South Africa.

In South Africa proportional representation has, with astonishing rapidity, gained the adherence of its foremost public men, and although the delegates to the South African National Convention abandoned the proposal for the use of the proportional method in the elections to the legislative Assembly of United South Africa, yet the adoption of this principle for the election of members of the Senate and of the committees of the Provincial Councils, as finally agreed to, marks an advance which a few years ago would have been thought impossible. Nor is this the only forward step taken in South Africa. The Transvaal Municipal Commission recommended the adoption of proportional representation in municipal elections, and the Government embodied this recommendation in an Act passed in June 1909. The first elections under this Act took place with complete success on 27 October 1909, in Johannesburg and Pretoria, each of these towns being polled as a single constituency.

Canada.

In Canada, although the movement has not taken so active a form as elsewhere, the Government consented in March 1909, on the motion of Mr. F.D. Monk, K.C., to the appointment of a committee of the House of Commons for the purpose of investigating methods of proportional representation. Further, the Trades and Labour Congress, the chief organization of this kind in Canada, the Toronto District Labour Council, and the Winnipeg District Trades Council, employ the proportional method in the election of their committees.

Oregon.

In the fight for the more popular control of politics in the United States proportional representation will apparently play no mean part. The object of the People's Power League of Oregon is to free the representative assemblies of the State from the domination of political bosses, and an amendment to the constitution, providing for the adoption of proportional representation was, on the initiative of this League, submitted to the electorate in 1908 and carried with a large majority. The Oregon Legislature, which met in January 1909, was bitterly opposed to the change, and refused to pass the Representation Bill which was required to give effect to the decision of the electorate. A new proportional representation amendment, which was self-enactive, was submitted to the popular vote in November 1910, in conjunction with other proposed constitutional changes, but failed to meet with approval owing to the unpopularity of the measures with which it was combined, the most striking of which was a six-year term for the legislature. There may be a long struggle for supremacy between the "machine" and the reformers, but in that revival of interest which is being taken throughout the United States in the conduct and working of representative institutions it can be confidently predicted that the reform of the existing methods of election will take a prominent place.

The United Kingdom.

In the United Kingdom the Proportional Representation Society, founded in 1884, was revived in 1905, and since its revival has secured the adherence of a considerable number of members of Parliament. The Royal Commission on Electoral Systems, appointed in December 1908, was the outcome of its activity and, although this Commission did not recommend the immediate application of proportional representation to the House of Commons, its Report marks a very considerable advance in the history of the movement in this country.[9] The Commission reported that there would be much to be said in favour of proportional representation as a method for the constitution of an elective Second Chamber, and intimated its approval of this method of election for municipalities. The views taken by the Commission in respect of an elective Second Chamber and municipalities have found expression elsewhere. The Select Committee on the Reform of the House of Lords, presided over by Lord Rosebery, recommended that the election of Lords of Parliament to represent the hereditary Peerage should be by the cumulative vote or any other scheme of proportionate election,[10] and since this Report was issued all proposals for the introduction of an elected element into the House of Lords have recognized the need for an adequate representation of minorities.[11] The Municipal Representation Bill, introduced by Lord Courtney of Penwith, was passed by the House of Lords in 1908 after careful examination by a select Committee of that House, whilst a motion, moved by Mr. Aneurin Williams, on 30 March 1910, in the House of Commons, in favour of applying the system to municipal elections was carried without opposition.

The success of proportional representation in practice.

The movement in favour of more accurate methods of election is becoming world-wide in its scope, and the brief summary[12] already given of the progress made in recent years furnishes in itself abundant proof of the practicability of proportional representation. In every country in which the new methods have been introduced fears were expressed that it would be impossible for the average elector to fulfil the new duties required of him, and that returning officers would collapse under the weight of their new responsibilities. The same apprehension still exists in England, and it may therefore be desirable to refer in greater detail to the experience of those countries in which the new methods have been put to the test of popular elections. Nowhere do we find that the new systems of voting have presented any serious difficulty to the electors, and although the task imposed upon the returning officers has been in some cases unnecessarily severe, yet they have not only carried out their new duties with credit, but have made the introduction of the new system a brilliant success. After the first elections in Geneva, in November 1892, the journal Le Genevois, which had fought desperately against the introduction of the reform, stated that the counting of the votes had been quickly and correctly carried out. "We readily acknowledge," it added, "that in this matter we were greatly deceived." "From the point of view of practicability," wrote the Journal de Geneve, "the new system has been a brilliant success." La Suisse declared that the outstanding triumph of the day was proportional voting. The first elections in the canton of Bale-town were equally successful. "The elections," said the late Professor Hagenbach-Bischoff, "took place on 26 June 1905; the polling places were open till 2 P.M., the counting was finished at 7 P.M., so that the newspapers were able to publish the results the same evening. Everything went off well, and the journals have acknowledged the great success of proportional representation."

Six General Elections have taken place in Belgium since the law of 1899, and now no one in the country speaks of the impracticability of proportional representation. Count Goblet d'Alviella states that "all the objections that were brought against the system before its introduction have been set at naught. The proportional method instead of complicating, as was foretold, both the voting and the counting, has worked with greater ease than the old one. The electors understood at once what they were to do, and the counters made fewer mistakes than before." Wurtemberg furnishes another instance of the ease with which the new system can be introduced. Der Beobachter, a leading journal of Stuttgart, stated that: "The new electoral system, which only a short time ago was unknown to the electors, worked without a hitch in the whole country, just as it worked a few weeks ago in Stuttgart. The first feeling is one of surprise. The number of votes was enormous; the candidates were numerous, the ballot papers from the different districts were in various forms, and yet the whole machine, from the district officials to the employees of the Government office, who collected the results, worked with promptitude and ease. The next feeling is one of pleasure at the complete success of this first experiment in proportional representation on a large scale in the German Empire."

The success of the first elections in Finland, in which more than half the voters exercised the franchise for the first time, was equally complete. According to the account of a Finnish journalist[13]: "The first election under the new system took place on 15 and 16 March 1907. The total electorate amounts to some 1,300,000 people, or 47 per cent, of the whole population. Of these about 887,000, or nearly 64 per cent., polled. In the more thickly-populated electoral divisions the percentage was much higher: thus, in the Nyland division, which comprises Helsingfors, it was 74.2 per cent.; in several polling districts as many as 95 and even 98 per cent, came to the polling station. The often-used argument against proportional representation, that the system is too involved to be understood by the average voter, was in Finland completely refuted. The number of spoilt ballot papers in the whole country probably is less than 1 per cent.; in the Nyland division, the largest of all, returning twenty-three members, the ballot paper contained ninety-five candidates, and yet only 0.59 per cent, were spoilt." Small as this number is, the official returns for the succeeding elections show a still smaller percentage. In November 1910 the number of spoilt papers throughout the country amounted to .25 per cent, of the whole. The first elections in Sweden were equally successful. There was only one spoilt paper in the elections witnessed by the author at Carlskrona in May 1910.

