It took a flood and a hurricane which overwhelmed a prosperous city to reverse the popular convictions which lie at the basis of government in the United States. In 1900 Galveston was all but destroyed by the waters of the Gulf rising during a hurricane. Confronted with a great emergency in which quick and efficient action was imperative if the city was to be restored at all, the people abandoned the fear of kings and of centralized governmental power. The entire municipal power of government, executive and legislative, was vested in a single board of five commissioners. These were both the legislature and the executive. They made the ordinances and wielded the executive power through subordinate officers appointed by them. The governmental principle which was thus applied in the commission plan is the concentration of governmental power by the union of the legislative and executive functions of government in the hands of a few[9] who are controlled and prevented from becoming an unpopular government because they are subject to the electorate through elections at frequent intervals. The office of commissioner was made conspicuous and elections interesting. The population of Galveston was about 40,000. Hence the entire city was not so large but that a candidate might be personally known with a fair degree of ease by the electorate, and with the least possible expense make a personal canvass. It was, in short, a wieldy district. Hence the coming forward of candidates was increased to the maximum, and the need for a vote-directing machine practically eliminated. The maximum amount of thought and intelligence was obtained from the voter because his attention was concentrated on filling a few important offices. Excessive and artificial political ignorance was thus diminished. The ultimate result was a real expression of the will of the electorate through the representatives chosen and full power in those representatives to enact that will into law and also enforce the law thus made. In actual operation the results of applying this principle left little to be desired in Galveston. Here are the comments of a keen observer,[10] writing in 1911:

Unless, however, the fundamental principles at the basis of government by commission are observed and applied, there can be much apparent commission form of government for cities which will not in any way militate against extra-legal unpopular government.

If, for instance, a municipal government by commission is planted in a territory where several other municipal governments are also operating, each with a long list of elective officers, very little has been accomplished toward that centralization of governmental power in a few commissioners which tends to eliminate extra-legal government. Each of the municipal governments operating in the same territory will divide the entire local governmental power among them. The decentralization of governmental power will still exist in exaggerated form and the political ignorance of the voter must still be such that he will need to be advised and directed how to vote, and the professional adviser and director to the politically ignorant voter will still continue to satisfy that need. Once the professional adviser and director to the politically ignorant voter is retained in the district where the commission form of government operates, he will begin to exercise an influence in the nomination and selection of the commissioners. Extra-legal government as conducted by him may even capture a majority of the commissioners and use the great governmental power vested in them in a scandalous manner. The present situation in Chicago well illustrates this danger. There the municipal government is very highly centralized. The voter casts his ballot only for a mayor every four years, a city clerk and the city treasurer every two years and two aldermen from each of the 35 wards—one alderman being selected from each ward every year. The other administrative officers not under civil service are appointed by the mayor with the consent of the council. If Chicago were the only local government in the territory which it occupies it would be a fair type of responsible city government wielding a highly centralized governmental power. Machine politics would thrive only in the districts where the majority of the voters were illiterate and where corrupt and illegal voting was practiced on a considerable scale. But operating in the same territory with the city of Chicago is the Sanitary District with 9 trustees, and Cook County with 73 elective officers. It is the long ballot for Cook County which causes the densest political ignorance on the part of the voter and makes the existence of the professional adviser and director of the politically ignorant voter necessary and therefore the existence of extra-legal government certain and permanent. Such an extra-legal government, when once established, naturally exerts a great influence even in city elections. If the two principal party vote-directing machines agree to divide the city and county governments between them and each helps the other to appoint those who are to fill the legal offices in that government which it is agreed each shall control, the power of extra-legal government in the city will be very great indeed. In the same way, if a commission form of government be provided for smaller cities which must divide governmental power with a township government, a county government, and a drainage or a levee district, all operating in the same territory and all having a considerable list of elective officers, there is little hope for a real trial of the effect of the concentration of governmental power in a few elective offices to disrupt extra-legal government. It is of the utmost importance to the success of the commission form of government for smaller cities that such government be the only local government operating in the territory occupied by the city.

In some cases, however, it is necessary that municipal corporations with special powers and functions and collecting taxes from a special district for a special purpose should occupy territory in which several other units of municipal government operate. For instance, the Sanitary District in Cook County properly levies taxes upon property in the city of Chicago and in part of Cook County, and builds a canal running through Cook County and Will County. How is it possible to avoid having the commissioners of such a sanitary district elected from the district where its revenues are obtained? The answer is very simple. Such commissioners should be appointed by the different municipal units of government occupying the territory included in the sanitary district. The city of Chicago, of course, should appoint the majority of the commissioners. The municipal governments outside the city of Chicago should be combined together in groups and the legislative bodies of the municipalities in each group be given a voice in the selection of commissioners for the Sanitary District. The same principle of appointment may be adopted whenever a special board with special functions is to occupy territory which includes several units of local government.

