitude towards the burning questions of public interest and 
 importance. A more diabolically insidious scheme to beguile 
 the public into voting down the men who are the leaders in the 
 struggle for public welfare and in supporting the tools of private 
 interests could hardly be devised. 
 
 41. Let us apply the preferential ballot to actual conditions 
 as they are in Oklahoma at the present time. Let us suppose 
 the preferential ballot to be in effect at the election of Novem¬ 
 ber, 1914. We will select the Bucklin system because that is 
 claimed to be by far the best form. 
 
 Since there is but one candidate for governor, democratic 
 voters, for example, can only vote for a democratic candidate as 
 their first choice; their second and third choices must be cast 
 for a candidate of some other party. 
 
 The result does not depend so much on active support as lack 
 of opposition. The candidates of the smaller parties would al¬ 
 most always be elected, while the candidates of the largest party 
 would rarely if ever be elected—especially if there were any ef¬ 
 fort to combine the other parties against it. 
 
 It is evident that it is the men who are elected; parties are 
 practically eliminated. Since it is almost impossible for any 
 one to be elected on the first count and since no one can vote 
 for his party candidate except in the first choice we have the 
 amazing result that no candidate is elected by voters of his own 
 party. 
 
 What is the use of nominating party candidates if they can 
 only be elected chiefly by the votes of other parties? It is as¬ 
 tonishing that sane men would advocate such a scheme, for it 
 amounts to a proposal to elect candidates by their opponents 
 instead of by their supporters. How could principles or re¬ 
 forms ever triumph under such a plan? Not even the best men 
 could be elected, for if a democrat had to vote for a republican 
 he would not be as likely to vote for a strong, efficient man as 
 for a weak or mediocre one. And so of course with all parties. 
 
40 
 
 University of Oklahoma 
 
 REBUTTAL HINTS. 
 
 1. The official and authoritative counting of votes is not 
 done at the voting precinct under our present system; but by 
 county and state election boards exactly as it would be under 
 the preferential system. 
 
 2. Our voters have as much intelligence as they have in 
 Australia, where the most difficult form of the preferential bal¬ 
 lot is in actual and successful operation, and where they do not 
 have any trouble either in voting or counting the ballots. 
 
 3. It is objected that a voter’s second choice kills his first 
 choice. His second choice is not counted*until his first choice 
 is defeated. If the voter has lost his first choice, the preferen¬ 
 tial ballot enables him still to have some influence in the result. 
 
 4. That the methods of the preferential ballot were develop¬ 
 ed by university professors instead of by ward-heelers and ma¬ 
 chine bosses should not make it less desirable. Most people 
 prefer the suggestions originating with men of science and learn¬ 
 ing to those of ignorant and selfish schemers. 
 
 5. All objections are summed up in the old argument of the 
 Aristocracy and the Oligarchy,—the people are not capable oi 
 government and should never be intrusted with anything more 
 than the empty forms of government. The real power should 
 be retained in the hands of the aristocrats and the intellectuals. 
 
 6. The only proper argument for the negative is to show 
 by citing actual facts and experiences where the preferential bal¬ 
 lot has worked as disastrously as they say it will. They charge 
 that it will produce certain results when actual experience shows 
 conclusively that it prevents the results which they profess to 
 fear. 
 
 7. Those who oppose the preferential ballot are greatly 
 distressed about the difficulty of counting the ballots. They 
 never cease to prophesy of the dire calamities which must re¬ 
 sult. But who is having any trouble in counting the ballots? 
 The system is in use in a score of places and there has never 
 yet been a particle of trouble. - 
 
 8. Those who oppose the preferential ballot claim that it 
 will discourage partisan voting. Suppose it does. What then? 
 It is very certain that it will in the same degree encourage in¬ 
 telligent and consciencious voting, voting for principles, pa¬ 
 triotic voting. A voter’s second choice candidate is always one 
 who holds the same principles as the candidate of his first choice. 
 
 9. It is indeed true that men sometimes stake their last dol- 
 
Preferential Ballot 41 
 
 lar on one horse in a race, and it may be that some choices in 
 life are irrevocable. But would not all men prefer otherwise? 
 Is it not the plain part of wisdom to provide ourselves with 
 alternative courses of action wherever possible? One of the 
 best arguments in favor of the preferential ballot is that it pro¬ 
 vides just such alternatives. 
 
 10. Why should the fact that we have a choice of three 
 forms be counted a drawback? It is, in fact, a real advantage. 
 Conditions are not the same in all states and in all countries. 
 Each is at liberty to choose the type best adapted to its own 
 peculiar conditions. No one advocates adopting more than one 
 form at a time, and the poorest type has proved in actual prac¬ 
 tice infinitely superior to the present system. Objections which 
 have weight against one type are groundless against another. 
 
