and the International News delegated special correspondents to report the meeting. Dr. Benj. F. Shambaugh, Superintendent of the State Historical Society of Iowa and head of the Political Science Department in the University, presided at the round table sessions. "Systems of Local Self-Government", "Problems of Local Self-Government", "The Commonwealth as a Unit of Local Self-Government", "The County as a Unit of Local Self-Government", and "The Municipality as a Unit of Local Self-Government" were topics discussed at the round table meetings. Dr. Arnold B. Hall, president-elect of the University of Oregon, and Dr. Charles A. Beard, president of the American Political Science Association, gave the formal addresses at the Conference.

CONTRIBUTORS

HENRY ARNOLD BENNETT, Instructor in the Department of History and Government of the State Normal School of Buffalo, N. Y. Born at Hartland, Connecticut, on March 13. 1896. Graduated from Wesleyan University and received the M. A. degree from the State University of Iowa in 1925. Did graduate work at Bates College, Brown University, and Harvard University. Between 1919 and 1924 served as instructor or principal in New England high schools.

EARLE DUDLEY Ross, Associate Professor of History at Iowa State College. Born at Ross Hill, Tioga County, New York, on December 20, 1885. Received the Ph. B. degree from Syracuse University in 1909, the M. A. degree from Cornell University in 1912, and the Ph. D. degree from the State University of Wisconsin in 1915. Author of various articles in educational and historical journals, joint editor, with Professor L. B. Schmidt, of Readings in the Economic History of American Agriculture, and associate editor of Social Science.

THE IOWA JOURNAL OF HISTORY AND POLITICS

OCTOBER NINETEEN HUNDRED TWENTY-SIX
VOLUME TWENTY-FOUR NUMBER FOUR

VOL. XXIV-34

1

MANAGING A CAMPAIGN

AN ACCOUNT OF THE GOOD ROADS CAMPAIGN IN

JOHNSON COUNTY IOWA

[The following article is a contemporary account of one of the outstanding local campaigns in Iowa on the question of roads in 1926. In addition to its value as contemporary history, it illustrates the effectiveness of education, advertising, and psychology as factors in the successful management of a campaign. The Editor.]

On February 9th, 1926, the people of Johnson County, Iowa, voted in favor of a good roads project that had been submitted to them by the county board of supervisors. In several important respects this election was very significant. Although the project was a very ambitious and expensive one, the vote in favor of it was over-whelming. Every precinct in the county returned a majority in favor of the project except one, and in that one precinct the margin of votes against the proposition was very small.1 Furthermore, this was the first time that an election had occurred on a good roads project since the Forty-first General Assembly, in 1925, had enacted some new law on the subject.

If the question submitted to the electorate had involved only a small sum of money, or if it had involved a policy that was not particularly controversial, or if the history of similar elections in other counties had indicated that such a victory was at all probable, the results of the election on February 9th would not have been particularly worthy of comment. But since the question involved the expenditure of more than four and one-half million dollars,2 and since

1 See election returns in the Proceedings of the Board of Supervisors, Johnson County, 1926. p. 29.

2 Proceedings of the Board of Supervisors, Johnson County, 1926, pp. 23, 24.

it had to do with matters of policy that have been the subject of bitter controversy in this State for many years, one can not help but wonder how it happened.

The student of politics knows perfectly well that such things do not happen accidentally. American electorates do not turn out in overwhelming numbers and vote in favor of expensive projects unless they have been most effectively stimulated, and convinced. Important questions are not infrequently carried at elections where only a very small proportion of the voters attend the polls, and in such cases a determined minority is able to win the day. But that was not the situation here. The vote was exceedingly large, there were no other questions to bring the voters out, and the attitude of the electorate was unmistakable. Naturally, the observer's mind turns at once to the nature of the campaign that preceded this election.

Campaigns, like advertising, can not be evaluated with scientific accuracy. The merchant can only guess just how much business has been brought to his counters by one particular advertisement. The student of politics can but guess just what effect a campaign has had upon a particular election. But in both cases there are plenty of signs that are convincing to the careful observer. As to the case in question there is probably no one who would deny that the vigorous campaign which was conducted in support of this good roads project very profoundly affected the results on election day. No one can say with anything like well founded confidence that the project would have failed if it had not been for the campaign. One can not even be sure that the large proportion in favor of it would not have been the same. But at least it is safe to assert that the vote would not have been nearly so large, and thus so clearly indicative of the judgment of the people on this question. Hence the campaign assumes very significant proportions.