weight of this objection, the most serious yet presented against proportional representation, varies in different grades of government.”  He then proceeds to examine the objection “as applied to Congress (and incidentally to the State Legislatures), where it has its greatest force, and where pre-eminently party responsibility may be expected to be decisive.”  And the only answer he can find is that the objection “overlooks the principle of equality and justice in representation.  It may prove here that justice is the wisest expediency.  It is a curious anomaly, showing confusion of thought regarding democracy, that a people who insist on universal suffrage, and who go to ludicrous limits in granting it, should deny the right of representation to those minor political parties whose existence is the natural fruit of this suffrage.”  But these minor parties would not be denied representation if they were allowed to exercise freely their true function, which is to influence the policies of the main parties; and it is essential to the working of the political machine that they be limited to that function.  Professor Commons continues:—­“The argument, however, of those who fear that third parties will hold the balance of power is not based solely on a dread of the corrupt classes, but rather of the idealists, the reformers, ‘faddists,’ and ‘cranks,’ so called.  They would retain exclusive majority rule and party responsibility in order to prevent the disproportionate influence of these petty groups.  They overlook, of course, the weight of the argument already made that individual responsibility is more important for the people than the corporate responsibility of parties.”  The assumption is here made that the complete suppression of individuality is an essential feature of party government, whereas it is in fact a peculiar feature of American politics, due to “machine” control of nominations.  The one point which Professor Commons has missed is that individual candidature can be permitted and representation still be confined to the two main parties.

+Conclusion.+—­The advocates of proportional delegation have failed to grasp the importance of the principles of organization and leadership, which underlie representation.  Mr. Hare thought that the effect of doing away with organization would be to improve leadership.  But he reckoned without his host—­Human Nature.  Organization cannot be dispensed with without destroying leadership and bringing on the strife of factions.

FOOTNOTE: 

[1] Now Lord Avebury.

CHAPTER III.

THE PRESENT POSITION OF PARTY GOVERNMENT.