Election, in politics, is the choice of public officers by the vote of those who are entitled to exercise the elective franchise. This is to be distinguished, on the one hand, from the appointment of officers by a superior, as by a king, a president, a governor, or a mayor; and on the other hand, from their selection by lot.

The last named method of choosing public officers was considered by Aristotle one of the characteristic features of a popular government. It has been advocated by other writers, because of its tendency to prevent the formation of political parties. Party organization, the caucus, the coalition of different factions, the corruption of voters, the falsification of election returns, the interest of a particular candidate and kindred evils, it is argued will all be swept away if officers are selected by lot.

When officers are chosen by the great body of the voting population, the election is spoken of as popular or direct. This is the prevailing form in free government at present. It had its origin in the general assemblies of primitive States, such as the Roman Concilia, the Athenian Ecclesia, the Teutonic Assembly of Freemen. After the establishment of the Roman Empire, popular election became a farce, and finally disappeared as a political institution of the Roman State. It was continued, however, in the ecclesiastical government of the Christian Church, and reappeared throughout Europe in the guilds of all kinds whose members chose their officers, as well as in the free towns, whose citizens elected their municipal officers to attend to local affairs, and their representatives to take part in the deliberations and legislation of Parliaments or the States-General.

Election is said to be indirect or representative when it is limited to a comparatively small body, whose members have themselves been chosen by the general mass of electors. Elective monarchs have usually been selected in this way. Examples may be found in the case of the former kings of Poland and Hungary, and of the head of the old German Empire. At times the choice of candidates for kingship has been limited to a certain family, while the right of voting was exercisable by all the freemen. Such appears to have been the early practice of most Teutonic States. As a State enlarges, this practice is generally modified. Dr. Stubbs tells us that the election of the King in Anglo-Saxon England belonged, both in form and substance, to the Witan, although exercised by that body in the general assemblies of the whole nation. A striking example of indirect or representative elections in our time is afforded by the choice of United States Senators by the legislatures of the various States. In theory, the President of the United States is selected by the Presidential electors chosen in each State. In practice, however, these electors cast their votes for the party candidate.

Another classification of elections is based upon the governmental functions of the offices to which persons are chosen. An election is national which has for its object the selection of national officers, such as members of the United States House of Representatives who are chosen every two years, and the President and Vice-President, who are chosen every four years. It is styled a State election when held for the choice of State officers, such as Governor, Lieutenant-Governor, and members of the State Legislature. If the political duties of an officer are confined to a particular subdivision of the State, such as a town, a city, or a county, his election is known as municipal.

Any fraudulent act tending to defeat an honest, free, fair, and pure election is a criminal offense at common law. Various statutes have been passed in almost every State for the express purpose of securing to voters entire freedom of action and of preventing improper practices in voting, in receiving votes, in counting votes and in registering the results. The validity and regularity of elections are not infrequently disputed, and such disputes present important questions for the courts or for special tribunals. Of the latter class, the most famous in the history of this country is the Presidential Electoral Commission of 1877, constituted of five Senators, Five members of the House of Representatives, and five associate justices of the United States Supreme Court, which decided the contest between Tilden and Hayes. By the Federal Constitution each House of Congress is the final judge of the election of its members and a similar provision relating to the State legislatures is found in most of the State constitutions. It must be confessed that nearly every case of contested election in Congress or State legislatures has been decided upon purely partisan considerations. Contested Parliamentary elections in Great Britain are determined by the courts, and not by the House of Commons. Surely, this is the fairer and better method.

Election officers, whether inspectors at the various voting precincts, or members of a county or State board of canvassers, perform merely ministerial functions. They are not judicial or quasi-judicial officers. Their duty is to do the acts prescribed by statute, and not to pass judgment upon disputed questions. If they go beyond their ministerial duties and attempt to exercise judicial functions, they subject themselves to an action for damages by any person legally wronged, as well as to criminal punishment.