created. Incidentally, it would put an end to mischievous speculation in land—since no one could then afford to hold land, unused, for a rise-and it would certainly prevent many forms of vicious special privilege. Indeed, its converts usually hold that all special privilege runs back to private ownership of land values. Apart from the question of exact economic truth, the Single Tax doctrine has been one of the inspiring forces of the century for the betterment of man. Progress and Poverty was a trumpet call for eager youth with faith in humanity to rally to a contest for truth which should make men free. Ever since, its converts have been found foremost in movements to lift human life to higher levels. 821. Socialists believe in public ownership of all the means of production, including machinery; Single-Taxers believe in public ownership only of all natural monopolies (§ 788). The Socialists agree to the doctrines of the Single Tax, but do not think it goes far enough. The Single-Taxer denounces socialism as tyrannical, and believes that, granted the Single Tax, extreme individualism might safely rule all other social relations. III. THE "PROGRESSIVE" MOVEMENT IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY A. IN STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT 822. In the Jacksonian period, three generations ago, American democracy triumphed in theory over all enemies. But real political practice fell far short of true democracy. The new machinery which was devised for Jacksonian democracy (§ 569) did not suit its needs. It made the people's rule too indirect. It suited better the secret rule of Privilege. It was particularly fitted for the skillful manipulation of "bosses," the agents of Privilege. About 1900, as is said above (§ 803), the conviction grew strong among political reformers that the first need of our Republic was § 823] IN THE STATES 683 more direct democracy, with less power in "political middlemen": -direct nominations by the people in place of indirect by bargaining conventions; a direct check upon officials after election by the recall; direct legislation by the initiative and referendum; direct "home rule" for cities, in place of indirect rule at the State capital; direct election of United States Senators; a direct voice in the government by women; and so on. 823. This need of more democratic political machinery was to be met almost wholly by State action, not by National law. This was fortunate. One State moved faster for direct legislation; another State, for woman suffrage; while those States which do not yet move in any matter, and which might have drag enough to prevent any movement in a consolidated nation, must at least look on with interest while their more far-sighted or more reckless neighbors act as political experiment stations. Each of these experiments which proves profitable to democracy will in time force its way into all the commonwealths. For many years after the Civil War, the State seemed in danger of sinking into a disused organ-a sort of vermiform appendix in the body politic. But now the State has reawakened, and, with it, new hope for democracy. In 1900, after years of splendid conflict under the leadership of Robert La Follette, Wisconsin began to shake off the rule of bosses and machine politics, to control railroads, and to build a truly democratic commonwealth, with her great university for her training school in politics and in nobler living. Then, led by William Uren, Oregon adopted democratic machinery that outran anything before known in America. Oklahoma began its statehood with most of the democratic devices known at the time, and with some novel experiments, in its first constitution. And the State elections of 1910 and 1911 witnessed brilliant democratic progress all the way from the redemption of corporation-ridden New Jersey by Woodrow Wilson (§ 793) to the redemption of Southern-Pacific-ridden California by Hiram W. Johnson, with the adoption of nearly all the reforms indicated above in several States. A true democratic machinery is the contribution of the early twentieth century to democracy. 824. The Australian Ballot1 was the first of these reforms to win general acceptance. Under earlier practice, the parties and candidates printed tickets in any form they liked, often with deceptive labels or with fraudulent changes of one or more names. Thoughtful voters, who wished to vote independently of party labels, found it difficult to do so; and a purchased voter received his ballot from the bribe-giver, who watched him deposit it. Now in all but two States, there is an official ballot printed by the State. No other can be used. The names of all candidates appear on this ballot; and spaces are left for the voter to write in others if he so wishes. The ballot is given out only by the judge of election at the polling place and at the time of voting; and the process of voting is in general as follows: (1) The voter gives his name to the judges of election, and they verify it from the "registration" 1 The system is essentially the English ballot system of 1870, which had been improved in some measure in some of the Australian States. § 825] THE AUSTRALIAN BALLOT 685 lists as the name of a legal voter in that precinct. (2) The voter then receives from the judge one ballot (and if he mismarks this, so as to require another, the first one must be delivered to the judges and destroyed). (3) He takes this ballot into a screened booth, where he finds a shelf and a pencil, and marks his choice for each office. (4) He then folds the ballot, and it is deposited in the ballot box by an election official under his eyes. This process insures secrecy, and discourages buying votes: the buyer finds it hard to make sure that the voter "delivers the goods." Henry George (§ 820) began the American agitation for the Australian ballot in 1886 in New York. In 1887, a bill for the reform was defeated in the legislature; and three years later, when public opinion compelled the old parties to grant the reform, they managed for a while to deceive the people with a sham. The New York ballot of 1890 did secure secrecy; but it encouraged straight party voting by arranging that one mark at the head of a ticket should stand for all the candidates of the party selected. Five years later, however, New York secured the true reform ballot. One of the chief advantages of the Australian ballot is that it requires the voter to designate his choice for each office, and so encourages independent voting. Some States permit voting machines. Such a machine combines all the advantages of the Australian ballot with certain others. The count is automatic, — obviating errors and corruption by clerks; and the fact that the count is complete (except for copying the results) when the last vote is cast saves much time and expense. The machine has the full ballot upon it, with a key opposite each name or each question, and the candidate votes his choice by pressing certain keys. 825. Good election machinery, however, is not enough. Good nomination machinery is quite as important. The people must have a fair chance to express their will in selecting the candidates between whom the final choice must be made. This is the aim of a movement for "direct primaries." 1 Most States now require that every voter shall "register" some time before election, and no one can vote on election day whose name does not appear on the registration list. This device prevents "repeating" and the importing of voters from other precincts. The registration lists are published before election, so that errors or frauds may be detected. Under the old system of nominating caucuses and conventions (§ 569) rarely did a tenth of the voters take any part in nominations. The matter was left to the political "machines.” Or, if a popular contest did take place, the result was often determined by fraud or trickery or by absolute violence. In 1897 the young Robert M. La Follette of Wisconsin, smarting under undeserved defeat in boss-owned nominating conventions, worked out a complete system of "direct primaries " for State and Nation, and began to agitate for its adoption. In 1901, Minnesota adopted the plan, and it is now (1917) in force in nearly half the States. 826. More significant than choice of officials is direct control by the people over the laws which officials are to carry out. As a rule, even in "democracies," the people have governed themselves only indirectly. They have chosen representatives; and these delegated individuals have made the laws,times with little response to popular desires. Radical democrats demand that the people take a more direct and effective part in lawmaking by the referendum and the initiative. some The referendum is the older device. It consists merely in referring to a popular vote for final confirmation a law which has already passed the legislature or the State convention. The practice originated in Massachusetts in the ratification of the State constitution, in 1778 and 1780 (§ 265). Since 1820 it has been used almost always in our States for the ratification of new constitutions or constitutional amendments; and there has been a growing tendency to submit to popular vote also, in State or city, questions of liquor licensing, bond issues, and public ownership. For more than a half century, Switzerland has carried the practice much further. There a certain number of voters by petition may compel the legislature to submit any law to popular decision. Switzerland also developed the true complement to the referendum; namely, the initiative. By 1870, in nearly all the 1 Modern Progress, pp. 549–550, or Modern World, § 854. |