 11. No casuistry can conceal the fact that the negative ad¬ 
 vocates election by a minority, and is unwilling to do anything 
 to prevent minority elections. The affirmative believe in ma¬ 
 jority elections, and will not consent to anything short of ma¬ 
 jority elections until every possible effort has been made to se¬ 
 cure such elections. The present system will always enable an 
 organized minority to defeat the will of the unorganized ma¬ 
 jority. If that is not advocating bad government and corrupt 
 politics, what is it? 
 
 12. Objection is raised to the preferential ballot on the 
 alleged ground that it is so complicated that the ordinary voter 
 cannot vote it without mistakes. The fact is that it has never 
 occasioned any trouble in this respect in the least. The first 
 time it was tried in Grand Junction, Colorado, there were fewer 
 errors than were made in the preceeding election under the pres¬ 
 ent system. At Spokane, Washington, at the first election held 
 under the Preferential system, the women voted for the first 
 time, yet there were very few errors. If women voting for the 
 first time can use it without making mistakes, its difficulties 
 should occasion no fear. 
 
 13. The Negative assumes that because the preferential bal¬ 
 lot permits 2nd and 3rd choices therefore every voter would be 
 compelled to vote them whether he wished to or not. This is 
 utterly absurd, as is shown by the Spokane election, where 
 nearly one-third voted for but one choice, exactly as they would 
 with the present ballot. The Negative also assumes that with 
 the preferential ballot there would be a preferential primary in 
 August followed by the final election in November. This is a 
 mere quibble. A final election after nominations had been made 
 
42 
 
 University of Oklahoma 
 
 by a primary would not and could not be preferential in any ac¬ 
 cepted sense. The application of “preferential” to such an elec¬ 
 tion is utterly unwarranted; there is no usage whatever to sup¬ 
 port it. Again, the question does not demand the exclusive adop¬ 
 tion of the preferential ballot. Adopting it for primary elections 
 would be adopting it. But the preferential ballot renders two 
 elections absolutely unnecessary and contemplates the ultimate 
 elimination of the second election. 
 
Preferential Ballot 43 
 
 Seledt List of References on 
 PREFERENTIAL VOTING AND THE 
 TRANSFERRABLE VOTE. 
 
 Department of Bibliography, Library of Congress. 
 
 1. Ashworth, T. R. and H. P. C. Ashworth. Proportional 
 
 representation applied to party government; a new 
 electoral system. London, S. Sonnenschein & Co., 
 1901. 
 
 “The Hare system of proportional delegation.” p. 141-161. 
 “Preferential voting.” p. 173-176. 
 
 2. Avebury, John L. Representation. London, S. Sonnen¬ 
 
 schein & Co., 1890. (The imperial parliament, ed. by 
 Sydney Buxton, v. 2.) Favors the single transferable 
 vote. 
 
 3. Bagehot, Walter. The English constitution, and other 
 
 political essays. Latest rev. ed. New York, D. Apple- 
 ton & Co., 1877. “The scheme of Mr. Hare.” p. 216 ff. 
 
 4. Bailey, Walter. A scheme for proportional representa¬ 
 
 tion. London, 1869. System is similar to the Gove 
 system. 
 
 5. Berry, John M. Proportional representation. The Gove 
 
 system. Worcester, Mass., 1892. Gove system: p. 
 
 24-32. 
 
 6. Bonnefoy, Gaston. La representation proportionelle. 
 
 Paris, Marchal & Billard, 1902. 
 
 “Bibliographic:” p. 684-701. 
 
 “Le vote unique transferrable avec liste de preference:” 
 p. 103-110. 
 
 7. Bradford, Ernest, S. Commission government in Ameri¬ 
 
 can Cities. New York, The Macmillan Co., 1911. 359. 
 (The citizen’s library of economics—politics and so- 
 viology, ed. by R. T. Ely). 
 
 “Preferential ballot:” p. 258-261. 
 
 “Preferential ballot provision of charter of Grand Junc¬ 
 tion, Colorado:” p. 307-311. 
 
 8. Brown, William Jethro. The new democracy; a political 
 
 study. New York, Macmillan and Co., 1899 
 “The Hare system with special reference to its applica¬ 
 tion in Tasmania:” p. 32-67. 
 
 9. Cahn, Ernst. Das Verhaltniswahl system in den mod- 
 
 ernen Kulturstaaten. Berlin, O. Haring, 1909. 
 “Verzeichnis der benutzen Literatur.” p. 361-369. 
 “Einnamige und mahrnamige Wahl :” p. 254-261. 
 
 10. Cambridge, Mass. Charters. New charter for the city of 
 
 Cambridge. Cambridge, 1911. 
 
 Chapter 531, laws, 1911. 
 
 “Advantages of preferential voting:” p. 5-6. Chapter VII. 
 Elections; p. 16-20. 
 
 11. Commons, John R. Proportional representation. 2nd ed. 
 
 New York, The Macmillan Co., 1907. 
 
 “Preferential voting:” p. 100-105. 
 
44 University of Oklahoma 
 
 12. Cridge, Alfred. Hope and home. San Francisco, 1900. 
 
 Favors the Hare system of preferential voting. 
 
