which was regarded as a purely voluntary aggregation of
like-minded citizens. Evidently the State could not dictate that
you should be a Democrat or a Republican or force you to be an
Independent. With the adoption of the Australian ballot, however,
came the legal recognition of the party; for as soon as the State
recognized the party's designated nominees in the preparation of
the official ballot, it recognized the party. It was then
discovered that, unless some restrictions were imposed, groups of
interested persons in the old parties would manage the
nominations of both to their mutual satisfaction. Thus a handful
of Democrats would visit Republican caucuses or primaries and a
handful of Republicans would return the favor to the Democrats.
In other words, the bosses of both parties would cooperate in
order to secure nominations satisfactory to themselves.
Massachusetts began the reform by defining a party as a group of
persons who had cast a certain percentage of the votes at the
preceding election. This definition has been widely accepted; and
the number of votes has been variously fixed at from two to
twenty-five per cent. Other States have followed the New York
plan of fixing definitely the number of voters necessary to form
a party. In New York no fewer than 10,000 voters can secure
recognition as a state party, exception being made in favor of
municipal or purely local parties. But merely fixing the
numerical minimum of the party was not enough. The State took
another step forward in depriving the manipulator of his liberty
when it undertook to determine who was entitled to membership in
the party and privileged to take part in its nominations and
other party procedure. Otherwise the virile minority in each
party would control both the membership and the nominations.