of party votes[1] the success of the measure in the country as a whole cannot be claimed by either of the two great political parties, and its enemies were also bipartisan.
3. THE ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST THE AUSTRALIAN BALLOT
Following the success of the Australian ballot in Massachusetts, a general agitation for the reform took place, and its friends found the ground well prepared. The period of corruption had created a favorable attitude on the part of a majority of the voters toward any system of reform, although there was some difference of opinion as to the proper remedy.
In favor of the Australian ballot it was urged:
First, that it would diminish or prevent the growing evil of bribery by removing the knowledge of whether it had been successful. "The buyer can keep track of the voter under the old law, and see that he actually deposits the identical ballot he gives him, and, as a matter of fact, the utmost vigilance is maintained in all such cases by the investor. He knows that a man so low as to sell his vote would not hesitate to break his word and cheat the purchaser."[2] Under the secret ballot this ocular proof cannot be obtained; and it was asserted that no man would buy a commodity when he could not know if it had been delivered.[3] This was one of the strongest arguments advanced by the supporters of ballot reform. Its enemies denied, however, that the official ballot would remove bribery. Governor Hill argued that it would make bribery easier. He said that the provision of the law requiring the judges of elections to place their initials on the back of the ballots would, with the collusion of officials, make the identification of bribed votes even more certain. He maintained also that there would be a widespread bribery of ballot clerks and inspectors, because it would be easier, safer, and would require less money to corrupt them than to bribe so many electors.[4]
- ↑ Wigmore, Australian Ballot System, p. 205.
- ↑ Chicago Inter Ocean, editorial, June 12, 1891.
- ↑ "It will put an end to the practice of vote selling, for nobody will buy a commodity when he was unable to know whether it had been delivered."—Chicago Tribune, editorial, June 11, 1891. Political Science Quarterly, IV, 137. See also New York Times, editorial, May 3, 1888; New York Herald, editorial, May 14, 1889; Post, Australian System of Voting, p. 5; Kentucky Constitutional Convention, 1890, II, 2025; Common Council v. Rush, 82 Mich. 532.
- ↑ New York Herald, "Veto Message of Governor Hill," May 14, 1889.
In England where the issue was between the official ballot and the viva voce method, it was argued that the secret ballot would increase bribery by hiding it from