 13. Dobbs, Archibald E. General representation, or a com¬ 
 
 plete readjustment and modification of Mr. Hare’s 
 plan. London, 1872. 
 
 14. Droop, H. R. On methods of electing representatives. 
 
 London, Macmillan & Co., 1868. 
 
 Preferential.voting: p. 9-32. 
 
 15. Dutcher, Salem. Minority or proportional representation. 
 
 New York, United Spates publishing company, 1872. 
 “The preferential vote:” p. 110-136. 
 
 16. Eaton, Dorman B. The government of municipalities. 
 
 New York, Pub. for the Columbia university press by 
 the Macmillan company, 1899. 
 
 “Preferential voting:” Chapter IX. 
 
 17. Fawcett, Henry. Mr. Hare’s reform bill, simplified and 
 
 explained. London, 1860. 
 
 18. _ Proportional representation and Hare’s 
 
 scheme explained. (In Fawcett, Henry, and M. G. 
 Fawcett, eds. Essays and lectures. London, 1872. p. 
 336-368.) 
 
 19. Fisher, J. Francis. Reform in our municipal elections. 
 
 Philadelphia, P. Kildare, 1866. 
 
 Opposed to the Hare systemi of preferential voting. 
 
 20. Fleming, Sir Sandford. An appeal to the Canadian insti¬ 
 
 tute on the rectification of Parliament. Toronto, The 
 Copp, Clark Co., 1892. 
 
 Discusses Hare’s system of preferential voting. 
 
 21. Fontaine, Jean. La representation proportionnelle en 
 
 Wurtemberg. Pari-s, Societe du recueil J. B. Sirey & 
 le Journal du palais, 1909. 
 
 “Le systeme du quotient et de la liste de preference:” p. 
 33-38. “Bibliographic:” p. 213. 
 
 22. Forney, Matthias N. Political reform by the representa¬ 
 
 tion of minorities. New York, The author, 1894. 
 
 “A bibliography of minority, proportional or personal 
 representation, cumulative or free voting, etc.” p. ISO- 
 188. 
 
 “The principles of free voting:” p. 88-101. See also chap¬ 
 ters VI, X, XI, XIII, appendix C. 
 
 23. _Proportional representation; a means for 
 
 the improvement of municipal government. New York, 
 E. W. Johnson, 1900. 
 
 “Preferential voting:” p. 28-29. 
 
 24. Garner, James W. Introduction to political science. New 
 
 York, American Book Company, 1910. 
 
 “The preferential system:” p. 464-466. 
 
 25. Goodnow, Frank J. Municipal problems. New York, Pub. 
 
 for the Columbia University Press, The Macmillan Co., 
 1897. 
 
 “Preferential voting:” p. 156-160. 
 
Preferential Ballot 45 
 
 26. Grand Junction, Colo. Charters. The charter of the city 
 
 of Grand Junction. Framed by the charter conven¬ 
 tion, Aug. 6, 1909. To be voted on Sept. 14, 1909. Grand 
 Junction, Colo., The Progress press, 1909. 
 
 “The preferential system of voting has been established, 
 in lieu of direct primaries or of direct primaries of sec¬ 
 ond elections.” . 
 
 27. Great Brit. Foreign office. Reports from His Majesty’s 
 
 representatives in foreign countries and in British col¬ 
 onies respecting the application of the principle of pro¬ 
 portional representation to the public elections. Lon¬ 
 don, Printed for H. M. Stationery off., by Harrison and 
 sons, 1907. Discusses preferential voting. 
 
 28. -Parliament. House of lords. Select com¬ 
 
 mittee on municipal representation bill. Report * * * 
 on municipal representation bill. (H. L.) London, 
 Printed for H. M. Stationery off., by Wyman and sons, 
 1907. 
 
 “Clark-Hare system of voting:” p. 125-133. “Hare system 
 of election in Tasmania:” p. 134-148. “How to simpli¬ 
 fy the ballot by the Hare system to those who cannot 
 read or write.” p. 149-154. “The single transferable 
 vote.” p. 159-161. 
 
 29. _Royal commission on systems of election. 
 
 Report. London, Printed for H. M. Stationery office, 
 by Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1910. 
 
 “The commission was appointed to examine schemes 
 adopted or proposed to secure a fully representative 
 character for popularly elected legislative bodies, and 
 to consider whether they are capable of application in 
 Great Britain. In the section on proportional repre¬ 
 sentation the transferable vote is discussed, and in the 
 following sections the arguments in favor and against 
 the transferable vote are given. 
 
 30. Hamilton, John J. Government by commission. 3rd ed. 
 
 New York and London, Funk & Wagnalls Co., 1911. 
 Preferential voting plan of Grand Junction, Colo., p. 149- 
 152. 
 
 Preferential voting plan of Grand Junction, Colo., com¬ 
 pared with Des Moines double election plan. p. 159- 
 168. 
 
 31. Hare, Thomas. The election of representatives, parliamen¬ 
 
 tary and municipal. 4th ed. London, Longmans, 
 Green, Reader, and Dyer, 1873. 
 
