h.g. wells

[Clay S]

https://g.co/gemini/share/f264c27657ef

[Clay S]

Chapter 7: Political and Social InfluencesAs for politics and society, New Republicanism takes the position that any institution that does not "mould men into fine and vigorous forms" must "be destroyed." Such an institution is the British monarchy, a "stupendous sham." Wells argues, referring to Ch. 3 of his earlier Anticipations (1901), that "in a sense, the British system, the pyramid of King, land-owning and land-ruling aristocracy, yeoman and trading middle-class and labourers, is dead—it died in the nineteenth century under wheels of mechanism." But an extended comparison shows that American conditions do not offer a desirable alternative. As a "crude suggestion," Wells ponders the possibility of election of public officials by juries. As for honors, Wells proposes the development of a "generally non-hereditary functional nobility." The new methods could later be extended to the control of property, for " 'We are all Socialists nowadays,' " in addition to the further development of taxing property transfers.

[Clay S]

written in 1903.

chapter 7

Let us take, first of all, the question of the reconciliation as it is presented in the administration of public affairs. The days have come when the most democratic-minded of men must begin to admit that the appointment of all rulers and officials by polling the manhood, or most of the manhood, of a country does not work—let us say perfectly—and at no level of educational efficiency does it ever seem likely to work in the way those who established it hoped. By thousands of the most varied experiments the nineteenth century has proved this up to the hilt. The fact that elections can only be worked as a choice between two selected candidates, or groups of candidates, is the unforeseen and unavoidable mechanical defect of all electoral methods with large electorates. Education has nothing to do with that. The elections for the English University members are manipulated just as much as the elections in the least literate of the Irish constituencies. [Footnote: There is a very suggestive book on this aspect of our general question, The Crowd, by M. Gustave le Bon, which should interest any one who finds this paper interesting. And the English reader who would like a fuller treatment of this question has now available also Ostrogorski’s great work, Democracy and the Organization of Political Parties.] It is not a question of accidentals, but a question of the essential mechanism. Men have sought out and considered all sorts of devices for qualifying the present method by polling; Mills’s plural voting for educated men will occur to the reader; Hare’s system of vote collection, and the negative voting of Doctor Grece; and the defects of these inventions have been sufficiently obvious to prevent even a trial. The changes have been rung upon methods of counting; cumulative votes and the prohibition of plumping, and so on, have been tried without any essential modification of the results. There are various devices for introducing “stages” in the electoral process; the constituency elects electors, who elect the rulers and officers, for example, and there is also that futile attempt to bring in the non-political specialist, the method of electing governing bodies with power to “co-opt.” Of course they “co-opt” their fellow politicians, rejected candidates, and so on. Among other expedients that people have discussed, are such as would make it necessary for a man to take some trouble and display some foresight to get registered as a voter or to pass an examination to that end, and such as would confront him with a voting paper so complex, that only a very intelligent and painstaking man would be able to fill it up without disqualification. It certainly seems a reasonable thing to require that the voter should be able at least to write out fully and spell correctly the name of the man of his choice. Except for the last, there is scarcely any of these things but its adoption would strengthen the power of the political organizer, which they aim to defeat. Any complication increases the need and the power of organization. It is possible to believe—the writer believes—that with all this burthen of shortcomings, the democratic election system is still, on the whole, better than a system of hereditary privilege, but that is no reason for concealing how defective and disappointing its practical outcome has been, nor for resting contented with it in its present form. [Footnote: The statement of the case is not complete unless we mention that, to the method of rule by hereditary rulers and the appointment of officials by noble patrons on the one hand, and of rule by politicians exercising patronage on the other, there is added in the British system the Chinese method of selecting officials by competitive examination. Within its limits this has worked as a most admirable corrective to patronage; it is one of the chief factors in the cleanhandedness of British politicians, and it is continually importing fresh young men from outside to keep officialdom in touch with the general educated world. But it does not apply, and it does not seem applicable, to the broader issues of politics, to the appointment and endorsement of responsible rulers and legislators, where a score of qualities are of more importance than those an examination can gauge.]

