FOR decades the state of Kansas has been of special interest to all those concerned with the problems of politics and especially of elections. This interest has not been limited by the boundary lines of the commonwealth, but has extended from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Furthermore, in making another study of voting behavior, [1] it was noted that Kansas in the period under consideration always cast its electoral vote for the presidential candidate who won. Beginning with McKinley's election in 1900 up to and including the election of Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932, Kansas has always helped to elect the winner. The only other states possessing such a record are Ohio and North Dakota. And, finally, having made a number of studies of voting behavior, [1] especially of western states and subdivisions thereof, it was thought wise to include Kansas as a unit in this larger and more comprehensive study of voting behavior in the West.

Forty-four counties were included in this analysis, representing the different districts or geographic sections of the state, the various economic interests and activities, and the large and small units, considered both from the standpoint of area and the size of the population. Table I presents itemized information concerning each county included in this study.

Except for background purposes, the elections analyzed in the study were limited primarily to the first three decades of the twentieth century. The study was limited also to a consideration of voting for President, for congress, for governor and the other state executive officers, for the state senate and the state house of representatives.

The results and conclusions [2] which emerged from this study were

Population (in 000)

COUNTY	1900	1905	1910	1915	1920	1925	1930	area	location
Allen	20.0	29.2	27.7	23.5	23.5	23.5	21.4	504	SE
Atchison	28.8	30.0	27.8	27.2	23.5	25.4	23.9	412	NE
Barton	13.8	15.1	19.0	18.0	18.5	20.1	19.8	892	C CW
Bourbon	25.0	25.0	25.4	25.0	23.2	24.0	22.4	656	S E
Cherokee	42.2	40.3	37.5	36.4	33.5	34.0	31.5	605	S E
Clay	16.5	15.0	15.5	14.9	14.4	15.1	14.5	638	N EC
Cowley	31.4	32.3	33.4	30.0	35.7	41.9	40.9	1,133	S EC
Crawford	40.2	48.3	50.5	60.3	61.6	60.0	49.3	605	S E
Dickinson	22.2	22.9	25.3	25.3	25.7	25.1	25.9	838	C CE
Douglas	25.3	25.1	25.6	25.1	24.0	23.8	25.1	469	C E
Franklin	21.4	21.2	21.0	22.1	21.9	20.8	22.0	585	C E
Grant	.4	.4	.9	.9	1.1	1.9	3.1	578	S W
Harper	10.2	11.9	14.3	13.3	13.6	12.9	12.8	799	S WC
Haskell	5	6	1.0	1.0	1.5	2.0	2.8	577	S W
Jackson	18.0	15.6	16.1	15.6	15.5	15.0	14.7	675	N E
Jefferson	17.0	16.1	15.5	15.7	14.7	14.4	14.1	543	N E
Jewell	19.0	17.4	17.4	17.2	16.3	15.7	14.5	900	N WC
Kiowa	2.1	3.5	5.9	6.5	6.2	6.0	6.0	723	S WC
*Labette	27.3	30.3	35.0	31.0	33.9	32.0	31.3	643	S E
Leavenworth	36.1	38.9	41.2	40.6	38.6	41.4	42.7	444	N E
Lyon	25.3	24.2	25.0	26.5	26.2	26.7	29.2	845	C CE
Marion	20.8	20.0	22.7	21.6	22.8	22.2	20.7	953	C CE
Marshall	24.0	23.0	23.8	21.7	22.7	23.1	23.1	905	N CE
Montgomery	29.0	48.8	59.7	49.8	49.6	50.1	51.4	644	S E
Morton	3	2	1.1	1.7	3.2	3.4	4.1	718	S W
Nemaha	20.3	20.1	19.0	18.3	18.4	18.3	18.3	716	N E
Neosho	20.1	24.2	23.2	23.0	24.0	22.7	22.7	580	S E
Ness	4.4	5.4	5.7	5.5	7.5	7.6	8.4	1,079	C WC
Osage	23.7	22.2	19.8	20.1	18.6	20.7	17.5	718	C E
Phillips	13.6	14.2	14.9	13.2	12.5	12.5	12.2	887	N CW
Pottawatomie	17.6	16.2	16.5	16.1	16.1	15.3	15.9	829	N EC
Pratt	6.8	8.2	10.6	11.6	12.9	12.8	13.3	726	S CW
Reno	27.4	30.8	37.6	40.5	44.6	46.6	47.8	1,242	C CW
Republic	18.4	17.1	16.6	16.9	15.8	15.4	14.7	704	N CE
Riley	12.9	13.7	15.4	16.5	20.6	19.7	19.9	604	N CE
Rooks	7.7	9.5	11.4	10.6	10.0	10.1	9.5	890	N CW
Sedgwick	42.9	50.3	73.3	73.3	92.3	110.0	136.3	994	S CE
Shawnee	53.7	55.8	61.8	64.7	69.2	75.2	85.2	544	C E
Sherman	3.3	3.6	4.5	4.1	5.6	6.2	7.4	1,049	N W
Stafford	9.1	10.4	12.1	11.4	11.5	11.0	10.5	796	C CW
Stanton	0.3	0.4	1.0	0.8	0.9	1.4	2.2	685	S W
Sumner	25.3	25.5	30.0	28.0	29.2	28.4	29.0	1,179	S CE
Washington	20.9	20.3	19.8	19.0	17.9	17.5	17.1	902	N CE
Wyandotte	68.1	92.8	109.8	110.6	122.2	131.7	141.2	143	NE

arranged under two general topics: (I) material related to party victory; and (II) material related to voting behavior, and are presented according to this major classification. The first of these was further subdivided into national and state or commonwealth, and the second was broken into time differences, size differences, and location differences. In each case, the results are indicated and then the conclusions presented.

