By DAVID KENNEY
Professor of political science at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale,
he was a delegate to the 1970
Constitutional Convention. He is now a
commissioner of the Illinois Law Enforcement Commission and president
of the Carbondale Library Board.
WHEN VOTERS go to the polls in Illinois in November, they will again be confronted with a scheme called "cumulative voting" for electing members of the Illinois House of Representatives. Each district elects three representatives and each voter is allowed three votes, which may be divided among two or three candidates or all be given to one. Giving all three votes to one representative is called "the bullet vote." The system is unique to Illinois. In 100 years no other state has cared to adopt it.
Not understood by voters
Cumulative voting was adopted in
Illinois in 1870 at a time when a number
of deep divisions — political, economic,
social and cultural — all ran along a
single line, that separating the north
from the south. The original purpose of cumulative voting was to reduce the
severity of that north-south split by
insuring the election of some Democrats
from the Republican north and some
Republicans from the Democratic
south. The inner logic of cumulative
voting was so compelling that it accomplished in its early years exactly what its
originators intended. As basic divisions
within the state changed, however, and
the need for cumulative voting dwindled, a band of supporters sought to
have it continued indefinitely. Cumulative voting worked best for
the express purpose for which it was
intended when the number of nominees
in each district did not exceed three.
Consequently, the legislature allowed
the parties to limit the number of their
candidates; and more often than not,
over a long period, the total number in
both parties was three. The results: no
contest, no issues, and no public debate.
That meant, in most cases, a free ride
for incumbents. Because of this fact, it
is understandable that incumbents have
usually favored cumulative voting.
Cumulative voting is not understood
by most voters and creates serious
confusion among them. It prevents
competition for House seats and thus
reduces the amount of attention which
might otherwise be given to state issues.
It slights the legitimate concerns of
racial, ethnic, religious and other
groups. Cumulative voting creates
rivalry and antagonism within parties
and between fellow partisans which
often exceeds that between the major
parties and their candidates. And yet,
like any system long in effect, it has
created a large amount of vested interest
and mythology which keeps it in operation even though its total working is
highly damaging to the public well-being.
The system improved in 1970
But at "Con Con" there was the
conviction that even if cumulative
voting were retained, elections without
contests had to go. Consequently, the
1970 Constitution provided that no
party could limit its nominees in a
legislative district to fewer than two.
The idea was to insure a meaningful
contest among at least four candidates
for the three House seats in each district.
There were at least four candidates in
most districts in 1972 and 1974, although not each one of the four received
his party's blessing in some districts.
This has meant more attention to issues
and campaigning, since one of the four
is fated to lose, and no one of the four
can be sure who it will be.
Cumulative voting was one of the
hardest fought issues of the Constitutional Convention of 1970. The dispute
was not resolved and it was decided to
put the question to a statewide referendum. The voters chose to retain the
traditional system. It had the backing of
Gov. Richard B. Ogilvie, Mayor Richard J. Daley, "Con Con" President
Samuel W. Witwer, both political
parties, the principal Chicago newspapers, most of the politicians around
the state, and the Independent Voters of
Illinois. What is surprising about the
referendum is not that cumulative
voting won, but that the vote against it
was as great as it was. It was beaten in
the 101 downstate counties, and prevailed by only a 5 to 4 ratio statewide.
Still a faulty system
Cumulative voting severely limits the
number of meaningful contests in the
election of House members. At present
there is no more than one contest in each
district for the three House seats. And in
some districts not even that. There
should be a meaningful contest for each
House seat instead of only one in three.
Single member districts with one-to-one
contests in each would do much to
elevate the level of public discourse
upon election issues. Perhaps the most serious defect of the
In spite of the significant improvement in the cumulative voting system
which the 1970 Constitution mandated,
serious defects remain. Voters do not
understand the system, a situation
which candidates, especially incumbents, are not unduly worried about.
Incumbents plan on receiving "the
bullet vote" from their strongest supporters. Some voters who have a basic
understanding of how the system works
are not aware that it is also used in the
primary election, and others mistakenly
believe that the principle applies to
other offices as well.
12 / November 1976 / Illinois Issues
present system is the way in which it creates tension and discord between fellow partisans. Each Republican and Democratic candidate knows that if the contest is a real one, he or she is actually more in competition with the other candidate of the same party than with the candidates of the other party. Intraparty strife and dissension is promoted. Each candidate goes his own way, seeking the "bullet," and too often denigrating fellow partisans in order to achieve it.
False claims
Most of the other arguments for
cumulative voting are narrow or partisan ones which claim merit for it
because it produces particular effects,
such as the claim that X or Y, for
example, could not win if the system were abandoned. There is now no way
to know, of course, whether or not X or
Y could win in one-to-one contests in
smaller districts. Since the individuals
named are usually outstanding legislators, it is probable that they could win
on their merits as well as on the free ride
that cumulative voting gives them. We'll
never know until we try. Cumulative voting represents an
effort to cut and cramp a meritorious
system — the clash of personalities
and ideologies in the free market place
of political campaigns and elections —
to fit the ambitions and needs of particular individuals, parties and pressure
groups. The time is long overdue for
Illinois to give up a nineteenth century practice, which was designed
for obsolete conditions and perpetuated because of the advantages it has
given to the few at the expense of
the many.
Supporters of cumulative voting
attempt to make much of their claim
that it fosters "minority representation."
This notion lacks credence since neither
party in Illinois can claim to be a
minority party. What cumulative voting
really does is to guarantee the weaker of
the two major parties in each district one representative out of three, whether it
deserves that degree of representation or
not. That is a far cry from meaningful
minority representation. Racial and
ethnic groups, which have a much better
claim to the minority role, generally are
grouped into residential neighborhoods. Thus, a system of smaller
districts, each electing one representative, would give true minorities a much
better chance at meaningful representation and would greatly sharpen the
discussion of issues. This could be
accomplished by dividing each legislative district into two or three subdistricts, with one representative elected in
each.
14 / November 1976 / Illinois Issues