 Preferential voting: p. 140-142. 
 
 32. Hoskins, James T. A modification of Mr. Hare’s scheme 
 
 for the election of representatives, etc. London, 1870. 
 
 33. Humphreys, John H. Proportional representation. Lon¬ 
 
 don, Methuen & Co. 
 
 “The single transferable vote.” p. 130-171; 343-356. 
 
46 
 
 University of Oklahoma 
 
 34. - Proportional representation. Report on 
 
 the municipal elections held at Pretoria and Johannes¬ 
 burg on 27th Oct., 1909. Pretoria, The government 
 printing and Stationery office, 1909. 
 
 On preferential voting. 
 
 35. Ingram, Thomas D. Representative government. West 
 
 Chester, Pa., F. S. Hickhan, 1884. 
 
 “Preferential voting.” p. 8-25. 
 
 36. King, Joseph. Electoral reform; an inquiry into our sys¬ 
 
 tem of parliamentary representation. London, T. F. 
 Unwin, 1908. 
 
 “Preferential voting.” p. 116-120. 
 
 37. Kloti, Emil. Die Proportionalwahl in der Schwiez. Ges- 
 
 chichte, Darstellung und Kritik. Bern, Schmid & 
 Francke, 1901. 
 
 “Litteratur.” p. 472-478. Separatabdruck aus der “Zeit- 
 schrift fur schweizerische Statistik, 37 Jahrgang, 1901.” 
 “Einmalige ubertragbare Stimmgebung.” p. 8-18. 
 
 38. Lafitte, Paul. Le paradoxe de l’egalite et La representa¬ 
 
 tion proportionnelle. Paris, Hachette et cie., 1910. 
 “Le quotient electorial.” p. 182-193. 
 
 39. Lubbock, Sir John. Representation. London, S. Sonnes- 
 
 chein & Co., 1890. 
 
 “The single transferable vote.” p. 33-34, 44-50. 
 
 40. Luschka, H. Die Verhaltniswahl im deutschen Verwal- 
 
 tungsrecht. Karlsruhe i. B. G. Braun, 1905. (Frei- 
 burger Ahhandlungen aus dem Gebiete des offentlichen 
 Rechts, hrsg. von Woldemar von Rohland, Heinrich 
 Rosin, Richard Schmidt. Heft 5.) 
 
 “Die einnamige Wahl.” p. 8-9. 
 
 41. Merriam, Charles E. Primary elections. Chicago, The 
 
 University of Chicago press, 1908. 
 
 Bibliography, p. 289-295. Preferential vote: p. 79. 
 
 42. Mill, John S. Considerations of representative govern- 
 
 .b ment. New York, 1882. 
 
 Chapter VII is an enthusiastic argument for the Hare 
 system. 
 
 43. ___ T Considerations on representative govern¬ 
 
 ment. New York, E. P. Dutton and Co., 1905. The 
 universal library. 
 
 Preferential voting, p. 125-154. 
 
 44. ___i_Personal representation. Speech in the 
 
 House of Commons, : May 29, 1867; 2nd ed. London, 
 Printed by Henderson, Rait and Fenton, 1867. 
 
 In favor of Hare’s ele&tbrM 1 system. 
 
 45. Moore, Thomas. The representation of the people; a pfea 
 
 for free voting by the method of Mr. Hare. London, 
 Hauley, 1879. 
 
 46. Nicholls, Charles F. Democracy and representation. A 
 
 review of Mr. Harems treatise on “Election of represen¬ 
 tatives.” Melbourne, Evans, 1871. 
 
Preferential Ballot 47 
 
 47. Ostrogorskii, Nposei IA. Democracy and the party sys¬ 
 tem in the United States. New York, The Macmillan 
 Co., 1910. 
 
 “Preferential vote:” p. 484-487. 
 
 49. Racioppi, C. F. The D’Hondt system and the single 
 
 transferable vote. Florence, 1885. 
 
 50. Reform league, London. Representative reform. Report 
 
 of the committee appointed by the conference of mem¬ 
 bers of the Reform league and others, on Mr. Hare’s 
 scheme of representation, held 28th Feb. and 7th and 
 21st March, 1863. London, Trubner & Co. 
 
 51. Proportional representation society. The model election 
 
 of 1908. London, 1908. Pamphlet No. 10. 
 
 Reprinted (with some modifications) from the December 
 issue of Representation. Explanations of the system 
 of the single transferable vote. 
 
 ■52. _Rules for the conduct of elections on the 
 
 system of the single transferable vote, with introduc¬ 
 tory remarks and the example of an imaginary elec¬ 
 tion. London, 1908. (P. R. society. Pamphlet No. 11.) 
 
 53. Remsen, Daniel S. Primary elections. New York, G. P 
 
 Putnam’s sons, 1894. (Questions of the day 77) 
 Chapter XVIII. Voting (Preferential). 
 