In the introduction of this article it was pointed out that the people of Kansas have voted for the presidential winner at each election in this century. Table II presents a graphic picture of this behavior.

YEAR	The party electoral vote cast	The winning presidential candidate	Total vote cast for president
1900	Republican	McKinley	354,000
1904	Republican	T.Roosevelt	322,000
1908	Republican	Taft	376,000
1912	Democrat	Wilson	366,000
1916	Democrat	Wilson	*630,00
1920	Republican	Harding	570.00
1924	Republican	Coolidge	662,00
1928	Republican	Hoover	707,00
1932	Democrat	F.D.Roosevelt	792,00

*woman suffrage effective.

Instead of the expression, "As Maine goes so goes America," it might well be said, "As Kansas votes, so goes the election." However, even after all these years of success, one hesitates to rely too much upon the political sagacity of the people of Kansas; the next election may find the record broken.

During this period Kansas has always had at least one Republican United States senator. In 1912 William H. Thompson, Democrat, defeated Gov. Walter R. Stubbs, Republican, for this high office. In 1930 George McGill, Democrat, defeated Henry J. Allen, Republican, and in 1932 Senator McGill defeated Ex-Governor Ben S. Paulen, Republican, for the senatorship. Consequently, out of thirteen United States senators chosen directly or indirectly by the people of Kansas, ten have been Republican and three Democratic, or, in other words, for more than two-thirds of the first thirty-three years of this century, Kansas has been represented in the senate by Republicans only, while during the remainder of the period the representation has been divided. Therefore, Kansas can be thought of as Republican in its relationship to the United States senate.

The analysis of the contests for election to the United States house of representatives is limited to the period 1904-1930. In 1904 Kansas was represented by seven congressmen from as many districts and one congressman at large, while in all subsequent elections, including 1930, the eight congressmen were selected from as many districts. Table III gives a picture of the party representa-

tion in the house of representatives as a result of the congressional elections held.

Year	1904	06	08	10	12	14	16	18	20	22	24	26	28	30
Republican	8	8	8	8	3	2	3	7	8	7	7	7	7	7
Democrat	0	0	0	0	5	6	5	1	0	1	1	1	1	1

Throughout the period the first district, located in northeast Kansas, has elected Republicans, as has the third, which is located in the southeastern corner of the state. The sixth district, which is made up of the counties in the northwest corner, has been Republican, except when John R. Connelly, Democrat, was elected in 1916. The eighth district, established between 1904 and 1906 to take the place of the congressman at large as a result of redistricting the state, is composed of a narrow band of counties extending north from the Oklahoma boundary. They include Sumner, Sedgwick, Harvey, and McPherson with Butler off to the east. This district took care of Victor Murdock until 1914 when W. A. Ayres, Democrat, captured the district from Ezra Branine, the Republican candidate. Aside from one term, when R. E. Bird was elected, 19211923, the eighth district has been Democratic since 1914.

Turning next to the state ticket, it was found that during the period 1904-1932, twelve of the fifteen governors have been Republican. In 1912, 1922, and 1930, the Democrats were successful. No Democrat was able to secure reelection.

In the selection of the other elective state officers, the time period extended from the election of 1910 to include the election of 1930. The results for these two decades are very significant. Table IV

gives a clear picture of the election results for these offices and for President and governor.

The election of Woodrow Wilson in 1912 and in 1916 and the election of Democratic governors in 1912, 1922 and 1930, seemed to have had no effect whatever upon the selection of men to the elected other state executive offices. All were Republican.

The state senate is composed of forty members chosen from as many districts. They are elected for terms of four years and all are up for election in presidential election years. This is quite different from that system used in California and the one used in selecting the United States senators. Table V shows the party strength in the upper house for the period 1908-1930, inclusive.

Year	1908	*1912	1916	1920	1924	1928
Republican	34	18	31	38	32	37
Democrat	6	21	9	2	8	3

* One Socialist was elected to the senate at this election.

Thus the senate was clearly Republican for twenty of the last twenty-four years. In filling the two hundred and forty offices (40 offices X 6), 49 (20 percent) were Democratic. The senate was eighty (80) percent Republican during this twenty-four year period. Omitting the 1912 election, which appears to have been an exceptional situation, twenty-eight of two hundred were held by Democrats, thus giving the Republicans eighty-six (86) percent of the voting strength in twenty of the twenty-four years. For four years (1912-1916) the Democrats had fifty-two (52) percent of the voting power. However, the upper house of the Kansas legislature is distinctly Republican and the Democrats will have to capture and hold the upper chamber for several four-year periods before another evaluation will be in order.

The Republicans have a distinct advantage as a result of electing all forty state senators at the presidential elections. Either three out. of five, or four out of five times in current history, the Republican party has been successful in electing the President. This is of great help in successfully carrying state elections. One Democratic governor out of the three has had a friendly senate, while only one Republican out of nine has had an unfriendly upper house.

The lower house is distinctly Republican as measured by the number of victories obtained in the twenty-four year period under consideration (twelve elections, 1908-1930). Table VI presents the party strength as a result of the various elections held.

