VOTING AND VOTE-SLACKING

BY CHARLES H. SHERRILL

BACK in 1896, 84 per cent. of those qualified to vote in the United States did their duty at the polls. In 1920 a little over 49 per cent. voted, and in 1924 a little more than 50 per cent.

Is voting an important part of a citizen's duty or is it not? Are we, or are we not, living in a glass house and throwing stones at outsiders? We love to sneer at elections in other lands, and especially at those in Latin-American republics. We claim to be the most successful example of a free and enlightened democracy, and especially point with pride to the safeguards which surround our ballot boxes. Any American political writer will tell you how superior is our republic to France, and how much more advanced in political thought than Argentina. But what are the facts? Even a slight investigation will disclose the glass house in which we are residing.

No one knows better than we that a free and enlightened people should evidence their interest in their own government by voting. Our newspapers have been full of this for the last year. There are several reasons why our vote last November should have been unusually large. In the first place, it was a national election, which means that all political parties were doing their utmost to increase the vote. Secondly, there was a vigorous non-partisan campaign being conducted to the same end. Thirdly, unusual interest was aroused by the emergence of a third party led by Mr. LaFollette. The disheartening result was that our vote proved but slightly more than in 1920. Our population had increased 14.9 per cent., and yet in 1924 we voted only 28,924,070 against 26,711,183 in 1920. The LaFollette movement increased the vote in the industrial States over that in 1920, but the 1924 vote was less than that of 1920 in eighteen other States, viz.: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Flor

ida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and Washington.

Last spring I was in Paris during the general elections held to choose a new Chamber of Deputies plus a third of the Senate; and I studied them carefully. Nothing was going on to indicate that a vigorous political campaign was in progress:-no parades, not many speeches, few tirades in the press for or against any political party. About all one could see was that numerous billboards were set up at street corners to permit the posting of campaign propaganda, which posters were constantly renewed and attracted many readers. That was all-a very tame campaign according to American views. And yet against our 50 per cent. 84 per cent. of the French voters did their duty at the polls. Have we a right to consider ourselves better citizens of our republic than they have thus demonstrated themselves to be of theirs?

Now let us turn our eyes to the south of our glass house, down toward Latin-America. Of course we shall hasten to vaunt our superiority over Mexico, at whose elections the poor peon gets small chance and less encouragement to vote for or against policies or rulers. But what about Argentina? There is a country which leads the world in its insistence that a citizen do his duty at the polls. They meet the problem frankly, and they handle it drastically. If a qualified voter fails to vote in Argentina, and can give no excuse of sudden illness (voting by mail is provided for all other sick folk), then he is fined ten pesos (about $4); and at the next and each subsequent failure to vote, his fine is doubled. In other words, Argentina rules that a citizen who does not vote deserves punishment, and fixes the

amount.

Now let us get back to our sympathy for the unfortunate Mexican peon whose overlord will not let him vote. Suppose one of those local tyrants who seem especially to merit our condemnation should have the effrontery to come out with a statement something like this: "Frightful conditions among Negro voters in the United States! In many sections the wellto-do whites will not permit their colored fellow citizens to vote!

By their laws each Congressional district contains 211,877 citizens, but the proportion of them voting in the Southeastern States is ominously less than in the North and West. In the Southern States in 1924 the vote per Congressional district was only 11,536 in the First Alabama district, 12,158 in the Second Florida, 13,400 in the Fourth Mississippi, 5,531 in the First South Carolina, etc. The total vote in the First Georgia district was 14,037; and in only one other, the Ninth, was there more than one candidate. In ten of Georgia's twelve districts only one candidate ran.

"And yet these Americans criticize us Mexicans for discouraging our ignorant peons from voting! As a matter of fact, the total vote cast in all Georgia was only 124,385, which total is less than that cast in many a Congressional district in the North and West (197,360 in the Seventh Illinois, 202,896 in the Sixth Michigan, 152,992 in the Twenty-Second Ohio, 130,189 in the First New York, 157,030 in the Seventh Indiana, 214,705 in the Tenth California, etc.). Why do these Americans consent to such treatment of their Negro fellow citizens, at the same time that they are criticizing a certain judicious handling by us of our peon vote?"