Nor have English-speaking peoples shown themselves less able to adapt themselves to new voting methods. An official report presented by the chief returning officer of Tasmania to the Senate of the Australian Commonwealth[14] contains convincing evidence as to the practicability of the single transferable vote for the purpose of parliamentary elections. The report deals with the election of members of the Commonwealth Senate and House of Representatives in 1901 by means of the single transferable vote. For this purpose the State of Tasmania was treated as a single constituency. The percentage of spoilt papers due to the new system of voting was 1.44 in the Senate elections and 1.80 in the election of the House of Representatives, but the returning officer adds that "this would have been much less had it not been that the old defective system previously in force in Tasmania required the actual scoring out of every rejected candidate instead of, as in most countries, the marking of a cross or sign only against those candidates who were selected. Had this better form of marking been in practice in Tasmania previous to the introduction of the Hare system of voting, it is probable that there would be very few invalid papers due to the Hare system of marking with preference numbers." Professor Jethro Brown, in describing these first elections, states that "the work of the returning officer, whilst less simple than that of the elector, demands no exceptional qualifications; he need display the industry of an average clerk—scarcely more."[15] The more recent elections in Tasmania, those of 1909, were carried out with equal ease. The percentage of spoilt ballot papers due to all causes was 2.86, and this percentage compared favourably with the number of spoilt papers in the election of 1906, in which the majority system of voting was used.[16]

The Transvaal municipal elections also afford excellent evidence of the ease with which the new system of voting can be introduced. Most of the electors made their first acquaintance with the system during the electoral campaign. In Pretoria the number of spoilt papers due to all causes amounted to 38 out of a total of 2852, or 1.33 per cent., while the number of spoilt papers which could be attributed to the new system was only 27, or less than 1 per cent. The percentage of spoilt papers at Johannesburg was larger, but it must be remembered that the electorate in this town is perhaps as cosmopolitan as any in the world. At some of the public meetings addresses were given in English, Dutch, and Yiddish, and the task of instructing the electors in their new duties was considerably more difficult than in a more homogeneous constituency. Nevertheless the number of spoilt papers due to all causes was only 367 out of a total number of 12,155, or 3 per cent., whilst the number of spoilt papers attributable to the new system was 285, or 2.35 per cent. Moreover, the returning officer was very strict in his decisions as to the validity of papers, so that the number of spoilt papers attributable to the new system included all those in which voters had in any way departed from the letter of the instructions. The press bore striking testimony to the success of the elections. The Transvaal Leader declared that "the consensus of competent opinion is that the system is a perfect success, considered as electoral machinery.... The municipal elections have demonstrated that every section can secure that amount of representation which it can justly claim." The Rand Daily Mail expressed the view that "...Both here, and in Pretoria, it may claim to have proved a success. The ten councillors elected under it here may fairly claim to be representative of every shade of public opinion.... We should like to see it extended to all municipalities, and ultimately to parliamentary elections." The Johannesburg Star stated that "The authors may fairly congratulate themselves that they have proved it practicable in working and fair in results. The business of counting the votes and allotting the preferences was sure to be a slow one at the first time of asking, but there was no hesitation and no confusion. The proceedings in the Wanderer's Hall went forward with the steady certainty of clockwork.... The whole trial was a high one in a town like this with a considerable element of illiterate voters; but taking it all through we have no hesitation in saying that the working of the new system was a conspicuous and unqualified success."

An election by miners.]

After such a mass of testimony as to the satisfactory working of proportional methods in parliamentary elections, it is perhaps hardly necessary to refer to the success of those model elections carried out from time to time by the Proportional Representation Society in England.[17] Yet it may be as well to recall the novel and entirely successful experiment, organized in 1885, by Mr. Albert Grey, M.P. (now Earl Grey, Governor-General of Canada). "Mr. Grey," according to the account in The Times[18], "was returning officer, and was assisted in the count by thirty miners—a body of utterly untrained men whose hands, accustomed by daily usage to the contact of pickaxe and shovel, were new and strange to the somewhat delicate task of fingering and separating flimsy ballot papers. They had received no instructions before they were assembled in the room as to the duties they would be required to transact, and the expedition, good-humour, and correctness with which they got through the several stages of the count justly earned for them the admiration of those who had come from a distance, as well as the compliment which Mr. Grey deservedly paid them at the conclusion of the day's proceedings." On this occasion some 6645 papers were counted, the number of spoilt votes being 44, considerably less than 1 per cent. The election is of interest as the members of Northumberland Miners' Association have ever since that date used the transferable vote in the election of their agents.

To demonstrate the practicability of proportional representation does not, however, dispose of all of the objections which have been urged against the system, but before dealing with these objections it will perhaps be useful to outline those schemes which have emerged so successfully from the test of popular elections. These methods, although they vary in detail, range themselves under two heads—the single transferable vote and the system of lists. The first of these systems—the single transferable vote—bases representation upon electors who may, if they so desire, group themselves into parties, whereas the list systems base representation upon parties as such. And as the single transferable vote, in basing representation upon electors follows English traditions, we will begin with the consideration of this system.

[Footnote 1: The story of the introduction of proportional representation into the Canton of Ticino is told in full by Professor Galland in La Democratie Tessinoise et la Representation Proportionnelle (Grenoble, 1909).]

[Footnote 2: The application was extended in 1892, 1895, and 1898 to the election of the Executive Council, of jurors and of Communal Councils. In 1904, however, when the Liberals were in a majority, a change was made in the election of the Executive Council. The proportional system, which had given them only three seats out of five, was replaced (for the election of Executive Councils) by the limited vote. Under the new system, which is less favourable to the minority, the Liberals obtained four out of five seats.]

[Footnote 3: Goblet d'Alviella, La Representation Proportionnelle en Belgique, p. 92.]

[Footnote 4: No. 2376, Chambre des Deputes, Huitieme Legislature, 1905.]

[Footnote 5: No. 883, Chambre des Deputes, Neuvieme Legislature, 1907. (See App. X.)]

[Footnote 6: The Finnish Reform Bill of 1906. The new method of voting is described in Appendix IV.]

[Footnote 7: The Russian Duma has since passed a law (1910) by which the powers the Finnish Diet have been considerably curtailed.]

[Footnote 8: The Swedish system is described in Appendix III.]

[Footnote 9: Report of Royal Commission on Electoral Systems, 1910 (Cd. 5163).]

[Footnote 10: House of Lords Report, 1908 (234), par. 18.]

[Footnote 11: In the article, "Two Chambers or One," in The Quarterly Review, July 1910, the writer recommends that elected members, if introduced into the House of Lords, should be chosen in large constituencies by a system of proportional representation. Professor Ramsay Muir in Peers and Bureaucrats advocates the formation of a new Upper House, wholly elected under a proportional system.]

[Footnote 12: This summary is necessarily incomplete; the list of countries is continually lengthening. Uruguay has adopted a form of minority representation (1910); Lisbon and Oporto, under the electoral scheme of the new Portuguese government, will choose representatives by a proportional system (1911); a new movement, under the leadership of Prince Teano, has arisen in Italy.]

[Footnote 13: The Daily Chronicle 1 June 1907.]

[Footnote 14: Reprinted in Report on Municipal Representation Bill, House of Lords, 1907 (132), p. 125.]

[Footnote 15: The New Democracy, p. 47.]

[Footnote 16: The percentage in the Federal Senate election of 1906 was 4.48; in the election of the House of Representatives, 3.94. A full report on the General Election of 30 April 1909 has been published by the Tasmanian Government—Tasmania, 1909, No. 34.]