The Republicans have controlled the lower house for twenty-two of the twenty-four years under consideration, and in only two periods (1910-1912 and 1914-1916) was that control seriously challenged.

When the analyses of elections of governor, of members of the upper house, and of members of the lower house were combined, it became apparent that in nine of the twelve periods the three sections of the state government were united politically and that, in the remaining three periods, one party controlled two while the other party was in possession of one of the sections. During eight of the nine periods when unified control was present, the Republican party controlled. Only in the 19121914 period did the Democratic party control the three sections of the government. During each of the periods when the power was divided, the Republicans controlled two of the three sections: In 1914-1916 the governorship and the lower house, in 1922-1924 both houses, and in 19301932 both houses. Without adding the fact that in at least twenty-two of the twentyfour years included in this portion of the study all the elected members of the so-called state cabinet were Republican, it is quite evident that for all practical purposes and during the great. part of the time under consideration, the state officials have been Republican.

In this section the central question is, "What is the behavior of the unit or the comparative behavior of units under consideration?" It is not "Who won?" Consequently, the forty-four counties become the main feature. The state of Kansas, as such, is a factor only when "Time Differences" are being presented. [3] "Time Differences" will be presented under two headings: (1) the behavior of the state of Kansas, and (2) the behavior of the counties of Kansas.

Table VII gives a picture of the voting behavior of the state of Kansas when electing the President of the United States. Two measuring stickspopulation and voting population-are included in the table, as well as the absolute vote cast, so additional information can be developed in the process of presentation. It should be noted that the population and voting population estimates for 1932 are extremely temporary and will be revised as soon as the returns from the next census are available. [4]

Even at first glance, it is evident that the votes cast did not vary directly with changes in the voting population or the population. On three occasions when the population and voting population were continuing to increase, the absolute vote cast was less than in the preceding election. In the period prior to woman suffrage, the population increased about twelve (12) percent while the vote cast for President did not change appreciably. During the period since the adoption of woman suffrage for national elections, the popula-

tion has increased about ten (10) percent and the total vote cast about twenty (20) to twenty-five (25) percent. As one examines the behavior for the entire period, two points stand out prominently and call for consideration. With the introduction of woman suffrage in the election of President, the voting population was, for all practical purposes doubled, the actual increase was 101.2 percent, and, assuming equal interest and equal training or ability, one might. have anticipated that the vote cast in subsequent elections would have been approximately twice as great, but such was not the case. The mean * of votes cast in the four elections prior to the adoption of universal suffrage was 355 (in 1,000) while the mean for the period subsequent was 672, and it should have been 710 to 712. The same results appeared when analyzing the vote cast per 1,000 of the population. The mean prior to 1914 was 225, the mean since 1914 was 351, and it should have been about 450. The increase was fifty-six (56) percent instead of one hundred (100) or one hundred one point two percent. This may have been due either to a general lack of interest or to an undeveloped interest on the part of the women, or to a continued and serious loss of interest on the part of the men, or to a combination of these. The loss of interest was evident from the beginning of the period down to and including the election of 1920. Woman suffrage may not have contributed to this decline, but it certainly did not succeed in stopping the decline until after 1920-if then. In the second place, the last column, "Vote cast per 1,000 of the Voting Population," indicated the appearance of a "U" curve with the minimum point at 556 in 1920. These increases since 1920 are not as great in magnitude as the comparable decreases prior to 1920. These increases may be due, in part at least, either to the existence and growth of actual issues, or to developing interest on the part of the women of the state, or to a renewed interest on the part of the men which, in fact, means a developing interest on the part of the new generation of men, or it may be the product of a combination of these and other factors. In California similiar results were discovered. The mean of votes cast per 1,000 of population for President prior to the adoption of woman suffrage was 183 and the mean for the period subsequent was 275, [5] while the mean should have been about 360 to 370, if

doubling the voting population should double the number of people participating. When voting population was the basis of the California study, the 1912 election for President was the low point in the series, and it was also the first election in which the women of the state participated, possibly indicating, as in Kansas, that either the women did not immediately rush to the ballot box, or that, when the women were allowed to vote, a considerable number of the men stayed away, or it may have been a combination of both. This similarity of behavior is significant especially when the dates are not identical, when the states are of different sizes from the standpoint of population and when they are in distinctly different geographic regions. Nine general state officials are elected every two years. These nine are the governor, the lieutenant governor, the secretary of state, the auditor, the treasurer, the attorney general, the superintendent of public instruction, the superintendent of insurance, and the state printer. The time series showing the voting behavior as regards the election of governor and secretary of state are given to illustrate the general behavior pattern along with the results already presented.

YEAR

Governor

Secretary of State.

Absolute vote (in 000)

Vote cast per 1,000

Absolute vote (in 000)

Vote cast per 1,000

		Population.	V.P.		Population.	V.P.
1904	321	209	719	317	207	710
1906	316	201	679	308	194	657
1908	375	230	773	373	228	768
1910	327	194	657	312	184	626
1912	360	214	730	347	206	704
1914	*528	315	564	480	286	513
1916	582	344	587	539	319	544
**1918	434	251	431	414	240	411
1920	547	310	535	515	292	504
1922	533	298	513	490	274	472
1924	660	366	626	597	331	588
1926	508	279	476	471	258	450
1928	671	362	618	599	323	552
1930	621	330	564	531	282	483
1932	800	421	720

*First time women voted for general state offices.