 54. Saripolos, Nicholas. La democratic et l’election propor- 
 
 tionnelle. Paris, A. Rousseau, 1899. 2v. 
 
 “Le vote unique transferable, evec liste de preference.” 
 p. 315-329. 
 
 “Le vote unique sans transfert.” p. 296-313. 
 
 55. Smith, James R. Personal representation. A defense of 
 
 Mr. Hare’s scheme of electoral reform. London, 1868. 
 
 56. Societe ,pour l’etude de la representation proportionnelle, 
 
 Paris. La representation proportionnelle; etudes de 
 legislation et de statistique comparees. Paris, F. Pi- 
 chon, 1888. 
 
 57. Sterne, Simon. On representative government and per¬ 
 
 sonal representation. Philadelphia, J. B. Lippincott & 
 Co., 1871. 
 
 “An able presentation of the Hare system, simplified and 
 adapted to American institutions.” 
 
 58. Stockton, Lewis. Preferential voting. 
 
 (In municipal league. (National). Proceedings, Buffalo, 
 N. Y., 1910.) 
 
 59. Tuckerman, L. B. Election by preponderance of choice. 
 In Forney, N. N., ed. Political reform by the representa¬ 
 tion of minorities. New York, 1894. p. 175-179.)_ 
 
 Reprinted from Proportional representation review, Sept. 
 1893, v. 1. p. 30-33. 
 
 60. Tyson, Robert. Preferential voting. 
 
 (In Beard., Charles A.ed. Loose leaf digest of short bal¬ 
 lot charters. New York, 1911. p. 21301-21304). 
 
48 University of Oklahoma 
 
 61. -- Proportional representation through the 
 
 single transferable vote. (In Beard, Charles A. el. 
 Loose leaf digest of short ballot charters. New York, 
 1911. p. 21501-21502.) 
 
 62. Washington (State) Laws, statutes, etc. Primary elec¬ 
 
 tion law of Washington, approved Mar. 15, 1907. 
 Olympia, Wash., C. W. Gorham, 1907. 
 
 Preferential voting, p. ,174-175. 
 
 63. Villey-Desmeserets, Edmond L. Legislation electorale 
 
 comparee des principaux pays d’Europe. Paris, A. 
 ’Larose, 1900. 
 
 “Systeme du quotient ou systeme de Hare.” p. 134-136. 
 
 64. Western Australia. Electoral dept. First report. 1908. 
 
 Simpson, 1909. 
 
 Introduction of preferential voting system, p. 13. 
 
 65. _Parliament. Parliamentary debates. Leg¬ 
 
 islative council and Legislative assembly. 1910-1911. 
 Perth, F. W. Simpson, 1911. LXXVI, 2513-3773. 
 
 For preferential voting see index Electoral act amend, bill. 
 65. Woodruff, Clinton R., ed. City government by commis¬ 
 sion. New York, D. Appleton and Co., 1911. (Nation¬ 
 al municipal league series, v. 1). 
 
 Preferential vote. p. 35-37. 
 
 ARTICLES IN PERIODICALS. 
 
 67. Hare, Thomas. Representation in practice and in theory. 
 
 Fraser’s magazine, Feb. 1860, v. 61. p. 188-204. 
 
 68. Hare, Thomas. Representation of every locality and in¬ 
 
 telligence. Fraser’s magazine, April, 1860, v. 61, p. 
 527-543. 
 
 69. Hare, Thomas. Suggestions for the improvement of our 
 
 representative system. Macmillan’s magazine, Feb. 
 1862, v. 5. p. 295-301. 
 
 70. Trevelyan, G. O. A few remarks on Mr. Hare’s scheme 
 
 of representation. Macmillan’s magazine, April, 1862, 
 v. 5, p. 480-486. 
 
 71. Mill, John S. Considerations on representative govern¬ 
 
 ment. North American Review, July, 1862, v. 95, p. 
 228-255. 
 
 Preferential voting, p. 240-242. 
 
 72. “Personal representation.” A review of Hare’s Election 
 
 of representatives. Westminster review, Oct. 1865, v. 
 84, p. 305-326. 
 
 73. Kinnear, J. Boyd. Practical considerations on the repre¬ 
 
 sentation of minorities. Fortnightly review, Feb. 15, 
 1866, v. 4, p. 49-64. 
 
 74. Hare, Thomas. Individual responsibility in representa¬ 
 
 tive government. Fortnightly review, Mar. 15, 1866. 
 v. 4, p. 350-358. 
 
 75. Hare, Thomas. The tyranny of the majority. North 
 
 American review, Jan. 1867, v. 104, p. 205-230. 
 
Preferential Ballot 49 
 
 76. Proportional representation. Putnam's magazine, June, 
 
 1870, v. 5, p. 711-720. 
 
 Preferential voting, p. 716-717. 
 
 77. Ware, William R. Application of Mr. Hare’s system of 
 
 voting to the namination of overseers of Harvard col¬ 
 lege. American social science association. Journal, 
 
 1871, v. 3, p. 185-191. 
 