[Footnote 17: See Chapter VII.]

[Footnote 18: The Times, 26 January 1885.]



CHAPTER VII

THE SINGLE TRANSFERABLE VOTE

"The law regulating the form of voting may be thus expressed. Every vote shall be given on a document setting forth the name of the candidate for whom it is given; and if the vote be intended, in the events provided for by this Act, to be transferred to any other candidate, or candidates, then the names of such other candidate, or candidates, must be added in numerical order."—Thomas Hare, The Election of Representatives (Fourth edition, 1873)

The single transferable vote was the distinguishing characteristic of the scheme of electoral reform proposed by Hare in 1857, but it was associated with the proposal to treat the whole kingdom as a single constituency. The later advocates of this new method of voting have recommended its application to constituencies of more moderate size, such as counties and large towns, and in this form the system has found a more ready acceptance and has been used with success in parliamentary elections.

Its present application.]

The first application of the single transferable vote took place in Denmark[1] in 1855, and it is still being used under the Constitution of 1867 in the election of members of the Danish Upper House. It is also used, as provided by the South Africa Act of 1909, in the elections of the Senate of the United Parliament and in the election of the Executive Committees of the Provincial Councils. In each of these cases the electorates are small, and the electors possess special qualifications. The Danish Upper House is elected in two stages, the transferable vote being used only in the final stage in which electors of the second degree alone take part. In South Africa the members of the first Senate were elected by members of the local parliaments of the several Colonies,[2] and the Executive Committees of the Provincial Councils by members of the Councils. The system has, however, been subjected to the test of popular parliamentary elections in Tasmania and of municipal elections in Pretoria and Johannesburg.

Ever since the publication of Hare's scheme, proposals for proportional representation have been associated in English-speaking countries with the idea of a transferable vote. Hare's proposals were warmly endorsed by John Stuart Mill first in Representative Government, and again in a memorable speech delivered in the House of Commons on 30 May 1867, when he moved an amendment to the Electoral Reform Bill.[3] Mill's amendment was defeated, but he retained to the full his faith in the great value and need of the improved method of voting, as the following passage from his Autobiography shows: "This great discovery," said he, "for it is no less, in the political art, inspired me, as I believe it has inspired all thoughtful persons who have adopted it, with new and more sanguine hopes respecting the prospects of human Society, by freeing the form of political institutions towards which the whole civilized world is manifestly and irresistibly tending from the chief part of what seemed to qualify and render doubtful its ultimate benefits. ... I can understand that persons, otherwise intelligent, should, for want of sufficient examination, be repelled from Mr. Hare's plan by what they think the complex nature of its machinery. But any one who does not feel the want which the scheme is intended to supply; any one who throws it over as a mere theoretical subtlety or crochet, tending to no valuable purpose and unworthy of the attention of practical men, may be pronounced an incompetent statesman, unequal to the politics of the future."[4]

An English movement.]

The English advocates of proportional representation who have succeeded Mill have equally favoured the single transferable vote. This system was embodied in the Bill introduced into the House of Commons in 1872 by Mr. Walter Morrison, Mr. Auberon Herbert, Mr. Henry Fawcett, and Mr. Thomas Hughes; it was advocated in the important debates which took place in the House of Commons in 1878 and 1879; and the Proportional Representation Society, founded in 1884 in view of the Electoral Reform Bill of that year, created, under the leadership of Sir John Lubbock and Mr. Leonard Courtney, a strong movement in its favour. Owing to the agreement between the leaders of the Liberal and Conservative parties in favour of single-member constituencies this movement had no immediate result. Since its revival in 1905 the Proportional Representation Society has continued to press the claims of the single transferable vote, and with some success. The practicability of the system was admitted by the Select Committee of the House of Lords appointed to examine the Municipal Representation Bill introduced into that House by Lord Courtney in 1907; the model elections organized by the Society in 1906, 1908, and 1910,[5] have to some extent familiarized the British public with its details; it found, as already mentioned, a place in the South African Constitution of 1909, whilst the Royal Commission on Electoral Systems reported in 1910 that "of schemes for producing proportional representation we think that the transferable vote would have the best chance of ultimate acceptance."

The system in brief.]

What then is the single transferable vote, and how does it help to secure a true representation of the electors? Its mechanism and advantages will best be understood by a comparison with the existing system. The city of Birmingham is at present divided into seven single-member constituencies, with the result that the majority in each of these constituencies secures a representative, while the minority in each case is unrepresented. Suppose there were in Birmingham 40,000 Unionist, 20,000 Liberal, and 10,000 Labour voters: it might easily happen that the Unionists would be in a majority in each of the seven divisions and, if so, the 40,000 Unionist electors would obtain the seven seats and the remaining 30,000 voters none. The transferable vote, as will presently appear, would enable these 70,000 citizens to group themselves into seven sections of equal size, each returning one member, so that there would be four Unionist groups returning four members, two Liberal groups returning two members and one Labour group returning one member; and this is the ideal representation of such a community.

Large constituencies.]

In order to achieve this result several changes in electoral mechanism are required. In the first place, Birmingham, instead of being divided into seven constituencies, must be polled as one constituency, otherwise the necessary grouping could not take place. This change is not in itself sufficient, because if Birmingham were polled as one constituency electing seven members, and if each elector could give, as with the "block" vote, one vote apiece to seven candidates, then the seven nominees of the majority would all receive a higher number of votes than the seven nominees of the minority. In the numerical case cited above, each Unionist candidate would command 40,000 votes, each Liberal 20,000, and each Labour candidate 10,000, and the largest party would win all the seats.

The single vote.]

It is therefore necessary, however many may be the number of members to be elected, to limit the voting power of each elector to one vote—hence the name "the single vote." An obvious result of this limitation is that if a group numbering 10,000 electors concentrates its support upon one man, then the group is certain of returning that candidate, because not more than six equally large groups can be formed out of the remaining electors. With open voting the grouping of electors could be arranged with comparative ease, for if more electors than were sufficient to constitute his group desired to vote for a particular candidate, those who arrived late at the poll could be asked to give their votes to another candidate, and so help to build up another group of the requisite size. Or, if a candidate was receiving so little support that he had no chance of election, the small group that had gathered round him could be disbanded and these electors, instead of having their votes wasted, could make their selection from among the other candidates available. In this way seven groups could be formed, each of which would obtain a representative.[6]

The vote made transferable.]

As, however, the ballot is secret and the result of the voting is not known until the close of the poll, some provision must be made to facilitate the equal grouping of the electors upon which fair representation depends. This will be made clear by an example. Were Mr. Joseph Chamberlain one of the Unionist candidates for Birmingham, the group of voters who would record their votes for him would probably considerably exceed the number required for his election. His Unionist colleagues might, in consequence, find themselves left without adequate support, and the party might fail to secure its fair share of the representation. In order to prevent a mischance of this kind the very simple device has been adopted of making the vote transferable. By this means the necessary accuracy in grouping is secured automatically.

How votes are transferred.]