**This election, held during the closing days of the world war, does not seriously modify apparent trends.

Similar results appeared in these series and in the series for the other state offices as in the series for President. That is, prior to 1914, the votes cast did not change appreciably from one election

Just at this point in our discussion, another set of differences make their appearance. These might be labeled "office differences." The votes cast for the other general state offices are practically without exception fewer than the votes cast for the chief executive of the state and the votes cast for the governor of the state are generally fewer in number than the total vote cast for the presidential electors. Furthermore, one may infer that there is a definite relationship between the size of the vote cast for an office and its relative location on the ballot. Would the total vote cast for the first office appearing on the ballot continue to be larger than the second, and so forth, or would the total vote cast for President and governor continue to be relatively large regardless of position?

Measuring the differences between offices from election to election and from period to period, gives additional information and conclusions concerning time changes. Table XI gives the differences in votes cast per 1,000 of the population and per 1,000 of the voting population for governor and lieutenant governor, and between governor, at the head of the list, and the office of state printer, at the end of the list.

-- --

Of Population

Of Voting Population

YEAR	Governor- Lt. Governor	Governor- state printer	Governor- Lt. Governor	Governor- state printer
1904	1	--	2	--
1906	6	6	20	20
1908	2	3	5	09
1910	8	10	27	33
1912	7	10	23	32
--	- -M 5	-M 7	-M 15	-M 24
1914	26	41	45	72
1916	26	38	44	64
1918	12	19	21	33
1920	20	29	33	49
1922	24	30	42	52
--	- -M 13	22	-M 31	-M 37	-M 54
1924	36	129	62	221
1926	32	68	55	116
1928	37	48	63	82
1930	50	53	86	91
--	- -M 36	-M 75	-M 67	- -M 127

M equals the mean for the given block of differences.

From an inspection of this table it is not only evident that the differences are greater as the differences in political rank increase and as the place on the ballot is relatively prominent or inconspicuous, but also there is a fourfold increase in differences based on population following the adoption of woman suffrage and more than a twofold increase in the differences when voting population is the base. In the third period, the differences are almost doubled when comparing the governor and the lieutenant governor and they are more than doubled when comparing the governor and the state printer. This increasing loss of interest on the part of the Kansas voters-the California voters express the same feeling, whether from the same causes or not it is not now known-forces one to consider the advisability of selecting some of the state executive officers by some method other than election.

The following conclusions are apparent when the state of Kansas is analyzed as a single political unit and its voting behavior is determined from the votes cast for the President and the nine state executive offices: (1) Prior to the adoption of woman suffrage in general elections, the voting behavior was more or less horizontal in its general appearance. (2) Subsequent to the adoption of universal suffrage, the voting behavior has been gradually increasing in its general appearance. (3) By plotting the values of these series of votes cast in percentages relatives to population and voting population, it was immediately seen that the angles of change from election to elec

tion became more acute or sharper as one moved from 1904 toward 1930. (4) The differences between the various lines, indicating the relative positions of the plotted values of the series, became greater as one moved from 1904 toward 1930.

The second section under the heading of "time differences" pertains to the voting behavior of the counties in Kansas. As it was out of the question to present the twelve time series for each of the forty-four counties, the more or less representative counties shown in Tables XII, XIII, XIV and XV have been selected to give a picture of some of the results obtained in this study.

Absolute vote cast (in 000) for

Vote cast per 1,000 population for

YEAR	Population (in 000)	Pres.	Govr	Cong	Pres	Govr	Cong
1904	87.9	14.2	14.4	13.4	162	164	153
1906	96.2		12.6	12.0		131	129
1908	103.0	18.3	18.2	17.9	177	176	174
1910	109.8		15.0	14.4		136	132
1912	110.1	18.8	18.0	17.6	171	163	159
1914	110.4		21.6	19.6		196	178
1916	113.0	33.1	29.2	29.1	297	262	261
1918	118.0		16.7	15.8		142	134
1920	123.0	33.7	31.3	30.6	277	257	251
1922	126.5		27.3	26.6		216	210
1924	130.0	40.1	39.0	33.4	309	301	258
1926	133.6		25.0	24.4		189	185
1928	137.4	50.9	45.9	37.9	364	333	276
1930	141.2		34.4	33.0		243	234

*Woman suffrage introduced.

Absolute vote cast (in 000) for

Vote cast per 1,000

YEAR	Population (in 000)	Pres.	Gov	Cong	Pres	Gov	Cong	Pres	Gov	Cong
1904	46.7	10.1	9.8	9.7	217	209	207	784	757	748
1906	48.7	----	9.0	8.9	--	186	183	--	639	628
1908	49.6	10.7	10.9	9.9	214	220	199	742	759	689
1910	50.5	----	9.3	9.2	--	184	181	--	637	628
1912	54.4	10.6	10.5	10.5	195	192	192	676	664	664
1914	*58.3	----	16.2	15.4	--	277	264	--	512	487
1916	60.6	18.5	17.0	17.2	305	279	282	565	518	523
1918	61.1	----	10.9	10.8	--	178	177	--	328	325
1920	61.7	14.5	14.9	13.9	235	231	224	431	423	412
1922	61.0	----	16.0	15.7	--	261	256	--	474	466
1924	60.4	18.0	18.1	16.4	299	301	272	535	540	488
1926	57.9	----	13.7	13.2	--	238	229	--	424	408
1928	53.6	17.6	16.8	14.8	328	314	277	587	561	495
1930	49.3	----	15.2	14.7	--	309	299	--	552	534

