on the part of the candidate to make himself known to the voters; but such effort there must always be, unless the candidate is already a conspicuous figure, in order that the citizen may have grounds for his decision.  It has in some places led to an exorbitant expenditure for self-advertisement; but this expenditure can be pretty well controlled by legislation.  The argument that it does away with the deliberation possible in a caucus wears the aspect of a joke, in view of the sort of deliberation the caucus has in practice encouraged; and discussion does, of course, take place in the public press, which is the modern forum.  It is possible, however, that some modified form of the direct primary plan may be better still, such as the Hughes plan, which provided for the election at each primary of a party committee to present carefully discussed nominations for the following year’s primary to approve or reject.[Footnote:  See Outlook, vol. 90, p. 382; vol. 95, p:  507.  North American Review, vol. 190, p. 1] Arena, vol. 35, p. 587; vol. 36, p. 52; vol. 41, p. 550.  Forum, vol. 42, p. 493.  Atlantic Monthly, vol. 110, p. 41.

(4) Preferential voting.  A more radical movement would abolish primaries altogether and settle elections upon one day by preferential voting.  The voter indicates his second choices, and any further choices he may care to indicate.  If no candidate receives a majority of first choices, the first and second choices are added together; if necessary, the third choices.  In this way the danger, so often realized, of a split vote and the election of a minority candidate, will be banished; it will no longer be possible for a machine candidate, actually the least majority of the people, to win a plurality over the divided forces of opposition.  The real wishes of the voter can be discovered and obeyed more readily than with our present troublesome and expensive system of double elections. [Footnote:  National Municipal Review, vol. 1, p. 386; vol. 3, pp. 49, 83.]

(5) Proportional representation.  By means of preferential voting it is possible to make representative bodies a mirror not of the majority party, but of the real divisions of opinion in a community.  One of the great evils in our present system of majority rule is the suppression of the wishes of the minority-which may amount to nearly half the community. [Footnote:  Cf.  Unpopular Review, vol. 1, p. 22.] Strong parties may go for many years without any representation, or with representation quite disproportionate to their numbers.  By the method of proportional representation, every man’s vote counts, and every considerable body of opinion can send its representative to council.  Men of marked personality, who have aroused too great hostility to make them safe candidates as we vote today, because they would be unlikely to win a majority, can get a constituency sufficient to elect them, while the harmless nobody, elected today only to avoid a feared rival, will have less chance.  The evil gerrymander will be abolished, and representative bodies will be divided along party lines in the very proportions in which the people are divided.