The transferable vote enables the elector to instruct the returning officer to whom his vote is to be transferred in the event of his first favourite either receiving more support than he requires or receiving so little as to have no chance of election. Continuing the example already given, an elector who desired to vote for Mr. Chamberlain would place on the ballot paper the figure 1 against his name. If, in addition, he placed the figures 2, 3, &c. against the names of other candidates in the order of his choice, these figures would instruct the returning officer, in the event of Mr. Chamberlain obtaining more votes than were necessary to secure his election, as to whom the vote was to be transferred. The votes given to Mr. Chamberlain in excess of the number required for his election would thus be rendered effective. They would be used and not wasted. If, on the other hand, an elector had recorded his vote for a candidate who, after all excess votes had been transferred, was found to be at the bottom of the poll, the returning officer would similarly give effect to the wishes of the elector as recorded on the ballot paper by transferring the vote to the elector's second choice. Again the vote would not be wasted, but would be used in building up a group sufficiently large to merit representation.

The ideas which have led up to the single transferable vote are, therefore, of a simple character. Constituencies returning several members are formed. A representative is given to every group of electors which attains to a definite proportion of the whole, the proportion depending upon the number of members to be returned. If a candidate receives more votes than are sufficient, i.e. if too large a group is formed, the surplus votes are transferred. If, after all surplus votes have been transferred, there still remain more candidates than there are vacancies, the lowest candidate on the poll is eliminated from the contest, i.e. the smallest group is disbanded. The transfer of surplus votes and of votes recorded for the candidates lowest on the poll are all carried out in accordance with the wishes of the electors as indicated by them on the ballot paper at the time of the poll. The proportionate representation of all the electors is secured; each party obtains the number of members to which it is entitled.

The Quota.

A few questions will at once occur to the reader as to the application of these simple rules. How is the number of votes required for success to be determined? In what way are the surplus votes to be distributed? What is the order in which the elimination of unsuccessful candidates shall proceed? The number of votes necessary to secure the election of a candidate is called the "quota." At first sight it would seem that this number should be ascertained, as suggested in the preceding paragraphs, by dividing the number of votes by the number of vacancies. But a smaller proportion is sufficient. Thus, in a single-member constituency a candidate has no need to poll all the votes; it is evident that if he polls more than a half he must be elected. No other candidate can equal him; the quota in this case is, therefore, one more than a half. So, in a two-member constituency the quota is one more than a third, for not more than two candidates can poll so much; in a three-member constituency, one more than a fourth, and so on. In a seven-member constituency, like that of Birmingham, the quota would be one more than an eighth. In general terms the quota is ascertained by dividing the votes polled by one more than the number of seats to be filled and adding one to the result.[7]

A simple case.

The processes involved in distributing the votes are described at some length in the account which appears further on in this chapter of the model election organized by the Proportional Representation Society in 1908, but the method of transferring votes and deciding the result of an election may be more easily understood from a simple case. Let us imagine there are six candidates for three seats, of whom A, B, C belong to one party and X, Y, Z to another. On the conclusion of the poll the ballot papers would be sorted into heaps, or files, corresponding to the names against which the figure I had been marked, and in this way the number of votes recorded for each candidate would be ascertained. Let us assume that the result of the sorting is as follows:—

A is marked 1 upon 1801 papers, and therefore has 1801 votes B " 1 " 350 " " 350 " C " 1 " 300 " " 300 " X " 1 " 820 " " 820 " Y " 1 " 500 " " 500 " Z " 1 " 229 " " 229 " —— —— Total number of papers 4000 Total number of Votes 4000

As there are three seats the quota is one more than a fourth of the total of the votes polled. The total in this case is 4000, and the quota is therefore 1001.

A, having obtained more than the necessary quota of votes, is declared elected.

The transfer of surplus votes.

It will be seen that A has obtained nearly two quotas of votes, and his supporters, in the absence of any provision for the use of his surplus votes, would not obtain the full share of representation to which they are entitled. The next step is therefore to transfer A's surplus votes in accordance with the wishes of his supporters. These have indicated on the ballot papers to whom they desire their vote to be transferred. The different methods in which the transfer of votes can be carried out will be described, but for the present it may be assumed that the result of the operation was to transfer:

648 of the 800 surplus votes to B (a member of the same party as A) 132 " 800 " C (also a member of A's party) 20 " 800 " Z

The votes transferred to the several candidates are added to those already obtained by them as follows:—

Original Votes. Transferred Votes. Total. B 350 + 648 = 998 C 300 + 132 = 432 X 820 nil = 820 Y 500 nil = 500 Z 229 + 20 = 249

The elimination of the lowest unelected candidate.]

Had any candidate, as a result of the transfer of A's surplus votes, been raised above the quota he would have been declared elected and his surplus distributed in the manner just described. In this case no candidate, as the result of the transfer, has obtained the quota, and there are, therefore, no further surplus votes to distribute. There are, however, two vacancies still remaining unfilled, and the next operation is to distribute the voting papers of Z, who, being the lowest on the poll, is clearly out of the running. Z's papers are sorted, as in the previous process, according to the candidates who are marked by the voters as their next preferences, and it may be supposed that the result is as follows:—

B is marked as next preference on 20 papers X " " 200 " Y " " 29 "

These papers are then added to the heaps of the respective candidates, B, X, and Y, and, with these additions, the votes credited to each candidate may be shown thus:—

Previous Transfer of Total. Z's Votes. Total. B 998 + 20 = 1018 C 432 + nil. = 432 X 820 + 200 = 1020 Y 500 + 29 = 529

Since B and X, as a result of the distribution, each obtain a quota of votes, they are declared elected, and all the vacant seats now being filled, the election is at an end.

The result.

The candidates elected, A, B, and X, each represent a "quota" of voters. Each considerable section of the constituency is thus able to choose a representative, whilst the party to whom both A and B belong return two members, these candidates taken together having secured the support of two quotas of voters. The voters who failed to secure a representative, namely the supporters of C and Y, number less than a quota.

Different methods of transferring surplus votes.—The Hare Method.]

There are several methods by which surplus votes may be transferred. In the case imagined the simplest way to distribute A's surplus votes is to take the 800 papers last filed and to sort these papers according to the second preferences indicated thereon. This method, which was recommended by the advocates of proportional representation in the movement of 1884-85, is based upon that contained in Mr. Hare's proposals. It has, however, been objected that if some other 800 voting papers are taken the result may be different, and that in this way an element of chance is introduced. This objection is considered in detail in Appendix VI., and it will be sufficient to state here that, when large numbers of votes are dealt with and the papers are well mixed, this element of chance is negligible. But small as it is it can be eliminated by adopting more accurate methods of transferring the votes.

The Hare-Clark method

One of these more accurate methods was embodied in the Tasmanian Act of 1896, and also in the Municipal Representation Bill approved by the Select Committee of the House of Lords in 1907. It is known as the Hare-Clark system, its inception being due to Mr. Justice Clark, of Tasmania. With this method the surplus votes of any successful candidate are transferred to the unelected candidates in such a way that each unelected candidate marked as the voter's next preference on the successful candidate's papers receives a proportionate share of the surplus. Continuing with the illustration already given, the returning officer, instead of taking from A's heap the 800 papers last filed, takes the whole of A's heap and sorts all these papers according to the next preferences. Assume that the result is as follows:—

B is marked 2 on..... .................. ..1296 papers C " 2 on......... .............. .. 264 " Z " 2 on............. .......... .. 40 "

Total papers showing second preferences .. 1600

Papers on which no further preferences are shown ...201

Total of A's papers.................... ...1801

In this case there are 800 surplus votes, whilst there are in all 1600 papers on which next preferences have been marked. It is therefore clear that each of the candidates B, C, Z is entitled to receive one-half the papers on which his name has been marked as the next preference. Each of the three bundles of papers showing next preferences for B, C, Z are divided into two portions. One portion is transferred to the next preference, the other is retained for the purpose of constituting A's quota, in which is included the papers on which A's name is alone marked.

