[Sidenote:  The Australian ballot-system.] Another political reform which promises excellent results is the adoption by many states of some form of the Australian ballot-system, for the purpose of checking intimidation and bribery at elections.  The ballots are printed by the state, and contain the names of all the candidates of all the parties.  Against the name of each candidate the party to which he belongs is designated, and against each name there is a small vacant space to be filled with a cross.  At the polling-place the ballots are kept in an inclosure behind a railing, and no ballot can be brought outside under penalty of fine or imprisonment[36].  One ballot is nailed against the wall outside the railing, so that it may be read at leisure.  The space behind the railing is divided into separate booths quite screened from each other.  Each booth is provided with a pencil and a convenient shelf on which to write.  The voter goes behind the railing, takes the ballot which is handed him, carries it into one of the booths, and marks a cross against the names of the candidates for whom he votes.  He then puts his ballot into the box, and his name is checked off on the register of voters of the precinct.  This system is very simple, it enables a vote to be given in absolute secrecy, and it keeps “heelers” away from the polls.  It is favourable to independence in voting,[37] and it is unfavourable to bribery, because unless the briber can follow his man to the polls and see how he votes, he cannot be sure that his bribe is effective.  To make the precautions against bribery complete it will doubtless be necessary to add to the secret ballot the English system of accounting for election expenses.  All the funds used in an election must pass through the hands of a small local committee, vouchers must be received for every penny that is expended, and after the election an itemized account must be made out and its accuracy attested under oath before a notary public.  This system of accounting has put an end to bribery in England.[38]

[Footnote 36:  This is a brief description of the system lately adopted in Massachusetts.  The penalty here mentioned is a fine not exceeding a thousand dollars, or imprisonment not exceeding one year, or both such fine and such imprisonment.]

[Footnote 37:  It is especially favourable to independence in voting, if the lists of the candidates are placed in a single column, without reference to party (each name of course, having the proper party designation, “Rep.,” “Dem.,” “Prohib.,” etc., attached to it).  In such case it must necessarily take the voter some little time to find and mark each name for which he wishes to vote.  If, however, the names of the candidates are arranged according to their party, all the Republicans in one list, all the Democrats in another, etc., this arrangement is much less favourable to independence in voting and much less efficient as a check upon bribery; because the man