The effectiveness of the commission form of government for cities to oust extra-legal government requires the election of each commissioner from a wieldy district, i.e., one not so large but that the candidate who is willing to run may be known with a fair degree of ease by the electorate and be able with the least expense to make a personal canvass.[11] The supposed advantage of electing commissioners at large from an unwieldy district is that this method insures the candidacy and election of men prominent in the entire district and hence more fit to hold office. But this is precisely what it does not do. It is true such a plan demands candidates with a wide general reputation in the whole district. But such candidates do not come forward simply because the method of election suggests that such candidates should appear. Men with wide reputations in a large district are almost certain to be occupying offices of greater importance in the state and federal governments, or else they are not available at all for the holding of public office. The leading citizen will not as a rule be a candidate for a position in the municipal government. The available candidates are almost sure in the long run to be men whose reputations are confined to some district of the larger community. When they run for election in a district which stretches beyond the zone of their personal influence and reputation, some machinery for enlightening the voters’ ignorance as to who they are and what they stand for must be devised. This means that the candidate must have money and backing. Those requirements may seriously limit the number of candidates and therefore the choice of the voter. Furthermore, in promoting slates of candidates care will usually be taken to select men with reference to particular districts in the community at large, so that each district will feel that it has a representative on the ticket. Thus a provision for the election of commissioners at large from an unwieldy district is likely to relapse in practice into the presentation of candidates representing small districts, each with a local reputation in his own district. This becomes in substance an election of commissioners from districts and yet the range of choice by the voter resulting from the coming forward of candidates will be very much restricted because of the expense of making a canvass in the unwieldy district and the necessity for an organized support. Candidates who are successful in being elected from the unwieldy district are likely to be beholden to an organization, whether it be temporary or permanent, which has aided them in the election. A system of electing commissioners at large from an unwieldy district in a greater or less degree produces a condition which tends to keep alive the extra-legal government. On the other hand, with elections in wieldy districts the number of candidates who come forward is the largest possible. The choice of the voter is, therefore, the widest. Each candidate may become most easily personally known to the electorate. The sharp contest between individuals in a small district is always peculiarly enlightening to the electorate and stimulating to his interest in political matters. The expense of a canvass may, therefore, be reduced without lessening the amount of knowledge which the voter will obtain regarding issues and candidates. The services of an extensive organization for the purpose of directing the politically ignorant voter who to vote for would naturally give way to organizations for dispensing actual knowledge concerning candidates and conditions. The services of a highly developed and permanent machine designed to direct the politically ignorant how to vote must become of the least possible value.

The practice of the principle of selecting commissioners from wieldy districts may take several forms, depending largely upon the size of the electorate.

If the whole city is not more than a wieldy district in itself, then of course the election of all the commissioners at large is in accordance with the sound principle announced. Such election may very properly be according to any one of several plans.

First: The candidates to the number of commissioners to be selected receiving the highest vote at a single election may be declared elected, although none receive an actual majority of the votes cast. This is the simplest method. It is the one in use at Galveston, with a population of about 40,000, and seems to have given satisfaction.

Second: The commissioners elected at large may be required to receive an actual majority. If there are more than two candidates for each place, this may be secured at a single election by the voters marking their first and other choices for each of the places to be filled, so that if no election is had by a majority according to the first choice of the voters, the second and other choices may be used to indicate which ones receive an actual majority. Or a second election may be held at which only candidates in double the number of places to be filled who have received the highest number of votes at the first election are placed upon the final ballot. The second election may be required even though candidates receiving the highest votes at the first election actually receive a majority. This last is the plan adopted, apparently with good results, in Des Moines, Iowa.[12]

Third: Then there is the Hare plan of proportional representation and the single transferable vote.[13] To insure an election a candidate need only obtain a “quota” of the votes cast—i.e., that number of votes which can be obtained by the number of candidates equal to the number of places to be filled, but by no more. Thus if the electorate number 5,000 and there are 5 places to be filled, the “quota” or number of votes required for an election would be 834. Five persons could receive this number of votes, but the sixth candidate could not do so. Each voter is allowed to indicate his first, second, third, and other choices, but can indicate only one first choice and one second choice, etc. At the first count only first choices are reckoned and the candidates who have received a “quota” or more according to first choices are declared elected. If all the places have not then been filled up, the surplus votes of those candidates who have received more than the “quota” are transferred according to the names marked (2) on them. If these transfers do not bring the requisite number of candidates up to the “quota,” the lowest candidate is eliminated and his votes transferred according to the next preference, and so on until all the places are filled. The object of this plan is to give representation to minorities or to groups less than a majority.

So far as the disruption of extra-legal government by politocrats is concerned, it is doubtful if it makes any difference which of the above plans of election be adopted in commission-governed municipalities which as a whole constitute only a single wieldy district of, let us say, not to exceed 6,000 male voters and 50,000 inhabitants.

