Another argument strongly urged in favor of the reform was that it would protect the weak and dependent against intimidation and coercion by employers and creditors. The New York Times stated this argument: "It [the unofficial ballot] also gives a chance for coercion and intimidation of such voters as are in a position of more or less dependence, and makes the secrecy of the ballot impossible for a large proportion of the electors. The bill [Yates's] is intended to do away with all these evils and corruptions."[1] This point was not squarely met by the opposition. They tried to dodge the issue either by claiming that the amount of intimidation was small and diminishing, or by declaring that the economic conditions in the particular state made such protection unnecessary.[2]
Thirdly, the Australian-ballot law would place upon designated officials the duty of furnishing correct ballots to the electors at the expense of the state. This would stop the abuses springing from the private printing of ballots. It would prevent the assessment of candidates, and do away with the excuse for raising such great sums of money.[3]
- ↑ New York Times, editorial, May 24, 1888. Words in brackets are my own. See also New York Herald, editorial, May 25, 1888; North American Review, CXLIII, 632; Post, Australian System of Voting, p. 5; Kentucky Constitutional Convention, 1890, II, 1814–21, 1898, 2034.
- ↑ Kentucky Constitutional Convention, 1890, II 2002.
- ↑ Post, Australian System of Voting, pp. 2–3. Mr. Ivins (Machine Politics, pp. 86–87) thus summarizes the evil and the remedy:
The Evil The Remedy 1. The necessity for voluntary printing and distributing the ballot justifies organizations for this purpose. 1. The printing and distributing of all ballots at public expense does away with the necessity of organisation of this purpose. 2. It practically vests the "machines" with the monopoly or the election machinery. 2. And will deprive the political machines of the monopoly of an essential part of the election machinery 3. And, as a consequence, with the monopoly of nomination. 3. It will enable any body of citizens of the number prescribed by law to have the name of their candidate printed on the same ballot with the names of all other candidates for the same office, so that before the law and before the voters all candidates and all party organisations will stand on a perfectly even footing. 4. It involves the necessity of defaying the expenses of both printing and distribution by means of assessments on or contributions by candidates, office-holders or party leaders. 4. This will dispense altogether with the necessity of, and excuse for, levying political assessments. 5. Which facilitate bribery and corruption by affording them convenient covers. 5. And leave no legal cover for bribery. The law can describe and limit all permissible expenditures, and compel the candidate or his agent to make a sworn return with vouchers to a proper public officer for all disbursements. It may punish all violations with sufficiently severe penalties. 6. And debauches the electors by leading them to become partisans for pay instead of honestly performing their duty as citizens. 6. And prescribes that no elector under pay of a party or candidate shall be permitted to vote, thus making it more the interest of candidates and parties not to pay than to pay for election services, and thus deterring all honest electors from accepting pay.
the spotlight of public criticism. Lord Claud Hamilton stated this argument: "If in a free country public opinion could not raise the moral tone of the constituencies and lead them to look with scorn on the demoralizing and disgraceful practice of corruption, it was hopeless to expect that good would be effected by the adoption of a secret system. Nothing was supposed to prevent misconduct and robbery at night so effectually as gas lamps" (Hansard Parliamentary Debates, CXCIV, 1505).
