mation of a real public opinion. Local issues are not so complex, and a larger proportion of the voters show an interest in the measures. Local questions which are referred to the electorate are chiefly the incorporation of towns and the making of city charters, the borrowing of money, and the provisions of public franchises. But in the referendum on local questions as well as in the statewide referendum a popular vote is of little value:

(1) if the questions submitted are so trivial or so local in character as not to be of interest to those to whom they are submitted.

(2) if the questions are so complicated and technical that the voter has no satisfactory means of informing himself regarding them.

(3) if the questions are submitted in such great number that the voter, even if he might possibly render a satisfactory judgment upon any one of them, cannot inform himself regarding the merits of all the measures upon which he must pass.1

In forming a conclusion upon the results of the initiative and referendum it is impossible to separate the compulsory referendum on constitutional questions from the optional referendum by petition. The former has been in use for many years, whereas the latter is of recent origin. Since constitutional provisions must be referred to the voters in almost all of the states and since a large proportion of measures submitted are in this class, the changes resulting from the adoption of the optional referendum may readily be exaggerated. The laws proposed by the initiative cover a range of subjects as wide as those which come before a state legislature, and about one half of the proposals submitted to the voters under the initiative are disapproved. It is interesting to note the general reaction of the composite voter. In the words of a close student of the votes on measures in the state of Oregon, where these devices have been in use for a number of years:

... the composite voter appears to be one jealous of his own rights and privileges, as most men are; resolute to see his government actually, as 1 Illinois Constitutional Convention Bulletins (1920), no. 2, p. 112.

well as theoretically, deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed, and to see politics clean and fair; desirous of improvement of his institutions; open to thoughtful advice and mindful of well-reasoned opinion as to the means of betterment, but averse to visionary innovations; reluctant to create new offices, and stingy with salaries to public officers, but yielding that point occasionally when involved with some higher good; nearly abreast of the best thought of the time in matters of social and industrial regulation, but lagging behind, and a bit muddled, in economics; and, until he reads the title clear of would-be spenders of the public money, saving with it to a fault.1

As to the character of legislation, it is claimed that the acts passed under the initiative are in some respects superior to those enacted by the legislature. This results from the fact that the persons most vitally interested in the measures are the persons who draft or cause to be drafted the bills which are presented for enactment. Then, too, the initiative method, with the extended discussions which usually accompany the presentation of a bill, results more often in framing a law in such a manner that its purpose is accomplished than does the process of ordinary legislation.

Possibly the most important result of the initiative is the effect upon the voter himself. The discussions which occur on the street, in the club, or in the public hall reveal the serious attitude of the voter toward a pending measure. As a rule, more interest is shown in the discussion of bills to be voted on than in the consideration of candidates for office. The earnestness and candor as well as the information imparted in the former are felt to be more sincere than in the latter. The educational advantages of a free and general consideration of arguments pro and cen cannot be overestimated. With an opportunity to participate given to everyone who will, the kind of legislation enacted becomes a matter of personal responsibility. The problem of popular government, according to President Lowell, is ... whether direct legislation is so adjusted to the means of forming a real public opinion that the people can decide intelligently all the questions

1

1 Richard W. Montague, on "The Oregon System at Work," National Municipal Review, vol. iii (April, 1914), p. 265.

presented to them, without unusual effort and without the aid of people who find a profit in steering them. Badly adjusted machinery is the opportunity of the boss and the combination. Professional politicians obtained control of elections because the people were called upon to do more than they could do without help, and the more the people are asked to decide questions in which they are not as a whole seriously interested, the greater will be the opening for the boss and his allies.1

Though a very appreciable interest has been shown in direct legislation, it has not, as many feared would be the case, endangered the work of representative legislation. In Oregon during a single year 49 measures were passed of the 108 submitted, while the legislature enacted not fewer than 1,624 of the 4,429 bills which it considered. At the conclusion of an excellent summary of the results of the initiative and referendum in Oklahoma the writer observes that

... the prophecy that the initiative and referendum would lead to hasty and radical legislation has not been fulfilled. The initial petition has been filed on one hundred and ten questions, but only forty-five went so far as being voted upon. Many of the petitions were never seriously considered, and were filed merely for political purposes; in others the petition failed because of the inability to secure signatures. That the initiative and referendum have accomplished nothing extraordinary is self evident; that they have caused any political instability, time alone must determine.2

The fear that the recall would be abused and would result in frequent changes in public officials seems not to have been realized. Although in force in many cities and in a considerable number of states, it has been invoked infrequently. The fact is coming to be recognized that "it is not its actual use, but the knowledge that it can be used, which makes officers responsive to the public will."