Suppose now the municipality be larger than a single wieldy district, but still small enough so that it is very plainly a unit in its interests and collective activities—let us say a city with not to exceed 25,000 male voters and a population of not more than 150,000. Here there will be a distinct danger in electing commissioners at large at a single election at which are chosen those who obtain the highest votes, even though less than a majority. If the choice is to be by a plurality at a single election the municipality should be divided into wards with a single commissioner elected from each, but no candidate should be required to reside in the ward where he stands for election. The Hare plan is entirely available and consistent with the choice of commissioners from wieldy districts. In Des Moines, Iowa, with a population of about 86,000, the double election plan seems to have been used with success. This may also be regarded as consistent in a way with the election of commissioners from wieldy districts. True, a single district with a population of 80,000 might be regarded as unwieldy for the purpose of a single election. But the double election secures the same education for the electorate that the voter would obtain in a single election in a district one-half as large. Hence a wieldy district having a double election can be considerably larger than a wieldy district having a single election.

Suppose, however, that the municipality be large enough to be readily divided into as many wieldy districts as there are commissioners to the number of from five to nine. For instance, let us assume a city of to exceed 25,000 male voters and a population exceeding 150,000. Here the district is too unwieldy for the election at large of those candidates receiving the highest votes at a single election. It may be doubted whether the double election will produce satisfactory results in the way of securing a really intelligent vote. We have probably come to a situation where the principle of electing commissioners from wieldy districts requires either a division of the city into wards with a commissioner elected from each, or else the election at large of all the commissioners by the Hare plan, in which only a “quota” of votes is required for a choice. The advantage which the Hare plan has of permitting the candidates for commissioner to come from any part of the city can be duplicated to some extent in the ward plan by not requiring any residence by candidates in the ward of the city where they stand for election. Under either arrangement candidates will in all probability come from particular districts and localities where their strength lies.

It is no part of the writer’s plan to discuss at length the comparative merits of the system of election from wieldy geographical districts and wieldy “quotas.” Each has its advantages and disadvantages. The wieldy geographical district has the advantage of presenting an issue of extreme simplicity to the voter and inducing interest in it by the dramatic element of personal contest. The field in which the candidates contest being limited, there is more concentrated work upon the education of the electorate and the electorate focuses its attention. It is not so clearly the fact that in a municipal election a large minority may be wholly unrepresented as it might be in elections to a national legislative body. The Hare plan insures minority representation, or rather representation of different groups throughout the district. It, however, departs from a desirable simplicity in voting and vote-counting. It tends to eliminate the sharpness of personal contest between candidates. Under the Hare plan candidates will go on a still hunt all over the district for a “quota” and bid to various classes and cliques in the municipality for first and second choices. This develops what is called “minority thinking” and “particularist politics.” The candidates do not run against each other so much as they dodge in and out about each other. This also tends to puzzle the voter, confuse the issues, and achieve results which are unexpected. The test of the Hare plan in cities of over 150,000 inhabitants in the United States is, it is believed, still to be made.

If the principles of the commission form of government be applied faithfully and completely, there is no doubt that extra-legal government in its present violent form must go. The voter’s duty will be simple and he can perform it with the maximum amount of intelligence. The function of the electorate in voting is vital because it confers the whole power of the local government upon a body which is directly responsible to the electorate. What place, then, is there for the professional adviser and director to the politically ignorant voter? None! There is no such political ignorance as calls for a director and adviser. The voter needs only enlightenment as to which of two honest and fairly efficient men has a program which the voter on the whole favors. The voter is seeking information of a highly organized sort. He can obtain that only by the use of his mind and a consideration of the promises and programs of the candidates. The candidates now must make an appeal to the voter’s intelligence. What, then, is the need of the present-day extra-legal government? Of course, parties and party organizations will spring up, but they will cease to be mere machines for directing the ignorant voter how to cast his ballot. Instead, they will become instruments for disseminating propaganda on social, economic, and governmental issues.

Once the extra-legal government is eliminated by the concentration of governmental power in the hands of a few, each of whom is elected to office from a wieldy district or by a wieldy “quota,” the electorate may with perfect safety secure control of its representatives in a variety of ways. It may insist upon the recall, the initiative, and the referendum. It is the promotion of these expedients while the ballot is still left as long as at present and the governmental power decentralized as it now is that tends to promote the existence and security of extra-legal unpopular government. With irresponsible extra-legal government replaced by a responsible legal government subject to frequent elections, one might hazard the guess that neither the recall, the initiative, nor the referendum would be much used. The primaries would be utterly out of place. No party names would appear on any ballot. In theory every individual legally qualified for office would have the privilege of running at an election. Individuals should be allowed to put themselves up. To discourage the running of irresponsible persons who have no real chance of election a sum should be forfeited by all candidates who do not receive a certain percentage of the vote cast. Parties with principles and programs would naturally be the only ones which would have any standing. It is highly improbable that any such parties would exist for municipal elections. If they did, they should be left free to run their affairs in their own way, since their candidates must always compete with individuals who wish to come forward in opposition.