Search results

Casting the largest popular vote yet recorded in any election in Germany, the German people elected on Sunday, September 14, 1930, the fifth Reichstag under the Weimar constitution. Using Article 48, the Brüning government had put into effect certain emergency measures which it considered necessary to alleviate the existing economic situation. But when called upon to pass upon these decrees, the Reichstag rejected them; whereupon the President, on the advice of the cabinet, dissolved the Reichstag and ordered new elections.The campaign occurred in a time of serious economic depression. Nearly three million unemployed persons were in receipt of government relief, either national or local. Taxes had been increased, salaries decreased, and there was widespread dissatisfaction. The government headed by Chancellor Brüning, from its inception a minority cabinet, appealed to the country to return to power with increased strength the parties which had given it support. On the other hand, the government was severely attacked by the Social Democrats for its use of Article 48; by the Nationalists because of its support of the Young Plan; by the Communists on general principles; and last, but not least, by the National Socialists led by Adolf Hitler, not on general principles, but without any principles at all! In many respects this election resembled the May election of 1924 more closely than the election of 1928.Not only was the election of critical importance to Germany and the world from an economic point of view, but it was also of great moment in the evolution of German political parties and democratic institutions in general.

It has now been ten years since the German people elected the National Assembly which gave them the Weimar constitution. A decade of self-government under this liberal and democratic charter has rather definitely established the lines of party cleavage and the general features of the party system, and the time seems ripe for a survey of the system with a view to elucidating its principal characteristics. The present article is concerned only incidentally with party history before the revolution of 1918, and also not primarily with the party programs of today. It has to do, rather, with what Lord Bryce once referred to as "the pathology of party government," and also with what political scientists have now come to recognize as the heart—one might say the thermostat—of popular government, namely, party organization and machinery. Parteiwesen is the German word, and it refers to the practical operation of the party system.Why should Germany be the subject of such a study? There are several very good reasons. Since the overthrow of the imperial régime, Germany has been operating under a very progressive constitution. In many respects it is the most advanced constitution in the world. Political parties are required to operate such a system based on popular rule, and the party system developed in the Reich is so unique and interesting, so illustrative of many problems which are now troubling political thinkers the world over, that it warrants close study. Then again, by throwing light on the motive power and the nerves of the government, we will be better able to understand how the government itself operates. In brief, we find in Germany a new government operated by means of a new party system. The experience of an intelligent and powerful people with such a system should be useful to everyone interested in the problem of popular government.

The special Senate committee investigating presidential campaign expenditures presented its report on February 28, 1929. The report contains five pages of explanatory material and recommendations, and twenty-five pages of tabulations. The recommendations are not very sweeping, but they strike at four existing defects in our present federal corrupt practices act, namely, the failure to regulate the conduct of conventions and primary elections for the nomination of presidential candidates, to extend the law to political groups operating in individual states, to require careful and accurate itemization of every party expenditure, and to regulate the borrowing of money by political committees. The committee does not argue the constitutional points involved in its first two recommendations, and it does not reach the real problem involved in party deficits with its fourth recommendation. It leaves many vital problems to future committees.The information collected by the committee, by means of hearings and correspondence principally, has been set forth in fourteen tables. There is much useful material in these tables, and several angles of the problem of party finance are clearly brought out by the figures. But there are some serious errors, especially in the tabulation of totals. Tables IV and V dealing with the national committee accounts are inaccurate and misleading. The proof of this statement is as follows. The accounts filed by the two national committees, both with the clerk of the House (according to law) and with the Steiwer committee, show that the Republican national committee received for its own purposes the sum of $3,814,000. On page 8 of the report we find the figure $5,715,000.

AbstractAn analysis of the recent election by an eyewitness.