 78. Hare, Thomas. Minority representation in Europe. 
 
 Ameican social science association. Journal, 1871, v. 
 3, p. 192-198. 
 
 79. Fawcett, Millicent G. A short explanation of Mr. Hare’s 
 
 scheme of representation. Macmillan’s magazine, 
 April, 1871, v. 23, p. 487. 
 
 80. Stanwood, Edward. Forms of minority representation. 
 
 North American review, July, 1871, v. 113, p. 1-29. 
 
 Hare system of voting, p. 18-29. 
 
 81. Mason, Alfred B. A new theory of minority representa¬ 
 
 tion. New Englander, July, 1874, v. 33, p. 573-582. 
 Hare Scheme, p. 578-579. 
 
 82. Hare, Thomas. A note on representative government. 
 
 Fortnightly review, July, 1875, v. 24, p. 102-107. 
 
 83. Smith, J. Parker. Parliamentary reform; minority repre¬ 
 
 sentation. Westminster review, Jan. 1884, v. 63, p. 
 163-175. 
 
 Discusses preferential voting. 
 
 84. Representation and misrepresentation. Westminster re¬ 
 
 view, April 1884, v. 65, p. 392-420. 
 
 Single transferable vote. p. 408-413. 
 
 85. Lefevre, G. Shaw. The representation of minorities. Con¬ 
 
 temporary review K May, 1884, v. 45, p. 714-733. 
 Preferential voting, p. 719-720. 
 
 86. Grey, Albert. Proportional versus majority representa¬ 
 
 tion. Nineteenth Century, Dec. 1884, v. 16, p. 935-964. 
 Preferential voting, p. 959-964. 
 
 87. Lefevre, G. Shaw, and Thomas Hare. Representation and 
 
 misrepresentation. Fortnightly review, Feb. 1, 1885, 
 _ v. 43, p. 202-222. 
 
 Discusses the Hare system of preferential voting. 
 
 88. Proportional representation: objections and answers. Sir 
 
 John Lubbeck. Leonard Courtney, Albert Grey, and 
 John Westlake. Nineteenth century, Feb. 1885, v. 17, 
 > p. 312-320. 
 
 Discusses the Hare system of voting. 
 
 89. Hagenbach-Bischoll. Le probleme de la repartition pro- 
 
 portionnelle. Representation proportionnelle, Sept. 
 1887, v. 6, p. 184-193. 
 
 90. Commons, John R. A new plan for minority representa¬ 
 
 tion. American review of reviews, Nov, 1891, v. 4, p. 
 
 410-412. 
 
University of Oklahoma 
 
 91. Berbatzik, Dr. Das system der proportionalwahl. Jahr- 
 
 buch fur GesetzgeDung, Verwaltung und Volkswurts- 
 chaft, 1893, v. 17, p. 393-426. 
 
 Discusses the Hare and Andrae system of preferential 
 voting. 
 
 92. Woeste. Les suffrages de preference. Representation 
 
 proportionnelle, Jan.-Feb., 1893, v. 12, p. 9-13. 
 
 93. Cracken, W. D. Proportional representation. Arena, Feb. 
 
 1893, v. 7, p. 290-297. 
 
 Preferential vote. p. 294. 
 
 94. Spence, Catherine H. Effective voting. Proportional 
 
 representation review, Sept. 1893, v. 1, p. 15-20. 
 
 95. Gove, William H. The Gove system. Proportional rep¬ 
 
 resentation review. Sept., 1893, v. 1, p. 20-23. 
 
 96. Gfeller, Jules, and Bischoff, H. Une nouveau systeme de 
 
 repartition. Representation proportionnelle, Nov. 1893, 
 v. 12, p. 291-295. 
 
 97. Spence, Catherine H. Effective voting the only effective 
 
 moralizer of politics. Arena, Nov. 1894, v. 10, p. 767- 
 776. 
 
 98. Spence, Catherine H. The transferable vote. Proportion¬ 
 
 al representation review, June, 1894, v. 1, p. 108-115. 
 
 99. Ward, John H. Large election districts necessary to give 
 
 freedom to voters. Proportional representation re¬ 
 view,. Dec. 1894, v. 2, p. 55-61. 
 
 100. Gove, William H. The relation of the Gove system to 
 
 other methods of proportional representation. Pro¬ 
 portional representation review, Dec. 1894, v. 2, p. 41-47. 
 
 101. Cridge, Alfred. The Hare preferential plan. Proportion¬ 
 
 al representation review, Mar. 1895, v. 2, p. 81-84. 
 
 102. Williams, Henry P. A suggested modification of the Hare 
 
 system. Proportional representaion review, Mar. 1896, 
 v. 3, p. 49-54. 
 
 103. Tyson, Robert. Needed political reforms. Proportional 
 
 representation; its principles and progress; with de¬ 
 scriptions of the Swiss free list, the Hare-Spence plan 
 and the Gove system. Direct legislation record, Nov. 
 1900, v. 7, p. 105-116. 
 
