1904 there were five Republican candidates for county treasurer and four for sheriff, fourteen Republican and six Democratic candidates for two judgeships, six Republican and three Democratic candidates for mayor, five Republican and three Democratic candidates for Congressman. For some positions, however, there were only two candidates, and for county auditor only one.

In most cases where there were numerous candidates the nomination was decided by less than a majority of the whole number of votes, but generally by a considerable plurality over the nearest competitor. Thus the successful Republican candidate for Congressman at the latest primary in Hennepin County received 10,000 votes out of 27,000, his nearest rival having 7,300. The sheriff nominated had 12,800 votes to 6,400 for his nearest rival. But the successful candidate for mayor had only 9,000 against 7,900 for his closest competitor; and the comptroller nominated had less than a third of the total vote, 8,191, as compared to 7,933 for his next rival. On the other hand the Democratic nominees for Congress and mayor had each a clear majority of the whole Decocratic vote.

It is also clear that this method results in a large popular participation in the nomination process, much beyond that under the caucus and convention system. In 1902 the total vote polled at the primaries throughout Minnesota was 175,235. This was 55.7 per cent of the vote polled at the final election in 1900—a presidential year, and 68 per cent of the vote in the final election in 1902. There was some variation in the relative primary vote in different sections of the State, the largest proportion being in Hennepin County; but the most striking difference was between the large vote of the Republicans (approximately 80 per cent, in Hennepin County 92 per cent) and the small vote of the Democrats (26 per cent of their final vote, in Hennepin County,

however, 65 per cent). The small Democratic vote was explained partly by lack of competition for nominations in the minority party, partly by considerable numbers of Democrats voting for Republican candidates at the primaries, partly by objection on the part of some voters to the provision requiring them to declare their party allegiance in asking for the primary ballot.

Full returns for the primaries in 1904 have not yet been compiled. The figures for Hennepin County show the votes cast at the primaries to be about the same in number as two years before; but this is a smaller proportion of the vote at the final election in this presidential year. The aggregate primary vote in this county was 70 per cent of the final vote, as compared to 78 per cent two years before. The Republican vote was larger, and the Democratic vote not much over half of that in 1902. It is, however, difficult to compare the party votes at the primaries with that at the final election, owing to the extraordinary amount of "scratching" at the latter. The Republican vote at the primary was practically the same as the vote received by the party candidate for Congress; it was larger than the Republican vote for Governor, and about 90 per cent of the Republican vote for President. The Democratic votes at the primary were about onefourth of the Democratic vote for Congressman, and 80 per cent of the Democratic vote for President.

Further study of the results of the direct primary system in Minnesota requires large knowledge of local conditions and the character of the candidates chosen. And the following statements of opinion and conclusions are presented from men well qualified to judge in these respects:

BY DAVID F. SIMPSON, DISTRICT JUDGE, MINNEAPOLIS. This plan of a primary election has been thought by many people to solve most if not all the difficulties that have existed in making party nominations that represent fairly the desire and intention of a majority of the members of the party, but familiarity with its operation compels the belief that this plan is not a panacea for all existing evils. The method, however, has certain advantages over the old caucus system. These I would group as follows:

I. It arouses a greater interest in the voters;

2. A very much greater number participate in the primary;

3. It prevents a few people from controlling either the whole or any section of an election district.

In our experience under the primary law we find that about 85 per cent of the voters take part in the primary election. This is perhaps in part due to the fact that the day of the primary election is also the first day of registration for voting at the succeeding election. But the result shows a great superiority in the matter of general public interest aroused over the old caucus system, where the attendance at the caucus varied from a few individuals who desired to be delegates to a convention in case there was no contest, to an attendance greatly in excess of the total number of voters living in the district, in cases where there was a contest over delegates.

On the other hand the system of nominating candidates by direct primary vote has certain apparent disadvantages:

1. It subjects candidates to a humiliating campaign, and to great expense.

2. This deters many good men from becoming candidates, and induces the candidacy, often, of men who are willing to spend money for the opportunity of advertising themselves in the community.

3. The number of candidates is so great, and from

the nature of the offices to be filled the candidates are of such character and standing that the elector has no sufficient information as to the relative merit of candidates, and cannot exercise in many cases an intelligent choice.

4. Because of the lack of opportunity for any great percentage of the electors to get accurate information as to the qualifications of the candidates, a general notoriety, a name that has become familiar, has an undue influence in the success of candidates.

5. Even though the law requires an elector when he presents himself to vote at the primary election to declare his party affiliations, we find from experience that a majority of the minority party will take part in the primary of the majority party.

6. Where there are several candidates for the same office some one is likely to be, and in practice often is, nominated by a plurality vote which is very much less than a majority.

We have become familiar with the working of our primary law in the city of Minneapolis, and in Hennepin County, the most populous city and county in this State; and any one observing the working of the system has been able to observe many illustrations of all the foregoing tendencies of the law.

Our primary law, as now existing, provides that any qualified elector may be a candidate for the nomination by a political party for any office by filing a statement of his intention to be such candidate, and depositing $10.00; and upon the filing of such statement, and fee, his name is printed on the ticket given the electors at the primary as a candidate for such nomination. Formerly names were placed on the ballot by petition, but this became an intolerable nuisance, and the law was amended, and this feature was stricken out.

After a man becomes a candidate on his own motion, he is confronted with the necessity, in a large city at

least, of making his existence known to some 25,000 or 30,000 voters, who theretofore may never have heard of him. Several plans have been devised by experience to do this.

Before a primary election the advertising spaces of the city are freely decorated with portraits and alluring descriptions of the candidates; descriptions and illustrations that rival at times all the efforts of the paid advertisers for patent medicines. The columns of the daily press are used to make the public familiar with the features, and certain selected portions of the lives of the candidates. And last, but not least, the industrious local politician organizes a "club," hires a hall, calls on all the candidates to contribute to the payment of the alleged expenses, and in return the candidates are given opportunity of personally addressing the electors, and endeavor, by their appearance, by what they may say in commendation of themselves, by the distribution of portrait cards, and in other ways, to impress the voters present with their fitness for the position which they desire to оссиру.

These methods are not followed by a few of the candidates, but from year to year are more generally followed, as experience teaches the necessity of in some manner trying to familiarize the electors with the names of the candidates.

With such a system prevailing, it becomes apparent that the first suggestion made above, that the system subjects candidates to humiliation and great expense is accurate. And it would follow that many men very fit to hold a public office, and willing to hold such office if it could be obtained in a manner that to them seems proper, are prevented from seeking such an office. And, also, that men who enjoy the kind of advertising and notoriety given are eager to become candidates.

As to the number of candidates, and the impossibility of the elector becoming familiar with the qualifications