"STRAW" VOTES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 20562, 13 May 1930, Page 12

"STRAW" VOTES.

Sir,—Will you kindly permit a few observations on the Literary Digest's poll on the prohibition law of tbe United States. A true perspective of the situation may not be conveyed to the public by mero publication of the cabled results of the poll, namely:—For enforcement of the law, 1.248.589; for modification of the law. 1,231,849; for repeal of the law, 1,669,579. This is not the first occasion on which that journal has taken a "straw" plebiscite on this question. Such votes are not an index to public opinion, as was indicated shortly after tho Digest published the results of its former poll. A full review of tho situation would be interesting to many readers, but one or two brief examples oF the misleading nature of such a poll will suffice. On tlie former occasion a three-issuo ballot paper was also used, the aggregate of two issues, other than for "enforcement," being cited to count against prohibition. At that poll California was said to have voted:—For enforcement, 15,f65; for modification, 20.479; for repeal, 8418. This showed almost two to one against enforcement. That poll was taken in September. Two months later Californian voters participated in a real referendum on a State enforcement code, which is a duplicate of the Volstead Act, and adopted it by a majority of 53,943, and four years later, on a vote to repeal the State enforcement code, gave a majority to retain enforcement of 63,617. In Ohio the Digest poll missed the mark even further by registering the sentiment of the State, as follows: —For enforcement, 20,285; for modification, 17,169; for repeal, 8342. This was a combined antienforcement vote of 25,511 against 20,285 lor. But two months later, on an amendment to the State Constitution to legalise 2.75 per cent, beer, the State rolled up a majority of 189.472 against the beer. W.R.M.