Anti-partism and party control of political reform in the United States: The case of the Australian ballot

British Journal of Political Science

Volumn 30, Issue 1, 2000, Pages 1-29

  Ware, Alan ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0040955051     PISSN: 00071234     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0007123400000016     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. Joel H. Silbey, The American Political Nation, 1838-1893 (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1991).
2. Among other works on political parties, Merriam wrote the definitive account of the introduction of primary elections, in which he does not even attempt to conceal his Progressive sympathies and his hostility to most types of party politician. This book was originally written by Merriam alone (in 1908), but the edition most cited by later authors was co-written with Louise Overacker (Charles E. Merriam and Louise Overacker, Primary Elections (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1928)). The rather 'unscientific' language often employed by Merriam in constructing his arguments is well illustrated in the following passage: 'the primary election, having become of the most important steps in the process of government, was open to every abuse that unscrupulous men, dazzled by prospects of almost incredible wealth and dictatorial power, could devise and execute', p. 7. Following the New Deal, Merriam became much more supportive of parties than he had been earlier, so that, for example, by 1940 he was keen to emphasize that the introduction of direct primaries had not undermined the capacity of parties to organize the electorate (Charles E. Merriam, The American Party System, 3rd edn (New York: Macmillan, 1940), p. 278).
3. Among other works on political parties, Merriam wrote the definitive account of the introduction of primary elections, in which he does not even attempt to conceal his Progressive sympathies and his hostility to most types of party politician. This book was originally written by Merriam alone (in 1908), but the edition most cited by later authors was co-written with Louise Overacker (Charles E. Merriam and Louise Overacker, Primary Elections (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1928)). The rather 'unscientific' language often employed by Merriam in constructing his arguments is well illustrated in the following passage: 'the primary election, having become of the most important steps in the process of government, was open to every abuse that unscrupulous men, dazzled by prospects of almost incredible wealth and dictatorial power, could devise and execute', p. 7. Following the New Deal, Merriam became much more supportive of parties than he had been earlier, so that, for example, by 1940 he was keen to emphasize that the introduction of direct primaries had not undermined the capacity of parties to organize the electorate (Charles E. Merriam, The American Party System, 3rd edn (New York: Macmillan, 1940), p. 278).
4. Among the historians whose research prompted this re-evaluation of Progressivism was David P. Thelen, one of whose important early articles was 'Social Tensions and the Origins of Progressivism', Journal of American History, 56 (1969), 323-41; see also Thelen, The New Citizenship: Origins of Progressivism in Wisconsin, 1885-1900 (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1972); Daniel T. Rodgers, 'In Search of Progressivism', Reviews in American History, 10 (1982), 113-32; and Richard L. McCormick, The Party Period and Public Policy: American Politics from the Age of Jackson to the Progressive Era (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986), chap. 7. However, an important earlier study of one state, Massachusetts, in which Progressivism had little influence is Richard M. Abrams, Conservatism in a Progressive Era, Massachusetts Politics, 1900-1912 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1964).
5. Among the historians whose research prompted this re-evaluation of Progressivism was David P. Thelen, one of whose important early articles was 'Social Tensions and the Origins of Progressivism', Journal of American History, 56 (1969), 323-41; see also Thelen, The New Citizenship: Origins of Progressivism in Wisconsin, 1885-1900 (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1972); Daniel T. Rodgers, 'In Search of Progressivism', Reviews in American History, 10 (1982), 113-32; and Richard L. McCormick, The Party Period and Public Policy: American Politics from the Age of Jackson to the Progressive Era (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986), chap. 7. However, an important earlier study of one state, Massachusetts, in which Progressivism had little influence is Richard M. Abrams, Conservatism in a Progressive Era, Massachusetts Politics, 1900-1912 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1964).
