Upon the first appearance of the professional adviser and director to the politically ignorant voter he became a power in the presentation of candidates for election. It was indeed an essential part of his business in advising the voter how to vote that he should furnish him with a candidate for whom the adviser and director could vouch. At first the adviser and director of the politically ignorant voter named only candidates in the smallest governmental districts. But as the power and influence of the vote-directing organization spread to larger and more important governmental areas its leaders continued to control the nomination of candidates for office. At first the friends of the electorate sought to meet the formidable advantage which the vote-directing organization possessed by reason of its power to control party nominations by laws which permitted the nomination of independent candidates by petition. Of course, if the law provided that no candidate should appear on more than one ticket, independent nominations were likely to be very much discouraged. But even when the election laws were most liberal in permitting independent nominations, the vote-directing organizations were still able to hold the field against all but the most violent and revolutionary independent movements. In short, unpopular government by politocrats was still reasonably safe. There were two reasons for this. In the first place, the vote-directing organization exists and prevails because the voter is ignorant with respect to the personality and qualifications of candidates for office. He must be advised and directed how to vote. The independent movement simply matches the strength of a temporary and sporadic effort to advise and direct the unorganized and inflamed but still ignorant voter how to vote, against a permanent and well-organized vote-directing machine. In the long run the latter will prevail. Secondly, the permanent organization for directing and advising the politically ignorant voter has always secured possession of a revered party name. This has heretofore given it an overwhelming advantage. It makes every independent an apostate of some party. So great has been the good-will of the two principal national parties in the last fifty years that independent movements have been confined largely to local elections, and even then it is difficult to obtain candidates because of the fear of party irregularity. Of these two reasons clearly the former is the more important. The two principal national parties of the last half-century might cease, but if the voter remained politically ignorant as before, extra-legal government would still go on. On the other hand, if the voter could be made politically intelligent at all elections and in filling all offices from the candidates presented, then extra-legal government would have to go and party names would not militate seriously against independent movements.