The qualifications for voting, while varying in the different states in details, are in their main features the same throughout the Union. A residence in the state is required of from three months to two years. Residence is also necessary, but for a shorter period, in the county, city or town, or voting precinct. A few states require the payment of a poll tax. Some require that the voter shall be able to read and understand the Constitution. This latter qualification has been introduced into several of the Southern states, partly at least to disqualify the ignorant coloured voters. In all, or practically all, the states idiots, convicts and the insane are disqualified; in some states paupers; in some of the Western states the Chinese. In some states women are allowed to vote on certain questions, or for the candidates for certain offices, especially school officials; and in four of the Western states women have the same rights of suffrage as men. The number of those who are qualified to vote, but do not avail themselves of the right, varies greatly in the different states and according to the interest taken in the election. As a general rule, but subject to exceptions, the national elections call out the largest number, the state elections next, and the local elections the smallest number of voters. In an exciting national election between 80 and 90% of the qualified voters actually vote, a proportion considerably greater than in Great Britain or Germany.
The tendency of recent years has been towards a decrease both in the number and in the frequency of elections. A president and vice-president are voted for every fourth year, in the years divisible by four, on the first Tuesday following the first Monday of November. Members of the national House of Representatives are chosen for two years on the even-numbered years. State and local elections take place in accordance with state laws, and may or may not be on the same day as the national elections. Originally the rule was for the states to hold annual elections; in fact, so strongly did the feeling prevail of the need in a democratic country for frequent elections, that the maxim “where annual elections end, tyranny begins,” became a political proverb. But opinion gradually changed even in the older or Eastern states, and in 1909 Massachusetts and Rhode Island were the only states in the Union holding annual elections for governor and both houses of the state legislature. In the Western states especially state officers are chosen for longer terms—in the case of the governor often for four years—and the number of elections has correspondingly decreased. Another cause of the decrease in the number of elections is the growing practice of holding all the elections of any year on one and the same day. Before the Civil War Pennsylvania held its state elections several months before the national elections. Ohio and Indiana, until 1885 and 1881 respectively, held their state elections early in October. Maine, Vermont and Arkansas keep to September. The selection of one day in the year for all elections held in that year has resulted in a considerable decrease in the total number.
Another tendency of recent years, but not so pronounced, is to hold local elections in what is known as the “off” year; that is, on the odd-numbered year, when no national election is held. The object of this reform is to encourage independent voting. The average American citizen is only too prone to carry his national political predilections into local elections, and to vote for the local nominees of his party, without regard to the question of fitness of candidates and the fundamental difference of issues involved. This tendency to vote the entire party ticket is the more pronounced because under the system of voting in use in many of the states all the candidates of the party are arranged on one ticket, and it is much easier to vote a straight or unaltered ticket than to change or “scratch” it. Again, the voter, especially the ignorant one, refrains from scratching his ticket, lest in some way he should fail to comply with the technicalities of the law and his vote be lost. On the other hand, if local elections are held on the “off” or odd year, and there be no national or state candidates, the voter feels much more free to select only those candidates whom he considers best qualified for the various offices.
On the important question of the purity of elections it is difficult to speak with precision. In many of the states, especially those with an enlightened public spirit, such as most of the New England states and many of the North-Western, the elections are fairly conducted, there being no intimidation at all, little or no bribery, and an honest count. It can safely be said that through the Union as a whole the tendency of recent years has been decidedly towards greater honesty of elections. This is owing to a number of causes: (1) The selection of a single day for all elections, and the consequent immense number voting on that day. Some years ago, when for instance the Ohio and Indiana elections were held a few weeks before the general election, each party strained every nerve to carry them, for the sake of prestige and the influence on other states. In fact, presidential elections were often felt to turn on the result in these early voting states, and the party managers were none too scrupulous in the means employed to carry them. Bribery has decreased in such states since the change of election day to that of the rest of the country. (2) The enactment in most of the states of the Australian or secret ballot (q.v.) laws. These have led to the secrecy of the ballot, and hence to a greater or less extent have prevented intimidation and bribery. (3) Educational or other such test, more particularly in the Southern states, the object of which is to exclude the coloured, and especially the ignorant coloured, voters from the polls. In those southern states in which the coloured vote was large, and still more in those in which it was the majority, it was felt among the whites that intimidation or ballot-box stuffing was justified by the necessity of white supremacy. With the elimination of the coloured vote by educational or other tests the honesty of elections has increased. (4) The enactment of new and more stringent registration laws. Under these laws only those persons are allowed to vote whose names have been placed on the rolls a certain number of days or months before election. These rolls are open to public inspection, and the names may be challenged at the polls, and “colonization” or repeating is therefore almost impossible. (5) The reform of the civil service and the gradual elimination of the vicious principle of “to the victors belong the spoils.” With the reform of the civil service elections become less a scramble for office and more a contest of political or economic principle. They bring into the field, therefore, a better class of candidates. (6) The enactment in a number of states of various other laws for the prevention of corrupt practices, for the publication of campaign expenses, and for the prohibition of party workers from coming within a certain specified distance of the polls. In the state of Massachusetts, for instance, an act passed in 1892, and subsequently amended, provides that political committees shall file a full statement, duly sworn to, of all campaign expenditures made by them. The act applies to all public elections except that of town officers, and also covers nominations by caucuses and conventions as well. Apart from his personal expenses such as postage, travelling expenses, &c., a candidate is prohibited from spending anything himself to promote either his nomination or his election, but he is allowed to contribute to the treasury of the political committee. The law places no limit on the amount that these committees may spend. The reform sought by the law is thorough publicity, and not only are details of receipts and expenditures to be published, but the names of contributors and the amount of their contributions. In the state of New York the act which seeks to prevent corrupt practices relies in like manner on the efficacy of publicity, but it is less effective than the Massachusetts law in that it provides simply for the filing by the candidates themselves of sworn statements of their own expenses. There is nothing to prevent their contributing to political committees, and the financial methods and the amounts expended by such committees are not made public. But behind all these causes that have led to more honest elections lies the still greater one of a healthier public spirit. In the reaction following the Civil War all reforms halted. In recent years, however, a new and healthier interest has sprung up in things political; and one result of this improved civic spirit is seen in the various laws for purification of elections. It may now be safely affirmed that in the majority of states the elections are honestly conducted; that intimidation, bribery,