113

1 Public Opinion and Popular Government (Longmans, Green & Co., 1914), pp. 230-231.

2 John H. Bass, "The Initiative and Referendum in Oklahoma," The Southwestern Political Science Quarterly, vol. i, no. 2 (September, 1920), p. 125.

F. A. Cleveland, Organized Democracy (Longmans, Green & Co., 1913),

P. 384.

Ways of Rendering Public Opinion Effective. The vague, indefinite, and ineffective character of public opinion is generally conceded and commented upon, but recently much thought has been given to the methods by which public opinion may be rendered effective. If the individual, as a citizen and a voter, is free to think and express his thoughts and by means of the ballot participates in all phases of government activities, how can such public will be effectively formed and made directly powerful in carrying on public affairs? The ancient rights of the citizen, the right of petition, the right to carry arms, and the right of assembly, need now to be replaced by a more constructive performance of public duties and responsibilities. These constructive duties and responsibilities have been summarized by Doctor Cleveland as follows:

1. The duty to organize and assemble for the purpose of determining welfare needs and for the purpose of providing whatever means may be necessary to develop in the minds of the people a common appreciation of what should be undertaken by the government to promote general welfare.

2. The duty to organize and assemble for the purpose of impressing the ascertained will of the people on the electorate.

3. The duty to enforce the constitutional requirements that records of public transactions be kept and to provide the means necessary for making the facts known about what the government is doing, as well as what it proposes to do.

4. The duty to instruct officers, as corporate servants, and to remonstrate with corporate servants whenever they may seem not to be doing what is demanded to protect the welfare of the state.

5. The duty to protect public servants, who are doing their duty, against false accusations and against attacks by persons who, using their rights of free speech and free press, are seeking, by misinformation and by diverting public attention from the truth, to subvert the government or its agencies to personal or partisan ends.'

The necessary steps in rendering public opinion effective seem to center, first, in better ways of presenting fair, unbiased, and complete facts and opinions to the public; second, in better, more thorough, and more extensive edu1 F. A. Cleveland, op. cit., pp. 99–100.

cation in public affairs; and third, in a more effective organization to bring public opinion to bear continuously and unequivocally upon all officers and organizations engaged in government work. In each of these steps substantial progress has recently been made, but in each there is yet to be attained that foresight and constructive planning which alone will render public opinion an effective factor in the growth of popular government.

The Problem.-The real problem and difficulty involved in the relation of public opinion to popular government was admirably stated a few years ago by President Wilson:

The political discussions of recent years concerning the reform of our political methods have carried us back to where we began. We set out upon our political adventures as a nation with one distinct object, namely, to put the control of government in the hands of the people, to set up a government by public opinion thoroughly democratic in its structure and motive. We were more interested in that than in making it efficient. Efficiency meant strength; strength might mean tyranny; and we were minded to have liberty at any cost. And now, behold! when our experiment is an hundred and thirty-odd years old we discover that we have neither efficiency nor control. It is stated and conceded on every side that our whole representative system is in the hands of the "machine": That the people do not in reality choose their representa-. tives any longer, and that their representatives do not serve the general interest unless dragooned into doing so by extraordinary forces or agitation, but are controlled by personal and private influences; that there is no one anywhere whom we can hold publicly responsible, and that it is hide-and-seek who shall be punished, who rewarded, who preferred, who rejected, that the processes of government amongst us, in short, are haphazard, the processes of control obscure and ineffectual. And so we are at the beginning again. We must, if any part of this be true, at once devote ourselves again to finding means to make our governments, whether in our cities, in our states, or in the nation, representative, responsible, and efficient.".

To sum up the conclusions of this keen observer of political affairs: The public was never better informed, nor more intelligent, never more eager to make itself felt in the

1" Hide and Seek Politics," North American Review, vol. cxci (November, 1910), pp. 588 ff.

Formulate a plan to render public opinion more effective in your community.