The complete operation is shown below:—

Candidate indicated as Number Number of Number of next Preference. of next Papers Transferred Papers Preferences. to the next Retained for Preference. A's Quota.

B 1290 648 648 C 264 132 132 Z 40 20 20 —— —- —- Total of next preferences 1600 800 800

Papers showing no further preference 201 — 201 —— —- ——

Totals 1801 800 1001

In this way each of the candidates B, C, and Z obtains in strict proportion that share of A's surplus to which he is entitled, and, so far as this operation is concerned, the element of chance is wholly eliminated.[8]

The papers selected for transfer, however, are those last filed in the process of sorting, and should it become necessary to transfer these papers a second time there would enter in this further distribution an element of chance which, as explained in the Appendix already referred to, is so trifling as to have no practical effect upon the result unless the number of electors is small as compared with the number of members to be elected.

The Gregory Method.

A third method, in which the element of chance is eliminated from every transfer, has been embodied in the Tasmanian Act of 1907. Whenever it is necessary to transfer surplus votes, the whole of the successful candidate's papers on which preferences are marked are transferred, but at a reduced value. In the example given the whole of A's papers on which next preferences had been marked for B, C, and Z would be carried forward to those candidates, but each paper would be transferred at the value of one-half, the remaining portion of the value of each paper having been used for the purpose of electing A. This method is known as the fractional, or Gregory, method of transfer, having been first suggested by Mr. J. B. Gregory of Melbourne, in 1880. The regulations for the conduct of elections contained in the Tasmanian Act are given in Appendix VIII.

The committee which investigated the working of this system as applied to the Tasmanian General Election of 1909, made a very valuable comparison between the rules contained in the Municipal Representation Bill[9] and the more exact rules of the Tasmanian Act. A fresh scrutiny, based on the rules of the Municipal Representation Bill, was made of all the ballot papers used in that election. It was found that in each district the same candidates were excluded in the same order and the same candidates returned as at the actual election. The same results would, therefore, have been attained and much labour saved if the rules of the Municipal Representation Bill had been used. This committee, however, in view of the fact that the more exact method had already been established in Tasmania, and that the ascertainment of the results only involved an expenditure of a few hours more time, and that there were no data available to show the frequency of close contests in which a small change in the distribution of votes might possibly affect the result, recommended that no change should be made in the law. Still it would seem that the rules of the Municipal Representation Bill are sufficiently exact for all practical purposes except where the number of electors is small. The fractional transfer is of course the most perfect from the mathematical point of view, but the Royal Commission on Electoral Systems, after a careful examination of its working, report that "we agree with the Proportional Representation Society in regarding the additional labour involved as greater than it is worth."[10]

Where the number of electors is small, however, it is not only desirable to carry out the transfers with the exactness prescribed by the Tasmanian rules, but in important elections, such as those of the Senators in South Africa, it is desirable to introduce a further modification. In transferring the votes in ordinary elections fractions of votes are ignored, because such fractions do not affect the result. Where, however, there are only a few electors such fractions may become important, and, for this reason, the regulations (see Appendix IX.) adopted by the South African Government for the election of Senators provided that each ballot paper should be treated as of the value of 100, or, in other words, that fractions should be taken into account as far as two places of decimals. The application of these regulations presented no difficulty; the counting of the votes in each of the four Colonies proceeded without the slightest hitch.

The Gove or Dobbs Method.

The methods of transfer hitherto described all enable the voter to maintain complete power over the disposal his vote. It has, however, been suggested that the candidate for whom the vote is recorded should have the privilege of deciding to whom it should be transferred. The suggestion was first made by Mr. Archibald E. Dobbs, who, in 1872, in a pamphlet entitled General Representation, made the proposal that before the date of the election each candidate should publish a schedule of the names of any of the other candidates to whom he desired his vote to be transferred. This method of transfer by schedule is usually known as the "Gove" method, and was contained in the Bill submitted by Mr. W. H. Gove to the Legislature of Massachusetts, in 1891. Section 7 of this Bill reads as follows: "Votes shall be transferred according to the request of the candidate for whom they were originally cast to a person named in the list furnished by said candidate before the date of the election." With this method the elector in recording his vote for any one candidate would have no independent power of indicating to whom the vote should be transferred, and Mr. Dobbs, in a later pamphlet[11] has suggested that the elector should be given the option of accepting the schedule of preferences published by the candidate, or of indicating his own. Mr. Dobbs thus gets rid of the compulsory acceptance of a schedule of preferences, a proposal to which most English-speaking electors would have an instinctive dislike. But even to an optional schedule certain objections remain. The system has lost in simplicity, and the order of the candidates in the particular schedules would be determined in most cases by the party organizations.

The transferability of votes is the connecting link between all these systems; it is the essential feature upon which depends the proportionate representation of the contending parties, and the mode of transfer is properly regarded as a matter upon which different views may be held. As regards the second and third systems of transfer outlined above—which so far are the only ones which have been put into practice—experience confirms the theoretical conclusions of mathematicians that, save in the case of small electorates, both methods yield the same result. The second method was that used by the Proportional Representation Society for the purpose of its model elections, and is now applied in the election of Municipal Councils in Johannesburg and Pretoria. A description of the Model Election of 1908 will serve to illustrate the various processes involved in the sorting and counting of votes.

The model election of 1908.

In this election it was assumed that the voters in a constituency returning five members were asked to make their choice among twelve candidates. These candidates were all well-known political men, and were chosen with an attempt at impartiality from the Liberal, the Unionist, and the Independent Labour parties. As no Irish newspaper was publishing the ballot paper, no Nationalist was included.[12] This ballot paper, a copy of which appears on page 147, was sent, accompanied by a short explanatory article, for publication to, and appeared in, the following newspapers: The Times, The Morning Post, The Spectator, The Nation, The Daily News, The Financial News, The Manchester Guardian, The Yorkshire Post, The Yorkshire Daily Observer, The Western Morning News, The Western Daily Mercury, The Glasgow Herald, The Dundee Advertiser, The Woolwich Pioneer, and The Labour Leader. Readers of the newspapers were asked to cut out the ballot paper, mark it and return it to Caxton Hall by the first post on the morning of Tuesday, 1 December 1908. Ballot papers were also circulated independently among members of the Proportional Representation Society and their friends. About 18,000 papers were returned by newspaper readers, and about 3700 by members of the Society and their friends. In all a constituency of 21,690 electors was formed, a number whose votes were enough, but not too many, for counting in a single evening.

PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION ELECTION, 1908

BALLOT PAPER

PLEASE VOTE

In this Illustrative Election FIVE members are to be elected for a single constituency, such as Leeds. The following TWELVE Candidates are supposed to have been nominated.

Order of Preference. Names of Candidates

........... ASQUITH, The Rt. Hon. H. H.

........... BALFOUR, The Rt. Hon. A. J.