6. Among the historians whose research prompted this re-evaluation of Progressivism was David P. Thelen, one of whose important early articles was 'Social Tensions and the Origins of Progressivism', Journal of American History, 56 (1969), 323-41; see also Thelen, The New Citizenship: Origins of Progressivism in Wisconsin, 1885-1900 (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1972); Daniel T. Rodgers, 'In Search of Progressivism', Reviews in American History, 10 (1982), 113-32; and Richard L. McCormick, The Party Period and Public Policy: American Politics from the Age of Jackson to the Progressive Era (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986), chap. 7. However, an important earlier study of one state, Massachusetts, in which Progressivism had little influence is Richard M. Abrams, Conservatism in a Progressive Era, Massachusetts Politics, 1900-1912 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1964).
7. Among the historians whose research prompted this re-evaluation of Progressivism was David P. Thelen, one of whose important early articles was 'Social Tensions and the Origins of Progressivism', Journal of American History, 56 (1969), 323-41; see also Thelen, The New Citizenship: Origins of Progressivism in Wisconsin, 1885-1900 (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1972); Daniel T. Rodgers, 'In Search of Progressivism', Reviews in American History, 10 (1982), 113-32; and Richard L. McCormick, The Party Period and Public Policy: American Politics from the Age of Jackson to the Progressive Era (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986), chap. 7. However, an important earlier study of one state, Massachusetts, in which Progressivism had little influence is Richard M. Abrams, Conservatism in a Progressive Era, Massachusetts Politics, 1900-1912 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1964).
8. Among the historians whose research prompted this re-evaluation of Progressivism was David P. Thelen, one of whose important early articles was 'Social Tensions and the Origins of Progressivism', Journal of American History, 56 (1969), 323-41; see also Thelen, The New Citizenship: Origins of Progressivism in Wisconsin, 1885-1900 (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1972); Daniel T. Rodgers, 'In Search of Progressivism', Reviews in American History, 10 (1982), 113-32; and Richard L. McCormick, The Party Period and Public Policy: American Politics from the Age of Jackson to the Progressive Era (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986), chap. 7. However, an important earlier study of one state, Massachusetts, in which Progressivism had little influence is Richard M. Abrams, Conservatism in a Progressive Era, Massachusetts Politics, 1900-1912 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1964).
9. Austin Ranney, Curing the Mischiefs of Faction: Party Reform in America (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1975), p. 23.
10. Richard Hofstadter, The Idea of a Party System: The Rise of Legitimate Opposition in the United States, 1780-1840 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1970).
11. Ranney, Curing the Mischiefs of Faction, p. 81.
12. I wish to make it clear that I am neither implying nor intending any criticism of Wattenberg, Pomper, or Katz and Kolodny in this regard; my point is simply that, like many widely accepted arguments, Ranney's has fallen victim to its very success, in that its originator's role has been forgotten.
13. Martin P. Wattenberg, The Rise of Candidate-Centred Politics (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1991), pp. 32-4.
14. Gerald M. Pomper, Passions and Interest: Political Party Concepts of American Democracy (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1992), pp. 132-4.
15. Richard S. Katz and Robin Kolodny, 'Party Organization as an Empty Vessel: Parties in American Politics', in Richard S. Katz and Peter Mair, eds, How Parties Organize: Change and Adaptation in Party Organizations in Western Democracies (London: Sage, 1994), pp. 26-7.
16. See, for example, the essays in the Special Issue of the European Journal of Political Science, 29 (1996) on the 'Politics of Anti-Party Sentiment', especially Piero Ignazi, 'The Intellectual Basis of Right-Wing Anti-Partyism', pp. 279-96.
17. See, for example, the essays in the Special Issue of the European Journal of Political Science, 29 (1996) on the 'Politics of Anti-Party Sentiment', especially Piero Ignazi, 'The Intellectual Basis of Right-Wing Anti-Partyism', pp. 279-96.
18. De Gaulle's attempt to weaken the role of parties in the Fourth Republic's successor lasted no longer than his own presidency, and his 'non-party' grouping quickly became a party in all but name.
19. See Brian Harrison, 'The Centrist Theme in Modern British Politics', in Harrison, Peaceable Kingdom: Stability and Change in Modern Britain (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982), pp. 309-77.
20. McCormick, among others, has pointed out that the view that parties were 'evil' was widespread in England in the late eighteenth century, as well as in America; The Party Period and Public Policy, p. 145.