Is polling really essential to the democratic idea? That is the question now very earnestly put to the reader. We are so terribly under the spell of established conditions, we are all so obsessed by the persuasion that the only conceivable way in which a man can be expressed politically is by himself voting in person, that we do all of us habitually overlook a possibility, a third choice, that lies ready to our hands. There is a way by means of which the indisputable evils of democratic government may be very greatly diminished, without destroying or even diminishing—indeed, rather enhancing—that invigorating sense of unhampered possibilities, that the democratic idea involves. There is a way of choosing your public servants of all sorts and effectually controlling public affairs on perfectly sound democratic principles, without ever having such a thing as an election, as it is now understood, at all, a way which will permit of a deliberate choice between numerous candidates—a thing utterly impossible under the current system—which will certainly raise the average quality of our legislators, and be infinitely saner, juster, and more deliberate than our present method. And, moreover, it is a way that is typically the invention of the English people, and which they use to-day in another precisely parallel application, an application which they have elaborately tested and developed through a period of at least seven or eight hundred years, and which I must confess myself amazed to think has not already been applied to our public needs. This way is the Jury system. The Jury system was devised to meet almost exactly the same problem that faces us to-day, the problem of how on the one hand to avoid putting a man’s life or property into the hands of a Ruler, a privileged person, whose interest might be unsympathetic or hostile, while on the other protecting him from the tumultuous judgments of a crowd—to save the accused from the arbitrary will of King and Noble without flinging him to the mob. To-day it is exactly that problem over again that our peoples have to solve, except that instead of one individual affair we have now our general affairs to place under a parallel system. As the community that had originally been small enough and intimate enough to decide on the guilt or innocence of its members grew to difficult proportions, there developed this system of selecting by lot a number of its common citizens who were sworn, who were then specially instructed and prepared, and who, in an atmosphere of solemnity and responsibility in absolute contrast with the uproar of a public polling, considered the case and condemned or discharged the accused. Let me point out that this method is so universally recognized as superior to the common electoral method that any one who should propose to-day to take the fate of a man accused of murder out of the hands of a jury and place it in the hands of any British or American constituency whatever, even in the hands of such a highly intelligent constituency as one of the British universities, would be thought to be carrying crankiness beyond the border line of sanity.

Why then should we not apply the Jury system to the electoral riddle?

Suppose, for example, at the end of the Parliamentary term, instead of the present method of electing a member of Parliament, we were, with every precaution of publicity and with the most ingeniously impartial machine that could be invented, to select a Jury by lot, a Jury sufficiently numerous to be reasonably representative of the general feeling of the community and sufficiently small to be able to talk easily together and to do the business without debating society methods—between twenty and thirty, I think, might be a good working number—and suppose we were, after a ceremony of swearing them and perhaps after prayer or after a grave and dignified address to them upon the duty that lay before them, to place each of these juries in comfortable quarters for a few days and isolated from the world, to choose its legislator. They could hear, in public, under a time limit, the addresses of such candidates as had presented themselves, and they could receive, under a limit of length and with proper precautions for publicity, such documents as the candidates chose to submit. They could also, in public, put any questions they chose to the candidates to elucidate their intentions or their antecedents, and they might at any stage decide unanimously to hear no more of and to dismiss this or that candidate who encumbered their deliberations. (This latter would be an effectual way of suppressing the candidature of cranks, and of half-witted and merely symbolical persons.) The Jury between and after their interrogations and audiences would withdraw from the public room to deliberate in privacy. Their deliberations which, of course, would be frank and conversational to a degree impossible under any other conditions, and free from the dodges of the expert vote manipulator altogether, would, for example, in the case of several candidates of the same or similar political colours, do away with the absurdity of the split vote. The jurymen of the same political hue could settle that affair among themselves before contributing to a final decision.

This Jury might have certain powers of inquest. Provision might be made for pleas against particular candidates; private individuals or the advocates of vigilance societies might appear against any particular candidate and submit the facts about any doubtful affair, financial or otherwise, in which that candidate had been involved. Witnesses might be called and heard on any question of fact, and the implicated candidate would explain his conduct. And at any stage the Jury might stop proceedings and report its selection for the vacant post. Then, at the expiration of a reasonable period, a year perhaps, or three years or seven years, another Jury might be summoned to decide whether the sitting member should continue in office unchallenged or be subjected to a fresh contest.