........... BURT, The Rt. Hon. Thomas

........... CECIL, Lord Hugh

........... HENDERSON, Arthur

........... JONES, Leif

........... JOYNSON-HICKS, W.

........... LLOYD GEORGE, The Rt. Hon. D.

........... LONG, The Rt. Hon. Walter H.

........... MACDONALD, J. Ramsay

........... SHACKLETON, David

........... SMITH, F.E.

INSTRUCTIONS TO VOTERS

A. Each Elector has one vote, and one vote only.

B. The Elector votes

(a) By placing the figure 1 opposite the name of the candidate he likes best.

He is also invited to place

(b) The figure 2 opposite the name of his _second choice,

(c) The figure 3 opposite the name of his third choice, and so on, numbering as many candidates as he pleases in the order of his preference.

N.B.—The vote will be spoilt if the figure 1 is placed opposite the name of more than one candidate.

* * * * *

This Ballot Paper should be filled in and returned not later than Tuesday, first post, 1 December 1908, in open envelope (halfpenny stamp), addressed to

THE RT. HON. LORD AVEBURY, Caxton Hall, Westminster, S.W.

The counting of the votes. General Arrangements.

The votes were counted at the Caxton Hall, Westminster, on the evening of Thursday, 3 December. Unfortunately, it was not found possible for all the newspapers to reproduce the ballot paper in its exact dimensions, and the unevenness in the sizes of the papers, which would not occur in a real election, caused some trouble to the counters. The method on which the room was arranged may best be gathered from the plan shown on next page.



In the centre of the room was the sorting table, where the votes were in imagination discharged from the ballot boxes. At this table were stationed a number of helpers, chiefly Post Office sorters, who through Mr. G. H. Stuart, of the Postmen's Federation, and Mr. A. Jones, of the Fawcett Association, had kindly volunteered their services. Here also were a dozen sets of pigeon-holes, each set having twelve compartments, and each compartment being labelled with the name of a candidate. As soon as the count began, the sorters started sorting the ballot papers according to the names marked 1, placing in each candidate's compartment the papers in which his name was so marked, and setting aside spoilt or doubtful papers. Printed instructions to the sorters had been issued, thus:—

1. Sort the ballot papers according to the names marked 1.

2. Place spoiled or doubtful papers on top of the case (right-hand side).

As the papers were sorted the two assistants supervising these processes took them to the small tables (checking and counting tables) ranged on either side of the sorting table. These tables were appropriated to the various candidates, and when it was expected that a candidate would poll a large number of votes—e.g., in the cases of Mr. Asquith and Mr. Balfour—several tables were allotted to him. At each of these tables sat two counters who acted in accordance with the following instructions:—

1. Count the papers into bundles of fifty.

2. See that the figure 1 appears against the name of the candidate whose papers are being counted.

3. Place mis-sorts at the side of the table.

4. Count each bundle twice.

5. Place on the top of each bundle a coloured slip bearing the candidate's name (already printed).

6. Note the final bundle with the number of papers therein contained.

The counters thus checked the accuracy of the sorters' work, and labelled the bundles of each candidate's votes with a card of a distinctive colour bearing his name. These bundles of votes were then taken to the returning officer's table, where there awaited them a row of twelve deep, three-sided open boxes, each labelled with the name of a candidate. The returning officer's assistants at this table made up the bundles of 50 into parcels of 500, and ascertained the total number of votes for each candidate, carefully keeping each candidate's papers in his own allotted box.

Lastly, the results as ascertained were shown on large blackboards. If and whenever any doubt arose as to the validity of a vote, it was taken to the returning officer by the supervisors and adjudicated upon by him. The accuracy of the sorting may be judged by the fact that when the 9043 votes attributed to Mr. Asquith on the first count were subsequently analyzed, it was found that only one paper was wrongly placed to his credit, a Liberal vote which should have gone first to Mr. Lloyd George.

As to these arrangements, one suggestion may be made for the guidance of future returning officers: it was found in practice that the work at the returning officer's table was too heavy for the two assistants to keep pace with the rapidity with which the votes were sorted and counted. Two assistants are required for the purpose of keeping a record of the various processes; two others for receiving and distributing the ballot papers.

The first count.

The first duty of the returning officer, as already explained, was to ascertain the total number of votes polled by each candidate, each ballot paper being a vote for the candidate marked 1 thereon. This was a simple task, which took about an hour and a quarter, and yielded the following result:—

Asquith (Liberal) 9,042 Balfour (Unionist) 4,478 Lloyd George (Liberal) 2,751 Macdonald (Labour) 2,124 Henderson (Labour) 1,038 Long (Unionist) 672 Hugh Cecil (Unionist Free Trader) 460 Shackleton (Labour) 398 Burt (Liberal) 260 Leif Jones (Liberal) 191 Smith (Unionist) 164 Joynson-Hicks (Unionist) 94 ——— Total 21,672

The Quota.

It will be seen that, with this method of election, the general result, showing the relative strength of the parties, can be quickly ascertained, but, some time elapses before the definitive result, with the names of all the successful candidates, can be published. The first step necessary in determining which candidates were successful was to ascertain the quota, and this, in accordance with the rule above stated,[13] was found by dividing the total number of votes by six and adding one to the result. The number was found to be 3613, and the table given above shows that on the first count Mr. Asquith and Mr. Balfour had each polled more than a quota of votes. Both these candidates were, in accordance with the rules, declared elected, and, as some misapprehension prevails on this point, it should be stated that the order of seniority of members elected under this system would be determined by the order in which they were declared elected. In this case Mr. Asquith and Mr. Balfour would be the senior members in the order named.

The transfer of surplus votes.

The peculiar feature of the single transferable vote now came into play. Both Mr. Asquith and Mr. Balfour had polled more votes than were sufficient to ensure their election, and in order that these excess votes should not be wasted and a result produced such as that already shown to be possible where the votes are not transferable, it was the duty of the returning officer to transfer these surplus votes, and in doing so to carry out strictly the wishes of the electors as indicated on their ballot papers.

The largest surplus, that of Mr. Asquith, was first dealt with, and the transfer of votes, as already mentioned, was effected in accordance with the provisions of Lord Courtney's Municipal Representation Bill. All the votes recorded for Mr. Asquith were re-examined, all the ballot papers contained in his box being taken to the central table and re-sorted according to the next available preferences indicated by the electors. For this purpose the names of the elected candidates were removed from their former pigeon-holes, and one of the compartments vacated was marked "exhausted" and used as a receptacle for those papers which contained no available next preference. The instructions to sorters were:—

1. Sort the ballot papers according to the highest available preference.

2. When no further preference is indicated, place the ballot paper in the compartment marked "exhausted."

The term "next available preferences" needs definition. As a rule the next preference was the candidate marked with the figure 2; but if any supporter of Mr. Asquith had indicated Mr. Balfour (already elected) as his second choice, then the elector's third choice became the "next available preference." The papers for each next preference were made into bundles of 50, but, instead of a coloured card with the name of the candidate, a white "transfer" card was placed with each bundle. The transfer card was marked with the name of the candidate whose papers were being re-sorted and also with the name of the candidate who had been indicated as the next available preference. The instructions issued to the counters were as follows:—

(a)1. Check the sorting of the papers, i.e., see that the candidate whose papers are being counted is the highest available preference.