 104. _ Needed political reforms. Proportional 
 
 representation, or effective voting. Arena, Dec. 1902, 
 v. 28, p. 610-617. 
 
 105. (Allan, P. L.) The Colorado ballot and others. Nation, 
 
 Feb. 2, 1905, v. 80, p. 84-85. 
 
 106. Tyson, Robert. The Belgium system of proportional rep¬ 
 
 resentation. Arena, Dec. 1903, v. 30, p. 591-597. 
 
 107. _The electoral wisdom of Japan. Arena, 
 
 Sept. 1904, v. 32, p. 269-371. 
 
 108. _The single vote in plural elections. Arena, 
 
 Oct. 1904, v. 32, p. 403-406. 
 
 109. _ A primer of direct legislation. Propor¬ 
 
 tional representation. Arena, July, 1906, v. 36, p. 46-49. 
 “The Hare or Hare-Spence system.” p. 48-49. 
 
Preferential Ballot 
 
 110. -A primer of direct legislation. The abso¬ 
 
 lute majority method, Arena, July, 1906, v. 36, p. 49-52. 
 In favor of preferential voting. 
 
 111. Ruppenthal, J. C. Election reforms, the trend toward 
 
 democracy. American academy of political and social 
 science. Annals, Nov. 1906, v. 28, p. 410-441. 
 
 112. Lush, Charles K. Primary elections and majority nomi¬ 
 
 nations. American political science review, Nov. 1907, 
 v. 2, p. 43-47. 
 
 113. Tyson, Robert. Various voting systems. Arena, Jan. 
 
 1908, v. 39, p. 59-64. 
 
 114. Preferential voting in West Australia. Equity series, 
 
 July, 1908, v. 10, p. 90-91. 
 
 115. Humphreys. John H. Preferential voting in Johannes¬ 
 
 burg and Pretoria under the Municipal elections act of 
 
 1909. Pacific municipalities, July, 1910, v. 22, p. 213-217. 
 “Extract from the report to the Colonial secretary on 
 
 the first practical application of the system of propor¬ 
 tional representation in South Africa, based on the re¬ 
 sult of the municipal election held in Pretoria and 
 Johannesburg, Oct. 27, 1909.” 
 
 116. The Scottish model election. Proportional representation 
 
 society. Journal, Nov. 1910, No. 19, p. 93-105. 
 
 117. Kilpin, Ralph. The South African elections. 1910. Pro¬ 
 
 portional representation society. Journal, Nov. 1910, 
 No. 19, p. 111-113. 
 
 118. Lachapelle, Georges. L’application de la representation 
 
 proportionnelle. Revue politique et parlementaire, 
 Dec. 10. 1910, v. 66, p. 466-485. 
 
 Discusses preferential voting. 
 
 119. Lester, C. B. Notes on current legislation. Electoral 
 
 systems. British royal commission. American politi¬ 
 cal science review, May, 1911, v. 5, p. 239-245. 
 
 Discusses the preferential system of voting. 
 
 120. Henderson, Gerard C. Preferential voting in Spokane. 
 
 Twentieth Century magazine, June, 1911, v. 4, p. 262-264. 
 
 122. Lowrie, S. G. Second choice nomination laws. American 
 
 political science review, Nov. 1911, v. 5, p. 600-604. 
 
 123. 1912. Preferential elections in Australia. Equity series, 
 
 Jan. 1912, v. 14, p. 45-46. 
 
 ADDITIONAL. 
 
 124. Effective Voting, C. G. Hoag. (Printed as Senate Doc. 
 
 No. 359, 63d Congress, 2d session. Contains 4 very full 
 exposition of what the Preferential System of voting 
 contemplates.) 
 
 125. Equity Series, Jan., Feb., April, July, 1913. 
 
 126. Direct Primaries and the Preferential Method, by K. A. 
 
 Bickel, in Review of Reviews, Nov., 1913. 
 
 127. Lewis Jerome Johnson. Preferential Voting. Furnished 
 
 by the author at 5c. Harvard University, Cambridge, 
 Mass. 
 
THE UNIVERSITY EXTENSION 
 
 DEPARTMENTS. 
 
 I. PUBLIC DISCUSSION AND DEBATE. 
 
 Aids in the organization and procedure of Debating Clubs. 
 Aids debaters in getting and organizing material for debate. 
 Aids in the public discussion of important questions and dis¬ 
 semination of information'concerning them. 
 
 II. CORRESPONDENCE-STUDY. 
 
 Gives by Correspondence all the subjects required for admis¬ 
 sion to the different colleges of the University of Oklahoma; all 
 the subjects required for state teachers’ certificates; and enables 
 a student temporarily absent from the University to keep up 
 with his class. 
 
 III. PUBLIC INFORMATION AND WELFARE. 
 
 Gives information on all subjects in reply to inquiries, as¬ 
 sists all organizations for public welfare. It has issued a bulle¬ 
 tin on Municipal Affairs, and collected a Municipal Traveling 
 Library of 150 volumes divided into collections of ten volumes 
 each, which are loaned free of charge to all interested. Also a 
 Rural Traveling Library of 360 volumes divided into groups oi 
 twelve each. Distributed especially through County Superin¬ 
 tendents, Rural Schools, Farmers, Clubs, etc. 
 