This suggestion is advanced here in this concrete form merely to show the sort of thing that might be done; it is one sample suggestion, one of a great number of possible schemes of Election by Jury. But even in this state of crude suggestion, it is submitted that it does serve to show the practicability of a method of election more deliberate and thorough, more dignified, more calculated to impress the new generation with a sense of the gravity of the public choice, and infinitely more likely to give us good rulers than the present method, and that it would do so without sacrificing any essential good quality whatever inherent in the Democratic Idea. [Footnote: There are excellent possibilities, both in the United States and in this Empire, of trying over such a method as this, and of introducing it tentatively and piecemeal. In Great Britain already there are quite different methods of election for Parliament existing side by side. In the Hythe division of Kent, for example, I vote by ballot with elaborate secrecy; in the University of London I declare my vote in a room full of people. The British University constituencies, or one of them, might very readily be used as a practical test of this jury suggestion. There is nothing, I believe, in the Constitution of the United States to prevent any one State resorting to this characteristically Anglo-Saxon method of appointing its representatives in Congress. It is not only in political institutions that the method may be tried. Any societies or institutions that have to send delegates to a conference or meeting might very easily bring this conception to a practical test. Even if it does not prove practicable as a substitute for election by polling, it might be found of some value for the appointment of members of the specialist type, for whom at present we generally resort to co-option. In many cases where the selection of specialists was desirable to complete public bodies, juries of educated men of the British Grand Jury type might be highly serviceable.] The case for the use of the Jury system becomes far stronger when we apply it to such problems as we now attempt to solve by co-opting experts upon various administrative bodies.

The necessity either of raising the quality of representative bodies or of replacing them not only in administration but in legislation by bureaucracies of officials appointed by elected or hereditary rulers, is one that presses on all thoughtful men, and is by no means an academic question needed to round off this New Republican theory. The necessity becomes more urgent every day, as scientific and economic developments raise first one affair and then another to the level of public or quasi-public functions. In the last century, locomotion, lighting, heating, education, forced themselves upon public control or public management, and now with the development of Trusts a whole host of businesses, that were once the affair of competing private concerns, claim the same attention. Government by hustings’ bawling, newspaper clamour, and ward organization, is more perilous every day and more impotent, and unless we are prepared to see a government de facto of rich business organizers override the government de jure, or to relapse upon a practical oligarchy of officials, an oligarchy that will certainly decline in efficiency in a generation or so, we must set ourselves most earnestly to this problem of improving representative methods. It is in the direction of the substitution of the Jury method for a general poll that the only practicable line of improvement known to the present writer seems to lie, and until it has been tried it cannot be conceded that democratic government has been tried and exhaustively proved inadequate to the complex needs of the modern state.

[Clay S]

a review from the time says:

ELECTION BY JURY It is in the jury box that ancient palladium of the Constitution that Mr Wells discovers his panacea which is to rescue us from the curse of the monarchy and the shadows of Americanism He maintains that if the nineteenth century has done nothing else it has finally exploded the superstition that by counting the heads of all the electors it is possible to secure the selection of those best qualified to legislate and to direct the forces of the State Polling he maintains is not necessary to the democratic idea The right thing to do is to have your legislator chosen by a jury of twenty or thirty selected by law who would proceed to their choice in a way which would raise the average quality of our legislators and be infinitely saner and juster and more deliberate than our present method The difficulty of course will arise as to the choice of the jury But he thinks that with every precaution of publicity and with the impartial machine that could be invented it would be possible to get a jury of from twenty to thirty persons selected in every constituency in the land which would be reasonably representative of the general feeling of the community and sufficiently small to be able to talk easily together and do busi ness without debating society methods HOW THE SYSTEM WOULD WORK When the jury had been chosen by lot this is the way in which Mr Wells thinks they would proceed to the choice of their candidate Suppose we were after a ceremony of swearing them and perhaps after prayer or after a grave and dignified address to them upon the duty that lay before them to place each of these juries in comfortable quarters for a few days and isolated from the world to choose its legislator They could hear in public under a time limit the addresses of such candidates as presented themselves and they could receive under a limit length and with proper precautions for publicity such docu ments as the candidates chose to submit They could also public put any questions they chose to the candidates elucidate their intentions or their antecedents and they at any stage decide unanimously to hear no more of and dismiss this or that candidate who encumbered their delibera tions This latter would be an effectual way of suppressing candidature of cranks and of half witted and merely persons The jury between and after their interrogations audiences would withdraw from the public room to in privacy Their deliberations which of course would frank and conversational to a degree impossible under other conditions and free from the dodges of the expert manipulator altogether would for example in the case several candidates of the same or similar political colours away with the absurdity of the split vote The jurymen of same political hue could settle that affair among before contributing to a final decision This jury might have certain powers of inquest might be made for pleas against particular candidates individuals or the advocates of vigilance societies might against any particular candidate and submit the facts about doubtful affair financial or otherwise in which that had been involved Witnesses might be called and heard on question of fact and the implicated candidate would explain conduct And at any stage the jury might stop proceedings report its selection for the vacant post Then at the of a reasonable period a year perhaps or three years or years another jury might be summoned to decide whether sitting member should continue in office unchallenged or be sub jected to a fresh contest a AN ENGLISH LEGION OF HONOUR But this is not the only idea which Mr presses upon the attention of the public forgetful the fact that the capacity of the public to new ideas is very limited The other idea is honours and titles which need not necessarily be con ferred by the political administration are the complement of the Republican idea He puts a concrete plan under which all Englishmen would entitled to the first grade in the English Legion of Honour who had shown that they capable of initiative All University graduates persons qualified to practise the responsible pro fessions all qualified doctors all sea captains all men in the Army and Navy promoted certain rank all ministers Established Disestablished together with all public and the representatives of quasi public organi sations such as the Trade Unions would be entitled be decorated The decoration of the first would be merely a mark set upon every man woman who was qualified to do something or done something as distinguished from the man had done nothing in the world the mere unenterprising esurient man From this rank decora tions of the second degree would be conferred then from those distinguished persons of the rank those of the third rank could be chosen this way from such a life nobility as these persons the English Legion of Honour the Second could be elected and all this he thinks could brought about both in England and in America hardly any revolutionary shock at all

[Clay S]

another review:

ELECTION BY JURY In the instalment of his series on Mankind in the Making which appears in the May Cosmo politan HG Wells advances two very original and interesting theories In planning his ideal community he asks among other questions whe ther polling is really essential to the democratic idea There is a way he says of choosing your public servants of all sorts and effectually control ling public affairs on perfectly sound democratic principles without ever having such a thing as an election as it is now understood at all This way is the jury system He points out that the jury method is so universally recognized as superior to common electoral method that the man who would propose to day to take the fate of a man accused of murder out of the hands of a jury and place it in the hands of any American constituency whatever would be thought to be carrying cranki ness beyond the border line of insanity Mr Wells works out the idea with his usual clear thought for details He shows just how a jury might be elected and how elections by jury would operate In another part of his essay he empha sizes the fact that honors and titles are not only compatible with but are a necessary complement to the Republican idea In the election of those to be honored in this way he finds another use for the jury system and both in regard to the question of honor and privilege and in the matter of political control he shows that the alternative of the British or American system does not exhaust human possibilities

[Rajiv Prabhakar]

This is awesome. Wells even makes the exact same "who would you want deciding your fate in a murder trial, a jury or the general public" analogy. If I didn't know better, I would have accused myself of plagiarizing him, haha.

I've to admit that I held off on reading your links for a long time, because it looked like a huge wall of text. Wells seems to like extremely long paragraphs. I've tried to make it a little more readable and highlighted the important bits here: https://outlookzen.com/2025/03/30/election-by-jury-by-h-g-wells/

I've also fleshed out the "learn more" section of our website, so that it can house more essays and content: https://www.electionbyjury.org/learn-more

If anyone has more stuff to throw there, feel free to add it or shoot me an email.

Regards,
Rajiv

On Thu, Mar 27, 2025 at 1:34 AM Clay S <cshe...@gmail.com> wrote:

another review:

ELECTION BY JURY In the instalment of his series on Mankind in the Making which appears in the May Cosmo politan HG Wells advances two very original and interesting theories In planning his ideal community he asks among other questions whe ther polling is really essential to the democratic idea There is a way he says of choosing your public servants of all sorts and effectually control ling public affairs on perfectly sound democratic principles without ever having such a thing as an election as it is now understood at all This way is the jury system He points out that the jury method is so universally recognized as superior to common electoral method that the man who would propose to day to take the fate of a man accused of murder out of the hands of a jury and place it in the hands of any American constituency whatever would be thought to be carrying cranki ness beyond the border line of insanity Mr Wells works out the idea with his usual clear thought for details He shows just how a jury might be elected and how elections by jury would operate In another part of his essay he empha sizes the fact that honors and titles are not only compatible with but are a necessary complement to the Republican idea In the election of those to be honored in this way he finds another use for the jury system and both in regard to the question of honor and privilege and in the matter of political control he shows that the alternative of the British or American system does not exhaust human possibilities

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "election by jury" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to election-by-ju...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/election-by-jury/97b07166-ed65-4617-9b77-1d712c3b2b58n%40googlegroups.com.