Table XLIV
Distribution of Democratic and Republican Votes in Cleveland in 1913 and 1915 Among Certain Racial Groups
| ——— | ||||
| ——— | ||||
| Precincts | Number of Votes | Number of Votes | ||
| 1913 | 1915 | |||
| Baker | Davis | Witt | Davis | |
| ——— | ||||
| Native born | 945 | 1,091 | 1,039 | 925 |
| Czech | 343 | 223 | 275 | 373 |
| Magyar | 207 | 204 | 302 | 204 |
| Polish | 263 | 208 | 205 | 473 |
| Jugo-Slav | 283 | 135 | 279 | 137 |
| Italian | 239 | 282 | 136 | 394 |
| Jewish | 260 | 256 | 273 | 212 |
| ——— | ||||
| ——— | ||||
The three elections following—the presidential in 1916, the mayoralty election in 1917, and the governorship election in 1918—exhibit no tendencies attributable either to the war or to any special causes from which one may generalize anything with regard to the political activities and attitudes of the foreign-born voters which would distinguish them from the native-born. In 1912 Wilson carried Polish, Magyar, and Czech precincts. In 1916 he repeated—this presumably not because of any aspect of the war, but because those precincts are normally Democratic.
The Cleveland nonpartisan ballot provides for three choices. One of the objections urged against the nonpartisan ballot has been that the second and third choices would be used only by the more intelligent voter; that the less intelligent would vote for but one. In the elections studied in which this three-choice system was used, 20 per cent of the native born expressed second choices; the foreign born followed in this order: