These considerations show what a very imperfect instrument the present system is for expressing public opinion.  The test which should be applied to any system of election is whether it allows each elector to express his opinion on general policy, and from this point of view the present system fails lamentably; all opinion which does not run in the direct channel of party is excluded.  Mr. Bryce has fixed on this defect as the weak point of the party system, but the fault really lies in the limitation of choice connected with the present system of election.  It is quite true that “in every country voting for a man is an inadequate way of expressing one’s views of policy, because the candidate is sure to differ in one or more questions from many of those who belong to the party."[4] But if, in the first place, the incentive to limit the number of candidates be removed and the field of choice widened, and if, in the second place, each elector be allowed to vote for several candidates instead of one only, the defect would be remedied.  Now, the reform makes both these provisions, and the importance of the improvement can hardly be overrated.  It means, first, that every elector will be not only allowed, but also induced, to express his opinion on general policy.  He may give his votes to candidates either for their general views or for some particular view; or, if he lays less stress on measures than on men, he may give them to men of high character or of great administrative ability.  It means, secondly, that every section of opinion composing each party will be fairly represented, and that none will be excluded, because the candidates of each party will compete among themselves for the support of all sections, in order to decide those most in general favour.  Hence every section will directly help to frame and influence the party policy, and there will be not the slightest excuse for independent action outside the two main parties.  In the third place, it means the substitution of individual responsibility for the corporate responsibility of parties, since the electors will have the power to reject those who wish to modify party action in any direction contrary to the general wish.  It means, finally, that every elector’s opinion, as expressed by his vote, will have equal influence in deciding the direction of party action.

+Control of Nominations.+—­There is a constant incentive with the present system of election to limit the number of candidates to two, one representing each party.  For if either party splits up its votes on more than one candidate it will risk losing the seat.  But the necessity to limit the candidates involves some control of the nominations, and this is perhaps the worst feature of the system.  It means that, instead of the electors being allowed to select their representative, he is chosen for them by some irresponsible body.  We have seen how in the United States the nominating system is the source of the power of the “boss” and the “machine;”