Absolute vote cast (in 000) for

Vote cast per 1,000

YEAR	Population (in 000)	Pres.	Gov	Cong	Pres	Gov	Cong	Pres	Gov	Cong
1904	35.2	0.8	0.7	0.7	218	212	200	745	725	888
1906	37.5	---	0.9	0.9	---	239	232	---	769	746
1908	41.1	1.0	1.2	1.0	258	293	242	763	795	753	784
1910	44.6	---	1.0	1.0	---	225	219	---	738	716
1912	42.9	1.0	1.0	1.0	229	229	225	644	796	769	755
1914	41.3	---	1.5	1.5	---	375	371	---	676	666
1916	43.6	1.9	1.7	1.7	430	398	398	724	740	733	732
1918	50.0	---	1.5	.5	---	302	305	---	559	583
1920	56.4	2.0	1.8	1.8	354	317	330	644	577	599
1922	58.7	---	2.0	2.0	---	335	334	---	619	618
1924	60.9	2.4	2.4	2.2	402	399	367	740	734	682
1926	64.4	---	2.5	2.5	---	390	389	---	717	715
1928	69.2	2.7	2.6	2.6	393	371	374	724	684	689
1930	74.0	---	2.3	2.3	---	317	317	---	584	584

Absolute vote cast (in 000) for

Vote cast per 1,000

YEAR	Population (in 000)	Pres.	Gov	Cong	Pres	Gov	Cong	Pres	Gov	Cong
1904	15.3	3.3	3.1	2.9	215	200	188	786	729	684
1906	15.1	---	3.2	2.9	---	211	191	---	750	703
1908	15.3	3.5	3.5	3.5	228	227	226	810	806	800
1910	15.8	---	3.0	2.9	---	190	185	---	671	699
1912	15.3	3.7	3.7	3.8	242	240	236	842	833	819
1914*	15.1	---	5.1	4.8	---	338	316	---	594	568
1916	14.8	5.6	5.3	5.2	381	359	353	661	623	813
1918	14.6	---	3.3	3.7	---	263	257	---	453	443
1920	14.9	4.84	4.77	4.6	335	331	318	572	564	540
1922	19.7	---	5.0	4.9	---	339	332	---	572	561
1924	15.0	5.9	5.4	5.1	393	362	342	659	807	573
1928	15.0	---	4.2	4.0	---	281	267	---	468	446
1928	19.8	6.0	5.5	5.4	408	373	367	681	625	615
1930	14.5	---	5.6	5.2		386	361	---	646	603

*Woman suffrage introduced.

The counties included in this study have similar behavior to that of the state as far as time differences are concerned. The general confusion in voting prior to the adoption of woman suffrage has produced a more or less horizontal pattern. The decline until the period following 1920, and then the increase in the past decade, are all in accord with the characteristics of state behavior. The increase in differences between the various offices is also apparent as one examines the county series.

As the so-called rhythmic factor was examined, the one-two or up-down beat was quite apparent when the office of governor was

under consideration. In order to eliminate the factor of the introduction of woman suffrage, the analysis was made of votes cast per 1,000 of the voting population. The range of behavior could extend from 1 (complete agreement with expected behavior) to 0 (complete disagreement). The extent of this agreement is presented in the form of fractions with the denominator indicating the number of counties included in the particular set of comparisons. The accompanying table indicates to what extent the counties behaved in harmony with our theoretical expectations.

Period	1904	1906	1908	1910	1912	1914	1916	1918	1920	1922	1924	1926	1928	1930
Expectation	--	d	u	d	u	d	u	d	u	d	u	d	u	d
Behavior	--	33	40	40	41	--	42	--	38	23	36	--	35	30
--	42	41	41	44	1	43	1	43	42	41	1	44	44

d; downward; u, upward, in comparison with preceding election.

In addition, it is important to note that eleven counties (25 percent of those included in this study) behaved completely in accord with the theoretical expectations, while thirteen of them deviated once and eight of them twice. Out of thirteen possible deviations, almost three-fourths of the counties deviated two times or less.

When one turns from considering the votes cast for governor to those cast for President, the factors are found to be more complicated. When the absolute vote cast was classified, it was found that., in 1908, thirty-eight counties cast a larger vote than in 1904, five cast a smaller vote, and one the same vote. In 1912 twelve went up, twenty-five down, and seven remained the same. In 1916, due partially at least to the introduction of woman suffrage, all fortyfour cast a larger vote. In 1920 eight followed the upward trend and thirty-six turned downward, while in 1924, without the stimulus of woman suffrage, all forty-four counties cast a larger vote than in 1920. In 1928 thirty-seven continued upward, five declined, and two remained the same. In 1932 forty-three increased and one showed a decline. Thus, when absolute vote cast is analyzed, the elections of 1908, 1916, 1924 and 1932 indicate a strong upward or major beat and the 1912 and 1920 elections produce the downward or minor beat. The 1928 election indicates a downward beat

in relation to the 1924 election, but it is not as pronounced as the other downward beats.

Using votes cast per 1,000 of the population as the basis for analyzing changes from one election to the next, similar results are obtained.

Election	1908	1912	1916	1920	1924	1928	1932
Upward	36	5	44	2	42	33	43
Downward	8	39	0	42	2	9	1
No	change	--	--	0	0	0	2	0
Significant inference	Up	Down	Up	Down	Up	Down	Up

Here, again, one finds strong upward or major beats in 1908, 1916, 1924 and 1932, when compared with the minor beats of 1904, 1912, 1920 and 1928. The election of 1928 does not have as pronounced a downward break except when comparing it with the surrounding elections.