 IV. EXTENSION LECTURES. 
 
 Offers over two hundred lectures on a great variety of sub¬ 
 jects. These are given free except the traveling expenses of the 
 lecturer. These lectures are from every school of the Univer¬ 
 sity. Lecturers will respond to every call as far as duties to 
 classes will permit. 
 
 V. EXTENSION CLASSES. 
 
 As far as funds and circumstances permit; freshman classes 
 will be formed whenever there is sufficient patronage to justify 
 it. By this means students may live at their homes and do regu¬ 
 lar work in the University class. 
 
 VI. HIGH SCHOOL DEBATING. 
 
 Aids the state high school debating league by preparing bulle¬ 
 tins, etc. Cooperates with Department I and with the Depart¬ 
 ment of Public Speaking of the University. 
 
 J. W. SCROGGS, A. C. SCOTT, 
 
 Director Depts. I, II, III. Director Depts. IV, V, VI. 
 
 EDMUND BERRIGAN, Assistant. 
 
The University of Oklahoma 
 
 Comprises the following Schools and Colleges: 
 
 The College of Arts and Sciences 
 
 The School of Commerce and Industry 
 
 The School of Education 
 
 The School of Journalism 
 
 The School of Fine Arts 
 
 The School of Medicine 
 
 The Training School for Nurses 
 
 The School of Law 
 
 The School of Pharmacy 
 
 The College of Engineering including: 
 
 The School of Civil Engineering 
 The School of Chemical Engineering 
 The School of Electrical Engineering 
 The School of Mechanical Engineering 
 The School of Mining Geology 
 The Graduate School 
 The Summer Session 
 The Extension Division 
 
 Tuition free. Enrollment last year, 1,377. 
 
 Faculty numbers 130. 
 
 Degrees offered: M. A., B. A., B. S., LL. B., M. D., B. M., 
 E. E., M. E., C. E., Ph. C., Ph. G. 
 
 For further information about any department of the Uni¬ 
 versity’s work address: 
 
 ERRETT R. NEWBY, 
 
 Secretary, University of Oklahoma, 
 
 Norman, Oklahoma. 
 
DEBATE BULLETINS 
 
 These are collections of facts and arguments on 
 
 both sides of public questions. While efforts are 
 
 made to secure accuracy in statements of facts, none 
 
 0 
 
 is made to test the soundness of arguments; they 
 are simply arguments which are used. The debater 
 needs the discipline of testing them himself. A brief 
 description of these bulletins is given below: 
 
 Number 12. A Students’ Manual of Debating and Par¬ 
 liamentary Practice. This is a reprint with a few changes 
 of three bulletins of the University of Wisconsin. It con¬ 
 tains, (1) Suggestions for organization, with a Model Con¬ 
 stitution; (2) A brief Manual of Parliamentary Practice; 
 (3) a brief Manual of Argumentation; (4) Instructions to 
 Judges. 
 
 Number 13. The Initiative and Referendum. Giving- 
 several articles and digests of a number of others. 
 
 Number 15. Unicameral Legislatures. 72 pages. Same 
 plan. 
 
 Number 16. Guaranty of Bank Deposits. 80 pages. 
 
 Number 17. Woman’s Suffrage. 80 pages. 
 
 Number 18. Consolidation of Rural Schools. 32 pages. 
 Number 20. The Preferential Ballot. 56 pages. 
 
 Number 21. Government Ownership of Railways. 
 
 These bulletins are furnished free to any citizen 
 of the state except Number 12, The Students' Manu¬ 
 al ; for this we have to charge 10c. It is now sold by 
 a publisher in Minneapolis at 35c. It was written 
 by Prof. R. L. Lyman of the University of Wiscon¬ 
 sin and is a valuable text-book, and cheap enough 
 for every debater to have one. 
 
 It is desirable that each debating club should have 
 more than one copy of each bulletin, at least one for 
 each debater. We will send whatever number will 
 be actually used. Address all requests to 
 
 UNIVERSITY EXTENSION DIVISION, 
 Dept, of Public Discussion and Debate, 
 Norman, Oklahoma, 
 

 
The University Bulletin has been established by the university. 
 The reasons that have led to such a step are: first, to provide a means 
 to set before the people of Oklahoma, from time to time, information 
 about the work of the different departments of the university: and. 
 second, to provide a way for the publishing of departmental reports 
 papers, theses, and such other matter as the university believes 
 would be helpful to the cause of education in our state. The Bulletin 
 will be sent post free to all who apply for it. The university desires 
 especially to exchange with other schools and colleges for similar 
 publications. 
 
 Communications should be addressed: 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY BULLETIN 
 University Hall, 
 
 Norman, Oklahoma. 
 
 Oklahoma Univimity Pr&m.