During the important political year 1928 no fewer than five separate congressional committees were engaged in investigating various phases of the problem of campaign funds. First, the Reed committee, which was appointed by resolution of the 69th Congress to investigate the elections of 1926, was continued in existence so that it could wind up its work. In addition, it was given authority by a new resolution of the 70th Congress to investigate the New Jersey senatorial primary of 1928. Second, the committee on privileges and elections of the Senate was authorized to hear and determine the Wilson-Vare election contest in Pennsylvania. A sub-committee, with Senator Waterman as chairman, was selected on January 27 to perform this task. Third, the Senate created a special committee to investigate pre-convention and election expenditures in the campaign of 1928. Senator Steiwer was appointed chairman of this committee. Fourth, a special House committee was appointed on the day before the close of the session to look into the campaign expenditures of 1928, with Congressman Lehlbach of New Jersey as chairman. Finally, the Senate by resolution authorized the committee on post offices and post roads, or any sub-committee thereof, to investigate the alleged sale of Southern postmasterships, and Senator Brookhart was appointed chairman of the sub-committee.The Reed committee held hearings in April and May in connection with the Wilson-Vare contest in Pennsylvania, and in June in connection with the New Jersey senatorial primary. These investigations did not lead to any particularly valuable disclosures, although they produced some interesting and enlightening information about the Vare machine.

The elections which were held throughout Germany on May 20, 1928, are of considerable interest and importance not only to Germany but also to the rest of the world. These elections, to be sure, did not have the dramatic interest which attended the Reichstag elections of December, 1924. But they deserve attention for a number of reasons: first, because they are the first elections to be held in the Reich under what may be called normal conditions; second, because elections for five Landtags and several city councils were held at the same time; and third, because the elections gave a further test, and supplied additional evidence of the operation, of the German system of proportional representation.Despite the intensive work of the political parties, the people were not aroused to much enthusiasm during the campaign. The old Reichstag was dissolved before Easter, but not until the last week of the campaign could one detect any excitement. Never before had the electors been bombarded with so much printed matter, posters, and, last but not least, loud-speakers and films. All the modern methods of appealing to the voters were tried by the numerous political parties. There were lacking, however, the overpowering issues and the battlecries which were so effective in 1924. Parades, demonstrations, meetings, and all the rest were carried through successfully on the whole, but they were quite dull and uninteresting. Only the two extreme parties, the National Socialists or Hitlerites on the right, and the Communists on the left, could appear enthusiastic. Nevertheless, the lack of what the Germans call a "grosse Parole" and the lack of excitement are not to be deplored; their absence probably indicates progress toward social and political consolidation.

AbstractFrance ha restored the single member system with the second ballot for Parliamentary elections, after two experiences with a bogus form of proportional representation.

The voters of the Saorstat Eireann went to the polls on September 15 to elect a new Dail. This was the fourth election under the P.R. system and the second election of the year. Despite the importance of the issues involved and the strenuous efforts of the two larger parties, the total poll was only 35,000 votes greater than in the previous June. But a total poll of 1,180,000 votes is a good record for the Free State, even though on a percentage basis it does not appear large. The present inefficient state of the register makes a percentage comparison somewhat misleading.To the student of political institutions the election was interesting because of its bearing on several important matters: proportional representation, the development of the party system, political education, and parliamentary government. Not the least of these was proportional representation. There has been much discussion of P.R. in the Free State, and the Cumann na nGaedheal, or government party, made a promise in the election campaign to modify or abolish the system if returned to office. It remains to be seen whether this pledge can be carried out. But in the meantime it is interesting to point out how the system appears to have operated in the most recent election.Some of the English newspapers undoubtedly exaggerated the evils of the system, the Sunday Express even saying that "one consequence of the election will be the abandonment of an experiment which distorts rather than expresses the opinion of the voters."

AbstractWhat people use the absent voting privilege, and to what extent? Is the idea a success and can it be broadened?

AbstractThe following article is the result of a careful suerey byan impartial student, unembarrasseddby previous opinions on the much discussed administrative consolidation.