2. Place mis-sorts at the side of the table.

(b) 1. Count the papers into bundles of fifty.

2. Count each bundle twice.

3. Place on the top of each bundle a "transfer card" showing from and to whom the votes are being transferred.

4. Note each bundle with the number of papers therein contained.

These bundles were placed in a second series of open boxes on the returning officer's table, each box being labelled with the name of a candidate and being smaller in size than the boxes containing the first preferences. The number of next available preferences for each candidate was then ascertained. It was, of course, not the duty of the returning officer to transfer all the re-sorted papers; it was necessary to retain a "quota" for Mr. Asquith; and an operation which requires some care now took place. The papers contained in each of the second series of boxes were divided into two portions, bearing in each case the same proportion to one another. One portion was transferred to the candidate who had been indicated as the next preference, and the other was placed in Mr. Asquith's box, the portions reserved for him constituting his quota; the actual papers transferred to each next preference were those last placed in the box bearing his name. The details of this process are set forth in the table overleaf.

PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION ELECTION, 1908

TRANSFER SHEET

Distribution of the Rt. Hon. H. H. ASQUITH's surplus.

Surplus Votes 5429

No. of Papers showing a next preference 9009

Surplus 5429 Proportion to be transferred = ————————————- = —— Total of next preferences 9009

Column Headings: A. Names of Candidates indicated as next preference. I. No. of papers on which Candidate is marked as next preference. II. No. of Votes transferred to next preference. (Fractions ignored.) III. No. of Votes retained for Mr. Asquith's Quota.

A. I. II. III.

Balfour, The Rt. Hon. A. J. — — — Burt, The Rt, Hon. Thomas 468 282 186 Cecil, Lord Hugh 132 79 53 Henderson, Arthur 261 157 104 Jones, Leif 176 106 70 Joynson-Hicks, W. 17 10 7 Lloyd George, The Rt. Hon. D. 7,807 4,704 3,103 Long, The Rt. Hon. Walter H. 46 27 19 Madonald, J. Ramsay 51 30 21 Shackleton, David 35 21 14 Smith, F. B. 16 9 7 ——- ——- ——- Total of next preferences 9,009 5,425 3,584

Preferences exhausted . . 33 — 33 ——- ——- ——- Total 9,042 5,425 3,617[14]

This table needs, perhaps, a further word of explanation. The first column shows the result of the re-sorting of Mr. Asquith's papers, Mr. Burt having been indicated as the next preference on 468 papers, Lord Hugh Cecil on 132 papers, and so on. The papers for each next preference were, as already staked, divided into two portions, and the second and third columns show the result of this division. The division is carried out in a strictly proportional manner, according to the following principle. If 5429 surplus votes are to be transferred from a total of 9009 unexhausted voting papers, what portion should be transferred from 468, from 132, and so on. The proper numbers, which are given in the second column, are found by a simple rule of three process; each of the numbers in the second column is obtained from the corresponding number in the first column by multiplying by the fraction 5429/9009, that being the fraction which represents the proportion of unexhausted papers to be transferred. The figures in column III., which are the votes retained in each case to make up Mr. Asquith's quota, are obtained by subtracting the corresponding numbers in column II. from those in column I. Ten separate calculations were thus necessary, and for this part of the election it is desirable that the returning officer should have two assistants who are accustomed to figures. These should check one another's work. In Belgium the returning officer is assisted by two "professional calculators."

The ballot papers with the votes constituting Mr. Asquith's quota were replaced in his original box and never touched again. The ballot papers transferred were placed in each case on the top of the papers already contained in the box of the candidate to whom the transfer was made.

As the result of the transfer of Mr. Asquith's surplus it was found that the total of Mr. Lloyd George's votes amounted to 7455, and as this number exceeded the quota, Mr. Lloyd George was declared elected, he being the third member chosen. Mr. Balfour's surplus was then distributed in a similar manner. The number of votes transferred is shown in the result sheet, pp. 160-61. As Mr. Lloyd George's total exceeded the quota, it was also necessary to dispose of his surplus. In the latter case only the papers transferred to Mr. Lloyd George, and not his original votes, were re-examined, as his surplus consisted of votes originally given to Mr. Asquith.

The poll now stood:—

Asquith (Liberal) 3,613 Balfour (Unionist) 3,613 > Elected Lloyd George (Liberal) 3,613 / Macdonald (Labour) 2,387 Henderson (Labour) 2,032 Burt (Liberal) 1,793 L. Jones (Liberal) 1,396 Long (Unionist) 1,282 Cecil (Unionist Free Trade) 822 Shackleton (Labour) 683 Smith (Unionist) 258 Joynson-Hicks (Unionist) 167

Votes lost through neglect of fractions 13

It will readily be seen that these transfers have been in accordance with what might have been assumed to be the general political preferences of the electors. The Liberal surplus votes from Mr. Asquith naturally went on chiefly to Mr. Lloyd George, and the overflow from Mr. Lloyd George, after filling up his quota, went on to Mr. Burt and Mr. Leif Jones, whose positions were greatly improved in consequence, though neither obtained the quota. At the same time a formidable addition of 834 votes was given to Mr. Henderson, the votes doubtless of Liberal sympathisers with Labour; and Lord Hugh Cecil received 88 votes, presumably from moderate Liberals who lay chief stress on Free Trade. On the other hand, Mr. Balfour's smaller Unionist surplus was divided mainly between Mr. Walter Long, who received 526 additional votes, and Lord Hugh Cecil, who received 195.

The elimination of unsuccessful candidates.]

After the transfer of all surplus votes had been completed, the work of the returning officer again became very simple. Three members only had been elected, two more were required, and there remained in the running nine candidates, none of whom obtained a quota of votes. Another process now began, namely the elimination of candidates at the bottom of the poll, beginning with the lowest and working upwards. The group of electors who have recorded their votes for the candidate lowest on the poll are evidently not sufficiently numerous to have a direct representative of their own. The process of elimination allows these electors to re-combine with other groups until they become part of a body large enough to be so entitled. The supporters of the lowest candidate are treated as being asked (and answering, if they care to do so, by their next preferences) the question: "The candidate of your first choice having no chance of election, to whom now of the candidates still in the running do you prefer your vote to go?" By this process, first the two candidates, Mr. Smith and Mr. Joynson-Hicks, who at this stage were at the bottom of the poll and whose combined votes were less than those of the third lowest candidate, were eliminated and their votes transferred to the next preferences of their supporters. No one was elected as a result of this operation, and accordingly the votes of Mr. Shackleton and Lord Hugh Cecil, now lowest on the poll, were transferred in the order named.

These and all other eliminations were of the same character. All the papers of the eliminated candidates which showed an available next preference were transferred, and no calculations such as were required in the case of the transfer of surplus votes were needed. It will be sufficient if the details of one process—the transfer of Mr. Shackleton's votes—are given; for the details of all other similar transfers the full table on pp. 160-61 should be consulted. The votes of Mr. Shackleton were disposed of as follows:—

TRANSFER OF MR. SHACKLETON'S VOTES

Names of Candidates Number of Papers indicated as next for each next preference. preference.

