been one realizes when one considers the words of a conservative statesman of the type of Elihu Root: "We talk about the government of the Constitution. We have spent many days in discussing the power of this and that and the other officer. What is the government of this state? What has it been during the forty years of my acquaintance with it? The government of the Constitution? Oh, no; not half the time, or half way. ... From the days of Fenton and Conkling, and Arthur, and Cornell, and Platt, from the days of David B. Hill, down to the present time, the government of the state has presented two different lines of activity, one of the constitutional and statutory officers of the state, and the other of the party leaders-they call them party bosses. They call the system-I don't coin the phrase, I adopt it because it carries its own meaning-the system they call 'invisible government.' For I don't know how many years, Mr. Conkling was the supreme ruler in this state; the Governor did not count, the Legislature did not count; comptrollers and secretaries of state and what not, did not count. It was what Mr. Conkling said. . . . Then Mr. Platt ruled the state; for nigh upon twenty years he ruled it. It was not the Governor; it was not the Legislature; it was not any elected officers; it was Mr. Platt. And the capitol was not here; it was at 49 Broadway; Mr. Platt and his lieutenants. It makes no difference what name you give whether you call it Fenton or Conkling, or Cornell, or Arthur, or Platt, or by the names of men now living. The ruler of the state during the greater part of the forty years of my acquaintance with the state government has not been anyhow authorized by the Constitution or by the law. . . . The party leader is elected by no one, accountable to no one, bound by no oath of office, removable by no one. . . . It is all wrong. It is all wrong that a government not authorized by the people should be continued superior to the government that is authorized by the people." 1 What can be done about it? Obviously the solution is to reduce the number of decisions on the ballot to a point within the capacity of the average voter. This means that the number of elective officers must be radically curtailed. In striking contrast to ballot development in this country is the situation in England. There the anti-imperialists argued against Imperial Federation on the ground that the addition of another elective office to a ballot already burdened by the necessity of electing members of Parliament upon occasion, and three or four local officers more frequently-possibly two officers a year all told-was beyond the capacity of the average voter. Unfortunately for us our federal system of government will not permit the reduction of the burden of the ballot to this point. If the ballot were used merely for the selection of the policy determining officers, however, the situation would be vastly improved. This, in fact, is the practice so far as the Federal government is concerned. There only the President and the members of Congress are elected. In view of the reputed superiority of the national government over the states, 1 Root, Elihu. The Short Ballot and Invisible Government. the wonder is that the other units of government have not generally followed this example. The natural conservatism of the American people plus the vested interest of the "machine" in maintaining the status quo is probably the explanation of the phenomenon. Not until this condition has been brought to pass, however, can the inevitable consequences of the long ballot be avoided. A still further shortening of the ballot can be accomplished if the elections are so arranged as to distribute somewhat evenly the number of elections which fall in the four-year cycle. If national officers only were elected in a presidential year; state officers, the following year; county officers, next; and municipal, next, the burden of the ballot would be considerably lightened. Suggested Reading Childs, R. S. Short Ballot Principles (1911) CHAPTER III POLITICAL PARTIES: THEIR AVOWED Behind the ballot box stand the political parties, likewise channels for the translation of public opinion into governmental action. That, at least, is their avowed object. Only through the presentation to the voters of a choice of issues can this be accomplished. The formulation and presentation of issues may therefore be considered the prime purpose of a political party. How delicately attuned are these instruments to this purpose? How effective is their operation? A survey of American history alone can give the answer. If in that survey we find that issues create parties, then it must be acknowledged that the parties exist for the purpose of presenting issues to the public. If we find that parties continue to exist long after the issues which gave them birth have passed off the stage but continue by virtue of the fact that they select the most vital issues of the day and present them to the public for decision, then it must be acknowledged that they are performing the very useful function of brokerage. If, however, we discover that political parties habit ually set up straw issues, confuse, obscure, or even ignore existing questions of policy, a question may then be raised as to the service they perform. That justification for raising this question exists, a review of recent political campaigns readily indicates. Almost as full as the woods are of trees are the platforms of the various political parties of pious platitudes. Statements intended to appeal to emotion and prejudice, but otherwise meaningless, are perennially proclaimed. Votes, not the presentation of issues, have evidently been very often uppermost in the minds of the party managers. Illustrative of this is the pledge in the Democratic platform of 1880-"the Democratic party is the friend of labor and the laboring man and pledges itself to protect him alike against the cormorant and the commune." Quite as meaningless so far as the presentation of a specific issue is concerned is the Republican perpetration of a later date "the Republican party has always been the champion of the oppressed and and recognizes the dignity of mankind irrespective of faith, color, or nationality; it sympathizes with the cause of home rule in Ireland and protests against the persecution of the Jews in Russia." Just what stand upon suffrage the same party took in 1900 is rather difficult to determine. "We congratulate the women of America" the platform stated, "upon their splendid record of public service in the volunteer aid association, and as nurses in camp and hospital during the recent campaigns in the Eastern |