Popular misgovernment in the United StatesCruikshank, Alfred Byron
History
Popular misgovernment in the United States
Cruikshank, Alfred Byron
Suffrage -- United States; United States -- Politics and government
The members of these nominating conventions, or “delegates,” as they are
called, are supposed to be chosen by the voters at elections held for
that purpose, called “primaries.” The vote at these primaries is never
more than a fraction of those belonging to the party. It ranges from two
per cent to ten per cent unless when there is a contest between two
party men, when it may go as high as forty per cent of those entitled to
vote. Outside of the party workers, scarcely anyone attends these
primaries. Bryce sketches the means taken by the boss to control the
primary election, which include trickery, fraud and violence. (_American
Commonwealth_, Vol. II, pp. 102, 103.) He describes the workings of the
primary system and the convention as in operation in Philadelphia under
the management of the Gas Ring in 1881:
“The delegates chosen were usually office-holders, with a
sprinkling of public works contractors, liquor-dealers, always a
potent factor in ward politics, and office expectants. For
instance, the Convention of 13th January, 1881, for nominating a
candidate for mayor, consisted of 199 delegates, 86 of whom were
connected with some branch of the city government, 9 were members
of the city councils, 5 were police magistrates, 4 constables, and
23 policemen, while of the rest some were employed in some other
city department, and some others were the known associates and
dependants of the Ring. These delegates, assembled in convention of
the party, duly went through the farce of selecting and voting for
persons already determined on by the Ring as candidates for the
chief offices. The persons so selected thereby became the
authorized candidates of the party, for whom every good party man
was expected to give his vote. Disgusted he might be to find a
person unknown, or known only for evil, perhaps a fraudulent
bankrupt, or a broken-down barkeeper, proposed for his acceptance.
But as his only alternative was to vote for the Democratic nominee,
who was probably no better, he submitted, and thus the party was
forced to ratify the choice of the Boss.” (_American Commonwealth_,
Vol. II, p. 408.)
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account