Combining the analysis of behavior when voting for President with the analysis of behavior when voting for governor, the following situation becomes apparent for the period under consideration. The behavior pattern for the election of governor is a "W" eightyear cycle pattern-the outer wings of the "W" being elongatedwhile the pattern for the election of President is a "V" eight-year cycle pattern superimposed over the "W" ( v) . If, on the other hand, one wishes to think of the behavior pattern for the election of governor as a "W" eight-year cycle pattern-the outer wings of the "W" being seriously shortened, then the pattern for the election of President becomes an inverted "V" "A" superimposed over the ***

From the information presented, it is immediately seen that major beats are not associated with a particular major party. In 1908 and in 1924, the Republican candidates were successful, while in 1916 and 1932, the Democratic standardbearers were victorious. These major beats are not related to candidates seeking election or those seeking a second term. In 1916 and in 1924 Presidents sought reelection and were successful, while in 1908 and in 1932 those seeking first terms were successful. Furthermore, there seems to be no close relationship between major beats and economic depressions

or periods of business activity. The elections of 1908 and 1932 follow periods of economic stress and the elections of 1916 and 1924 are in the midst of periods of business activity. The election of Republican and Democratic governors seems to have little in common with these patterns. Of the three Democrats elected, one was with a Democratic President (Wilson, 1912), two were carried into office in a bi-election (1922 and 1930), and none was elected at a major point on the presidential pattern. Republican candidates were successful at major points and at minor or low points on the presidential pattern and at major and minor points on the gubernatorial pattern.

Analyzing this problem of possible rhythm when votes cast per 1,000 of the voting population are used as the basis for the study, other results appear than those in the preceding paragraphs. The following summary tells the story.

Election of	1908	1912	1916	1920	1924	1928	1932
Upward	20	8	5	1	38	33	43
Downward	18	32	36	41	6	10	1
No change	2	1	1	0	0	1	0
Not	counted	4	3	2	2	0	0	0
Significant inference	Up	Down	Down	Down	Up	Up	Up

Furthermore, eleven of the forty-four counties behave as the summary indicates; i.e., up, down, down, down, up, up, up. Thus a "V" twenty-four year cycle pattern presents itself when voting population is used as the measuring stick. Looking back over these paragraphs presenting material which pertains to rhythm, one is puzzled concerning the significance of these observations, and asks whether any general propositions are to be evolved or extracted from these behavior patterns.

Would it be entirely absurd for one to expect or anticipate the 1934 vote for governor to be down when compared with the 1932, the 1936 vote for President to be down when compared to 1932 and the vote for governor to be up when compared with 1934? It will be interesting to note to what extent these anticipations are realized. The theory here presented has been upset neither by the 1932 election nor by the 1896 election (when Kansas was treated as a single unit), but has been further verified. With only one cycle available,

when voting population is the basis, it would be unwise to extrapolate beyond 1936. However, it would be interesting if the 1936, 1940 and 1944 presidential elections should prove to be down, down, down, when voting population is the measuring stick applied to the votes cast.. Consequently, from the analysis of "time differences" for the state of Kansas and for forty-four fairly representative counties of the state, certain uniformities are discovered, such as (1) the possibility of rhythmic behavior between the various elections; (2) an increase in the amount of difference between votes cast for the different offices as one moves from early elections to more recent ones, and (3) either a reticence on the part of the newly enfranchised voter to participate immediately upon being given the right to vote or the refusal on the part of an element among the men to participate in the first few elections after the adoption of the amendment, or both of these factors working together.

As attention was turned to the consideration of "size differences," the material was reclassified and the results analyzed in the light of the new relationships. For each election beginning with 1904 and continuing through the election of 1930, the counties were ranked from the one having the largest population to the one having the smallest, and in a second analysis they were ranked on the basis of voting population. Seven classes were established similar to the arrangement used in other studies. The classification is as follows:

Class A-Population over 100,000
Class B-Population between 50,000 and 100,000
Class C-Population between 25,000 and 50,000
Class D-Population between 10,000 and 25,000
Class E-Population between 5,000 and 10,000
Class F-Population between 1,000 and 5,000
Class G-Population less than 1,000

The same system was used when "voting population" was the basis of operations. It should be noted that in one or two of the early elections there were no counties in Class A and in the latter elections no counties in Class G. Table XIX presents the means of votes cast for President per 1,000 of the population by classes.

This classification of the counties of Kansas further validates a possible scientific law of voting behavior which was first suggested in March, 1928, [7]namely, the larger the population of a political unit the smaller the vote cast relative to the population. By com-

CLASS	1904	1908	1912	1916	1920	1924	1928
A	---	177	171	297	277	338	354
B	185	205	191	328	286	340	365
C	204	217	207	357	321	361	378
D	224	239	231	339	340	390	411
E	*218	241	232	380	*315	352	*378
F	238	298	236	526	388	402	*340
G	334	414	265	474	388

* The mean is smaller than the mean in the class above.

bining Classes E, F and CT, there would be only one exception to the rule for these counties. Of thirty-nine possibilities there were seven exceptions to uniform behavior in voting for President. In voting for governor, there were eleven deviations from uniformity of a possible seventy-seven, and in voting for congressmen there were thirteen deviations of a possible seventy-seven. When the counties are ranked on the basis of voting population, the results obtained are presented clearly by analyzing Table XX.

