Page:A History of the Australian Ballot System in the United States.djvu/22

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been validated.
VOTING BEFORE INTRODUCTION OF AUSTRALIAN BALLOT
11

Even in the fifteen states that required the ballots voted to be printed on plain white paper,[1] the parties by selecting different shades of white defeated the purpose of the law. The failure of the law to secure secrecy opened the door to bribery, intimidation, and corruption.

As long as universal suffrage exists there will probably be more or less bribery of voters. It is hard, however, to imagine a system more open to corruption than the one just described. The ballots were not only distinguishable, but the briber was permitted to have full view of the voter’s ticket from the time it was given to him until it was dropped in the ballot box. Money, or “soap,” as it was called, with increasing frequency was used to carry elections after the Civil War. Moreover, the buying of votes was not confined by any means to the city, but was freely used in the country as well. One writer described the conditions as follows:

This sounds like exaggeration, but it is truth; and these are facts so notorious that no one acquainted with the conduct of recent elections now attempts a denial—that the raising of colossal sums for the purpose of bribery has been rewarded by promotion to the highest offices in the government; that systematic organization for the purchase of votes, individually and in blocks, at the polls has become a recognized factor in the machinery of parties; that the number of voters who demand money compensation for their ballots has grown greater with each recurring election;… men of standing in the community have openly sold their votes at prices ranging from fifteen to thirty dollars; and that for securing the more disreputable elements—the “floaters,” as they are termed—new two dollar bills have been scattered abroad with a prodigality that would seem incredible but for the magnitude of the object to be obtained.[2]

It was charged that the bribery of voters in Indiana in 1880 and 1888 was sufficient to determine the result of the election. In 1888 it was commonly reported that one item in the Republican expense account was one hundred thousand dollars paid to W. W. Dudley toward the expense of carrying Indiana by “blocks of five.”[3] The use of money has indeed become a serious menace to American institutions, and was filling thoughtful citizens with disgust and anxiety. Many electors, aware that the corrupt element was large enough to be able to turn the election, held aloof altogether.

Intimidation was just as rife as bribery, and was largely traceable to the same cause—the non-secret ballot. In 1869 the committee appointed

  1. See pages 7–8.
  2. Gordon, The Protection of the Suffrage, p. 13.
  3. Forum, VII, 631.