Might not such a statement from a Mexican have the unpleasant effect of reminding us that we are living in a glass house? And might it not modify our tendency to throw stones at outsiders? Perhaps, if we thought the matter over a little, we might even come to two somewhat radical conclusions:

First, that we sadly need some such law as the Argentine has to punish vote-slackers and thus indirectly put a premium on the conscientious citizen who votes; and

Second, that a vote-slacking community should share this punishment with their delinquent individuals. Is not the fair way to measure this punishment somewhat as follows: Proportion a State's vote in the Electoral College upon the total vote cast in that State at the preceding Presidential election. At present Alabama, Virginia, and Minnesota each enjoy twelve votes in the Electoral College. Last November Minnesota cast over 800,000 votes, while Alabama cast only 166,055 and Virginia 223,481. Is not that state of affairs unjust?

How idle it is to talk about "getting out the vote" when such disparities are permitted to continue in the Electoral College! Why should 166,187 Georgia voters have 14 votes in the Electoral College while 167,114 voters of Montana have only 4, or 198,379 voters of North Dakota have only 5? Last November 111,463 voted in Mississippi and 121,961 in Louisiana, each State having 10 electoral votes, the same as Kansas, where no less than 666,441 citizens did their duty at the polls.

There is, however, no reason why we should permit any Mexican or Argentine or Frenchman to abuse our Southern fellowcitizens without our defending them. I have lived much in the South, know and like the people, and understand thoroughly their point of view in regard to districts where Negroes outnumber the whites. Self defense is the first law of nature. Also, any student of our political history knows that many of our finest statemen were Southerners-George Washington was a Southern gentleman!

The Southerner is a fine type of American citizen, but "there are others". During the last year I have seen a good deal of the two Dakotas and the neighboring States, have come to hold a high opinion of those sturdy North-Westerners, and can testify that they are beginning to feel resentment against the unfair advantage in the Electoral College which the South enjoys. When an idea like this gets started in the pure air of those western prairies it spreads fast.

The glorious campaigns for political liberty launched by the American and French revolutions were chiefly to gain for the citizens the right to vote: they were protests against taxation without representation. Both those peoples won the right to the ballot. Today 84 per cent. of the French and only 50 per cent. of us Americans are using it. Is it not about time that we took a decided step forward, following Argentina's lead in punishing the vote-slacker? And if vote-slacking is a punishable offense, ought we not also to punish vote-slacking States by amending our Constitution so that a State's vote in the Electoral College shall be proportionate to the total vote cast in that State at the preceding Presidential election? CHARLES H. SHERRILL.

THE PASSING OF GOMPERS AND THE FUTURE OF ORGANIZED LABOR

BY JOHN SPARGO

I

To what extent, and in what manner, will the character and the policy of the American labor movement be influenced by the death of Samuel Gompers, for so many years its brilliant and distinguished leader, and the passing of the reins of leadership to younger hands? Will the result be the closer alignment of the American movement with that of Great Britain and Continental Europe, and, especially, the creation of a class conscious political party of labor, similar to the British Labour Party? Will there be inaugurated an era of more aggressive and adventurous policy? These questions, which the death of the great labor leader has taken into the wider forum of public discussion, had occupied the minds of students and observers of the labor movement long before. The age of Mr. Gompers and the precarious state of his health during the last three years made them inevitable.

Born in England, in 1850, for upwards of forty years he had held high position in the American labor movement. With the exception of John Mitchell, the miners' champion and leader, who for a time seemed destined to supplant him, Mr. Gompers had no serious rival for more than a generation. There is no parallel to his career in the history of labor of this or any other country.

No one who is reasonably conversant with the history of the American labor movement will deny, or seriously question, that Mr. Gompers held his unique position by virtue of extraordinary gifts of intellect and of character, amounting to something closely akin to genius. Taken all in all, he was incomparably the greatest leader that the trade union movement of any country has yet produced. Never at any time a profound student of books, he was not the equal in scholarship of certain British and French