CLASS	1904	1908	1912	1918	1920	1924	1928
A	--	--	--	--	--	--	--
B	--	--	--	479	470	553	587
C	577	606	563	551	490	*552	578
D	688	688	833	651	576	644	668
E	777	795	755	733	601	678	698
F	811	812	799	802	621	666	683
G	--	--	789	--	839	827	695

* Deviations from the law of voting behavior.

** Three counties in 1904, three in 1908, and two in 1916 cast more votes than there were voters in the respective counties.

In this table the so-called law of voting behavior manifests itself even more clearly than in the table presenting the material based on the population. The larger the voting population of a political unit, the smaller the vote cast relative to the voting population is a statement of human behavior relative to voting activity which is applicable in Kansas and in California for the periods considered. From this and other studies partially completed, one is justified in suggesting that this statement of behavior may be universally applicable where a relatively large proportion of the population does have an opportunity to participate in the selection of governmental officials by means of the Australian ballot. Kansans and

Californians may be peculiar when it comes to voting activities, but up to the present no objective evidence has been introduced to substantiate such a position, and, until such evidence is introduced, it ought to be considered sound to assume that the voters in these two commonwealths are reasonably representative of voters in general and particularly of Anglo-Saxon voters. Tables XXI and XXII present the behavior of the forty-four counties when voting for governor and for congressmen.

CLASS	1904	1906	1908	1910	1912	1914	1916	1918	1920	1922	1924	1926	1928	1930
A	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--
B	--	--	--	--	--	325	423	288	444	396	551	329	490	487
C	584	447	605	469	536	469	503	327	464	448	561	474	538	499
D	673	612	701	578	629	553	599	450	557	524	634	494	616	580
E	764	678	792	676	725	634	674	523	580	515	665	541	644	618
F	782	737	821	695	814	652	755	584	582	616	651	614	609	602
G	t	t	t	856	847	758	030	793	803	748	821	633	608	--

Deviations

t Votes reported are more than voting population.

$ The reliability factor in this election for four counties is low.

CLASS	1904	1906	1908	1910	1912	1914	1916	1918	1920	1922	1924	1926	1928	1930
A		--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--
B	---	---	---	---	295	421	283	443	398	511	329	487	413
C	544	427	596	452	525	420	493	324	450	440	501	365	456	442
D	657	580	675	485	609	509	584	447	527	512	573	463	546	529
E	733	664	788	612	722	575	652	515	559	510	608	497	608	559
F	747	717	786	641	760	609	736	582	570	601	612	610	571	570
G	t	t	t	833	820	671	050	800	779	739	757	630	614	---

* Deviations from the law of voting behavior.

t Votes reported are more than the voting population.

tt The reliability factor in this election for four counties is low.

In measuring and analyzing the votes cast for governor and for congressmen, as was the case with the President, the results further validate the suggestion that the rule of voting behavior-the larger the population and the voting population of the political unit, the smaller the relative vote cast-may be universal in extent. When this possible law of voting behavior was first suggested, an important problem presented itself which up to the present time has not been solved; namely, are democracy and popular control of government through systems of elections compatible with metropolitan areas and rapidly growing political units? If there is further develop

went in the "back to the farm" movement, this problem may solve itself, but if the urbanization of America persists and cities continue to grow, can we expect democratic control to be established, or, if established, to be maintained over government?

Some years ago Prof. William Bennett Munro suggested that there might be some relationship between voting behavior and the area or size of the political unit or units being studied. Since that. time, the author has been watching for an opportunity to follow up this suggestion. As a result, the counties included in this study were classified on the basis of acres contained within their boundaries. Five classes were established:

Class

I	over 800,000 acres
II	600,000 600,000 to 800,000 acres
III	400,000 to 600,000 acres
IV	200,000 200,000 to 400,000 acres
V	Less than 200,000 acres

The results obtained from analyzing six elections for the President on the basis of this classification of counties is indicated in Table XXIII.

Class	1908	1912	1916	1920	1924	1928	Number of counties in each class
I	728	692	649	563	590	613	1
II	735	723	677	*553	620	855	6
III	810	774	720	810	675	689	23
IV	757	708	636	684	633	860	13
V	606	563	479	453	613	603	1
* A deviation.

Recognizing the meagerness of information and the absence of a distribution compatible with the classification, the uniform behavior exhibited on the part of the counties in these elections is not to be taken too seriously at this time. The presentation merely indicates another method of analyzing the possible effect that "size differences" may or may not have upon voting behavior.

Finally the results of analyzing the statistical data on the basis of "location differences" are presented and briefly compared with

results obtained in other studies. For this study the state was divided into twelve districts. The districts and the number of counties contained in each are shown in the accompanying diagram.

	West	West central	East central	East	Total
North	1	3	6	6	16
Central	0	4	3	4	11
South	4	3	3	7	17
Totals	5	10	12	17	44

The counties included in each district are listed in the following table:

The two block patterns of Kansas which follow indicate, on the basis of population and voting population respectively, the voting behavior by geographic districts. The values of "M" (arithmetic mean) and of "b" (quadrennial change) in the equations of lines of best fit to votes cast for President per 1,000 of the population are

shown in the first diagrammatic pattern of the state as divided into twelve districts, while the values of "M" and of "b" in the equations of lines of best fit to votes cast for President per 1,000 of the voting population are presented in the second pattern.

