Public opinion in democracies should be the final element in political life which gives significance to the activity of the state and the fact of membership in it. The recognition of the force of opinion implies that in the overflowing of the individual's will to his neighbor's will, in the desire to administer the things common to wills, we have perhaps one of the most basic psychological foundations of the state. While one may contend that the problems of the nature of the state or of jurisprudence are more than adequately conceptualized, this certainly cannot be said of public opinion. Yet since the very early use of the term by John of Salisbury in 1159, its significance in human history has not been less than that of justice, liberty, or law. It is suggested that a statement of the elements which appear to be universal is the proper first step in the scientific study of public opinion. The method here proposed may seem barren of immediate results, but it is necessary to clarify reasoning on public opinion as force-ideas in political history. Commonly understood abstractions are necessary to pave the way for organized thinking and action.

In his classic book, Human Nature in Politics, published in 1908, Graham Wallas said: “We must aim at finding as many relevant and measurable facts about human nature as possible, and we must attempt to make all of them serviceable in political reasoning.” While the point of view which Wallas expressed at that time has by no means been universally accepted, and is today challenged by men like Charles A. Beard, certain steps have been taken toward its recognition.

Wallas was particularly impressed by the successful use of quantitative methods made by the economists, and well he might be. To mention a single case, the work of F. Y. Edgeworth, in the measurement of utility, the algebraical or diagrammatic determination of economic equilibriums, and the application of the theory of probability to sampling and in the measurement of economic value or index numbers, showed the trend of the times in economics. The twentieth century has marked an acceleration of this trend. Political scientists have not only lagged far behind the economists in the use of statistics, but they have shown important resistance in some sections to following in this general direction. What is the explanation of this situation?

The great game of politics was played throughout this session. The players, holding poor hands and distracted by thoughts of the new deal that was to come, faced a difficult situation. The presence of 158 members retired by the voters in the November elections gave a cast of uncertainty and unreality to the assembly. Deducting the six vacancies in the House, 219 Democrats confronted 209 Republicans, and in the Senate the count stood 48 Republicans to 47 Democrats. The Farmer-Laborites had one spokesman in each chamber. Here was a Congress, divided in control, weakened by the presence of repudiated representatives, and under the discredited leadership of a defeated president, but nevertheless faced with perplexing problems of national and world import arising in a highly critical period. The necessities of the time called for cooperative planning and swift, united action, but the exigencies of politics suggested procrastination and obstruction. And the latter considerations prevailed.

A valuable source of materials for the study of political behavior exists in the election returns that are lodged and compiled in the offices of state, county, and municipal authorities. An increasing number of studies have shown how fruitfully these materials can be used with a variety of types of correlations. The difficulties attendant upon anything like a complete collection of all of the electoral information for the entire country, however, have discouraged more extensive utilization of this valuable source of research data. The investigator who attempts to study political phenomena over a considerable area is now handicapped by having to devote much time and energy to the mere physical accumulation of statistical materials from a number of more or less adequate sources. The purpose of this note is primarily to show the present situation in regard to the collection and publication of election returns, and incidentally what can be obtained from each state. Secondarily, suggestions are offered regarding the urgent need for improvement in the situation and lines along which it may be sought.

Previous surveys of trends in public administration in this Review recorded developments in an era of prosperity and easy expansion. The present summary of the events of 1931 and 1932 discloses an abrupt and fundamental change in the underlying conditions affecting public activities, the effects of which have deeply influenced every aspect of governmental operations.

The depression places American government in an awkward dilemma. On the one hand is the tremendous shrinkage in productivity of taxes, proceeding far more rapidly than the corresponding reduction of expenditures; the resulting outcry against waste and extravagance in public expenditures and the rapid development of organized demands for retrenchment; the appearance of tax strikes in many communities, embarrassing public treasuries still more, and threatening the actual collapse of essential government services—eventually leading in some cases to a thoughtless and ill-advised attack on government itself, often by the very elements in the community who most violently deprecate “radical” criticism of our institutions. Faced with these situations, administrative expenditures have been substantially curtailed in the last two years in many directions, although few administrative services have been abandoned.

Among the experiments in government which have taken place in post-war Germany, one of the most varied in form is to be found in the theory and practice of direct legislation. The referendum, initiative, and a type of recall exist in national, state, and local governments. The experience of the German people with these constitutional practices has been treated occasionally in studies of the national and municipal governments, and this note is designed to perform a similar service with regard to the German states.

Studies of the constitutional convention at Weimar seem to indicate that direct legislation was adopted for the national constitution without a great deal of study. The Germans had, however, been acquainted with the idea of direct legislation for some time, and a proposal for its use had found expression in the Erfurter Program of the Social Democratic party. The provisional arrangements for the national government during the revolutionary period included machinery for an appeal to the electorate in cases of disagreement between the ordinary organs of government. But the widest use of the various forms of direct legislation is first to be found in the provisional constitutions of the states.

The war and the ensuing economic depression aroused divisive forces in Canadian life which only occasionally lie dormant–the forces of race, religion, occupation, and section. No patriotic speech delivered in English-speaking Canada from 1917 to 1922 was complete without a ringing declaration that the war had made Canada a nation. Actually, by the time of the conscription election of 1917, the war had made Canada two nations, one nation speaking English, the other speaking French. Nor did the English-speaking nation long remain united. The Ontario farmer had voted for conscription on the understanding that his sons would not be conscripted. His sons were conscripted, and the protests of his farm organization were met with contempt and derision. In revenge, he organized an agrarian political party. In western Canada, the causes which led the farm movement to enter politics were more deep-rooted than the mere emotionalism of Ontario, and consequently more obscure. The reciprocity campaigns of 1910 and 1911 had shown the farm movement its strength; the break of western Liberalism with Laurier in 1917 had laid the foundations of a third party; and the post-war depression provided the movement with its impetus and its objectives. The same depression strengthened, of course, the farm movement in Ontario and the nascent Labor movement in English-speaking Canada.