21. Kenneth M. Stampp, America in 1857 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), p. 73.
22. On the Mugwumps, see especially Gerald W. McFarland, Mugwumps, Morals and Politics, 1884-1920 (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1975); Geoffrey Blodgett, 'The Mugwump Reputation, 1870 to the Present', Journal of American History, 66 (1980), 867-87; and Blodgett, The Gentle Reformers: Massachusetts Democrats in the Cleveland Era (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1966).
23. On the Mugwumps, see especially Gerald W. McFarland, Mugwumps, Morals and Politics, 1884-1920 (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1975); Geoffrey Blodgett, 'The Mugwump Reputation, 1870 to the Present', Journal of American History, 66 (1980), 867-87; and Blodgett, The Gentle Reformers: Massachusetts Democrats in the Cleveland Era (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1966).
24. On the Mugwumps, see especially Gerald W. McFarland, Mugwumps, Morals and Politics, 1884-1920 (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1975); Geoffrey Blodgett, 'The Mugwump Reputation, 1870 to the Present', Journal of American History, 66 (1980), 867-87; and Blodgett, The Gentle Reformers: Massachusetts Democrats in the Cleveland Era (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1966).
25. Michael E. McGerr, The Decline of Popular Politics: The American North, 1865-1928 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986), p. 67.
26. Abrams, Conservatism in a Progressive Age, pp. 179-84 and 239-43; John F. Reynolds, Testing Democracy: Electoral Behavior and Progressive Reform in New Jersey, 1880-1920 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1988), p. 130; Thomas R. Pegram, Partisans and Progressives: Private Interest and Public Policy in Illinois, 1870-1922 (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1992), pp. 166-81.
27. Abrams, Conservatism in a Progressive Age, pp. 179-84 and 239-43; John F. Reynolds, Testing Democracy: Electoral Behavior and Progressive Reform in New Jersey, 1880-1920 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1988), p. 130; Thomas R. Pegram, Partisans and Progressives: Private Interest and Public Policy in Illinois, 1870-1922 (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1992), pp. 166-81.
28. Abrams, Conservatism in a Progressive Age, pp. 179-84 and 239-43; John F. Reynolds, Testing Democracy: Electoral Behavior and Progressive Reform in New Jersey, 1880-1920 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1988), p. 130; Thomas R. Pegram, Partisans and Progressives: Private Interest and Public Policy in Illinois, 1870-1922 (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1992), pp. 166-81.
29. That there were crucial regional differences in political reform is demonstrated by Martin Shefter, 'Regional Receptivity to Reform: The Legacy of the Progressive Era', Political Science Quarterly, 98 (1983), 459-83.
30. McCormick, The Party Period and Public Policy, p. 179.
31. L. E. Fredman, The Australian Ballot: The Story of an American Reform (East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 1968), p. 38.
32. John F. Reynolds and Richard L. McCormick, 'Outlawing "Treachery": Split Tickets and Ballot Laws in New York and New Jersey, 1880-1910', Journal of American History, 72 (1986), 835-58, p. 842.
33. The data analysed by Reynolds and McCormick refuted the evidence presented by Rusk that the Australian Ballot had contributed to an increase in the level of split-ticket voting; see Jerrold G. Rusk, 'The Effect of the Australian Ballot on Split Ticket Voting: 1876-1908', American Political Science Review, 64 (1970), 1220-38.
34. Reynolds and McCormick, 'Outlawing "Treachery" ', p. 845.
35. Reynolds and McCormick, 'Outlawing "Treachery" ', p. 845.
36. Herbert J. Bass, I Am a Democrat: The Political Career of David Bennett Hill (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1961), p. 97.
37. Incumbent Democratic President Grover Cleveland won a plurality of votes in the country as a whole, and would have won in the Electoral College had he carried New York State. He had won that state in 1884 but lost it by 12,787 votes in 1888. Yet at the same time the Democratic state governor, David Hill, won re-election by 17,740 votes, and in New York City ran ahead of Cleveland by about 11,000 votes. At the time there were widespread allegations that Tammany Hall had done a deal with some New York City Republicans, and that 'in the eighth district, for example, Republicans peddlers had been distributing Tammany's congressional and county tickets' (Fredman, The Australian Ballot, p. 29).