West	Central west	Central east	East
North	M 326	M 318	M 324	M 291	M 320
---	b +-37	b +31	b +36	b +36	---
Central	---	M 295	M 300	M 324	M 306.3
---	---	b +28	b +33	b +41	---
South	M 377	M 306	M 294	M 285	M 321
---	b -5	b +29	b +31	b +32	---
---	M 352	M 306.3	M 308	M 300	---

---	West	Central west	Central east	East
North	M 745	M 756	M 738	M 668	M 727
---	b -11	b -38	b -28	b -28	b -26
Central	M	M 700	M 680	M 694	M 691
---		b -28	b -27	b -28	b -28
South	M 827*	M 717	M 814	M 649	M 702
---	b -44	b -28	6 -23	b -26	b -30
---	M 786	M 724	M 677	M 670	---

*Three-fourths of the units could not be used on a number of occasions.

From an analysis of both of these patterns it is apparent immediately from the standpoint of statistical results that the farther west one goes the higher the mean is and that the mean for the central band of counties decreases less than in either the northern or the southern band. [8]

Two other geographic distribution blocks are presented indicating the changes which took place with the introduction of woman suffrage into the general elections of the state. The numbers in each section indicate (1) the mean of votes cast for the President per 1,000 of population (Block 3) and of voting population (Block 4) for the counties in the section for the elections prior to the adoption of woman suffrage, (2) the same since the adoption of woman suffrage and (3) the difference between the two means for the particular district.

	West	Central west	Central east	East	Total
North	253-395	231-385	238-389	219-344	235-356
		+142	+154	+151	+125	+121
Central		222-350	232-355	224-400	226-368
		+128	+123	+176	+142
South	329-413	229-357	213-355	204-346	244-368
	+84	+128	+142	+142	+124
Totals	291-404	227-364	228-366	216-363
	+113	+137	+138	+147

The information contained in the bottom section of this block may be of importance at this point. Prior to woman suffrage the east west totals are 216, 228, 227 and 291, indicating once again a heavier voting per 1,000 of the population as one moves from east to west. After women became a part of voting population the east west series is 363, 366, 364 and 404 and indicates no change in voting behavior as far as location is concerned as a result of enlarging the suffrage.

	West	Central west	Central east	East	Total
North	769-726	844-694	823-674	730-621	792-679
	-43	-150	-149	-109	-113
Central		770-648	759-621	772-625	767-631
		-122	-138	-147	-136
South	888-781	791-659	701-599	717-599	774-660
	-107	-132	-102	-118	-114
Totals	829-754	802-667	761-631	740-615
	-75	-135	-130	-125

Here again both series-the one prior to the adoption of the amendment 740, 761, 802 and 829, and the one subsequent to the adoption 615, 631, 667 and 754show that interest in voting increased the farther west the political unit was located as far as votes cast per 1,000 of the voting population was concerned. Another way by which the introduction of woman suffrage was analyzed and its influence noted was by relating the actual change

in voting population in 1915-county by county-with the actual change in votes cast in the presidential election of 1916 when compared with the election of 1912.

Percent of increase in voting population by adding females 21 years of age and over.

Percent of increase in vote cast for President 1916, as compared with 1912.

2 Counties	below 70 %	9 Counties	below 60 %
4 Counties	70 to 80 %	11 Counties	60 to 70 %
8 Counties	80 to 90 %	14 Counties	70 to 80 %
29 Counties	90 to 100 %	8 Counties	80 to 90 %
3 Counties	above 100 %	2 Counties	90 to 100 %
The mean percent increase was 91%			76.5%

Ness (W. C.-C. region) and Sherman (W.-N. W. region) showed less than one point of difference between change in population and change in voting behavior, while Rooks county (W. C.-N. region) had a difference of two and one half points between the two and Pratt (W. C.-S.) and Summer (E. C.-S.) each indicated a fivepoint difference between the population increase and the voting increase. The remaining counties presented differences which were larger than those indicated in the above discussion. The increase in voting population was the larger item in all the counties except Haskell (S. W.), Morton (S. W.), Pratt (W. C.-S.), and Stanton (S. W.). Both the eastern and the east-central bands of counties had a twenty-fourpoint differential between percentage of voting population increase and percentage of vote cast increase (94% V. P. - 70% V. C. - E.) and (92% - 68% = east central) while the west-central band had an eighteen-point differential (9173) and the western band had a three-point differential in which the vote cast was larger than the percentage of increase in voting population (80-83). Here again is further indication that the farther west one goes the larger the participation in election by the people in the counties of Kansas. The outstanding inference concerning "location differences" may be limited to the statement that the farther west in Kansas the political units are located the larger is the vote cast per 1,000 of either the population or the voting population. However, this summarization is overshadowed if not neutralized by the application of the first law of voting behavior-the larger the population or voting population the smaller the relative vote cast-in that the 11

political units included in this study are quite uniformly smaller in population the farther west one goes in the state.

In conclusion, this study of "Voting in Kansas, 1900-1932" indicates clearly that while Kansas was giving to the country outstanding men and was experimenting with various economic and political problems and methods, it was also developing a voting behavior (1) which indicated a strong Republican leaning in state elections; (2) which might be interpreted as an ability to select accurately the winner in national elections and then voting in such a way that the electoral vote of Kansas was cast for the candidates eventually winning; (3) which conformed in general to the behavior already discovered in studying other political units-the larger the "P" or "VP" of the political unit the smaller the vote cast relative to the unit-and (4) which may involve rhythm of a more or less complex nature in moving from one election to another.