38. Proceedings of the National Conference on Practical Reform of Primary Elections, New York City, 20 and 21 January 1898, p. 12.
39. Reynolds and McCormick, 'Outlawing "Treachery" ', p. 836.
40. Evans, A History of the Australian Ballot in the United States, p. 18.
41. Allen Thorndike Rice, 'Recent Reforms in Balloting', North American Review, 143 (1886), 632-3.
42. However, Michigan was actually the first state in which a legislator introduced bills to require its use, though neither the 1885 nor the 1887 bills passed. In both cases the authors of the proposed legislation could be regarded as being towards the fringes of the two-party system. The proponent of the 1885 bill was only 25 years old and had been elected on the Greenback as well as the Democratic ticket, while the 1887 bill was introduced by a state senator who was linked to the Knights of Labor and the labour press (Fredman, The Australian Ballot, p. 35).
43. Dana Family Papers, Massachusetts Historical Society ('Sir William Vernon Harcourt and the Australian Ballot', draft of a 1925 chapter intended for an autobiography; Dana Family I, Richard Henry Dana III, Box 46, p. 98).
44. It passed 18-10 in the Senate and 121-41 in the House.
45. Fredman, The Australian Ballot, p. 38.
46. Charles C. Binney, 'The Merits and Defects of the Pennsylvania Ballot Law of 1891', Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 2 (1891-2), 751-71, p. 761.
47. Nation, 6 February 1890.
48. The 'shoestring' ballot contained an additional feature that Dana and others found objectionable, which made it the least attractive ballot type for this kind of reformer. Because there had to be a blank ballot for those who wanted to ticket-split, the practice of 'pasting' was retained, and its availability provided the potential for further control over voters by party organization leaders: 'as there has to be on the official ballot a blank column in which any voter may paste names, it is only necessary to furnish each voter a blanket paster with the names of the party candidates or any combination that may be got up by a trade, and this the voter is quickly to paste on to this blank space, and pass through the compartment' (Nation, 6 February 1890).
49. Arthur C. Luddington, American Ballot Laws 1888-1910 (Albany, NY: University of the State of New York, Education Department Bulletin, 1911), pp. 33-6 and 16-19.
50. Peter H. Argersinger, 'A Place on the Ballot: Fusion Politics and Antifusion Laws', American Historical Review, 85 (1980), 287-306, p. 288.
51. Argersinger, 'A Place on the Ballot', p. 291.
52. Significantly, it did not occur under the largely anti-partisan Republican Governor, Charles E. Hughes, who championed the POB but who failed to get it 'even seriously considered by the legislature' (Richard L. McCormick, From Realignment to Reform: Political Change in New York State, 1893-1910 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1981), p. 243); this experience contrasted with his promotion of the direct primary, where despite his ultimate failure, he was able at least to generate a high-profile confrontation with the legislature.)
53. See McCormick, From Realignment to Reform, pp. 114-18.
54. For example, writing in 1966, Jack L. Walker noted of Ohio that it had changed the ballot six times in the twentieth century, and on each occasion 'the Republican majority tried to gain an advantage for itself'; see 'Ballot Form and Voter Fatigue', Midwest Journal of Political Science, 10 (1966), 448-63, p. 448.
55. See Leon Epstein, Political Parties in the American Mold (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1986), pp. 172-3.
56. On Deneen, see Pegram, Partisans and Progressives, pp. 166-81, and Joel Arthur Tarr, A Study in Boss Politics: William Lorimer of Chicago (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1971), pp. 126-35 and 185-97.
57. On Deneen, see Pegram, Partisans and Progressives, pp. 166-81, and Joel Arthur Tarr, A Study in Boss Politics: William Lorimer of Chicago (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1971), pp. 126-35 and 185-97.
58. This article on the Australian Ballot forms part of a much larger study by the author of party transformation in the period 1880-1920, of which introduction of the direct primary is a key element.
59. Amos Parker Wilder, 'Primary Election Laws', Proceedings of the Milwaukee Conference for Good City Government and 6th Annual Meeting of the National Municipal League (Philadelphia: National Municipal League, 1900), p. 216.