Burt 89 Cecil 18 Henderson 233 Jones 57 Long 8 Macdonald 252

Preferences exhausted 45 —- Total 702

The transfers of the votes both of Mr. Shackleton and of Lord Hugh Cecil were completed, but still no fresh candidate had the quota, and Mr. Lief Jones's 1500 votes came next for distribution. These 1500 votes might have been expected to go to Mr. Burt, the sole remaining unelected Liberal, who had already 2025 votes, and make his election practically secure. But here came a surprise; Mr. Leif Jones's supporters (who had, of course, in most instances, come to him from Mr. Asquith and Mr. Lloyd George) had in some cases marked no further preferences, so that their votes were no longer transferable, and in many other cases had marked Mr. Henderson or Mr. Macdonald as their next preference; thus at the conclusion of this operation the result of the election was still doubtful.

Two places had still to be filled, and the poll stood:—

Asquith (Liberal) 3,613 Balfour (Unionist) 3,613 > Elected Lloyd George (Liberal) 3,613 / Macdonald (Labour) 2,851 Henderson (Labour) 2,829 Burt (Liberal) 2,683 Long (Unionist) 2,035

Mr. Long's votes had now to be distributed; the majority of his supporters were Unionists who had not marked any preference for either of the two remaining Labour candidates or for the remaining Liberal candidate, and their votes consequently were not capable of being transferred. But some 370 of Mr. Long's supporters had shown a preference for Mr. Burt (presumably as being reckoned not so Socialistic as his competitors) as against some 27 for Mr. Macdonald and 80 for Mr. Henderson, so that the poll stood:—

Asquith (Liberal) 3,613 Balfour (Unionist) 3,613 > Elected Lloyd George (Liberal) 3,613 / Burt (Liberal) 3,053 Macdonald (Labour) 2,938 Henderson (Labour) 2,910

Mr. Henderson, being at the bottom of the poll, was then eliminated, but it was unnecessary to proceed with the transfer of his votes as, after his elimination, there were only five candidates remaining, and five was the number of members to be elected. The work of the returning officer was at an end, the following candidates being elected:—

Asquith (Liberal) Bafour (Unionist) Lloyd George (Liberal) Burt (Liberal) Macdonald (Labour)

The whole process of the election is shown by the returning officers' full result sheet.

The fairness of the result.

The fairness of this method of voting is at once apparent. Each group of electors as large as a quota secured a representative. The Liberals were in a very large majority, and with the block system and probably with the single-member system would have nominated five candidates and have obtained all five seats. In this election the two smaller groups, the Unionist and Labour parties, each returned one member. The voters did not, in recording their preferences, restrict themselves to candidates of one party, but nevertheless, it will be of interest to compare the seats gained with the strength of parties as indicated by the first preferences. The party vote disclosed in the first count was as follows:—

Votes polled. Liberal 12,244 Unionist 6,868 Labour 3,660 ——— Total 21,672

The quota was 3613, and these totals show that the

Liberals obtained 3 quotas with 1405 votes over and gained 3 seats. Unionists obtained 1 quota with 2265 votes over and gained 1 seat. Labour obtained 1 quota less 53 votes and gained 1 seat.

PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION ELECTION, 1908—RESULT SHEET

No. of Votes,—21,672.

No. of Seats—5.

Quota = (21,672/6) + 1 = 3613

Col 1: First Count Col 2: Transfer of surplus votes (Asquith's) Col 3: Result Col 4: Transfer of Surplus Votes (Bafour) Col 5: Result Col 6: Transfer of Surplus Votes (Lloyd George) Col 7: Result

Names of Candidates. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Asquith, The Rt.Hon.H.H. 9,042-5,429 3,613 — 3,613 — 3,613

Balfour, The Rt.Hon.A.J. 4,478 — 4,478-865 3,613 — 3,613

Burl, The Rt. Hon. Thomas. 260 +282 542 +12 554+1,239 1,793

Cecil, Lord Hugh 400 +79 539+195 734 +88 822

Henderson, Arthur 1,038 +157 1,195 +3 1,198 +834 2,032

Jone, Leif 191 +157 297 +2 299+1,097 1,396

Joynson-Hicks, W. 94 +10 104 +52 156 +11 167

Lloyd George, The Rt.Hon.D. 2,751+4,704 7,455 — 7,455-3,842 3,613

Long, The Rt.Hon. Walter H. 672 +27 699+520 1,225 +57 1,282

Macdonald, J. Ramsay 2,124 +30 2,154 +5 2,159 +228 2,387

Shackleton, David 398 +21 419 +2 421 +202 683

Smith, F.E. 184 +9 173 +65 238 +20 258

Votes lost through neglect of fractions - +4 4 +3 7 +6 13

Preferences Exhausted - - - - — — —

Totals 21,072 - 21,672 — 21,672 — 21,672

Col 8: Transfer of votes (J Hicks and Smiths) Col 9: Result Col 10: Transfer of Votes Shackleston's) Col 11: Result Col 12: Transfer of Votes (cecil's) Col 13: Result Col 14: Transfer of Votes (L.Jones) Col 15: Results Col 16: Transfer of Votes (Long's) Col 17: Final Result.

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.

Asquith — 3,613 — 3,613 — 3,613 — 3,613 — 3,613 E

Balfour — 3,013 — 3,613 — 3,613 — 3,613 — 3,613 E

Burl. +21 1,814 +89 1,903+122 2,025 +658 2,683 +370 3,053 E

Cecil +88 908 +18 923-926 — — — — —

Henderson +14 2,046+233 2,270 +49 2,328 +501 2,829 +81 2,910

Jone +12 1,408 +57 1,465 +35 1,500-1,500 — — —

Joynson-Hicks 167 — — — — — — — — —

Lloyd George — 3,613 — 3,613 — 3,613 — 3,613 — 3,613 E

Long +233 1,505 +8 1,513+490 2,003 +32 2,035-2,035 —

Macdonald +21 2,408+252 2,680 +48 2,708 +143 2,851 +87 2,938 E

Shackleton +19 702-702 — — — — — — —

Smith -258 — — — — — — — — —

Votes lost — 13 — 13 — 13 — 13 — 13

Exhausted +29 29 +45 74+182 256 +166 422+1,497 1,919

Totals — 21,672 — 21,672 — 21,672 — 21,672 —21,672

This result is as fair as is possible, and would have been equally attained if, as would probably be the case in a real election, there had been but little cross voting. The total results in the Tasmanian General Election, 1909 (six-member constituencies) showed an exact proportion between the votes polled and the seats gained by the respective parties.[15]

Improved arrangements in the Transvaal elections.

The arrangements made at the model election were adopted by the Chief Electoral Officer of Tasmania,[16] and were also adopted by the returning officers of Pretoria and Johannesburg. Experience has shown that some improvements in details can be made. Both at Pretoria and Johannesburg less work was done at the returning officer's table. The counters were placed more directly arrangements under the superintendence of the returning officer's assistants, and the final totals of each operation were ascertained at the counters' tables. When the ballot boxes were brought in by the presiding officers of the polling stations with a return of the votes they contained, the returning officer handed them one by one to superintendents who took them to that section of the counting force over which they had charge. The counters ascertained the number of papers in each ballot box. The superintendents reported the total number to the returning officer, and if this number agreed with the presiding officer's return the ballot box and contents were handed back to the returning officer. After the contents of all the ballot boxes had been verified and the grand total of votes ascertained, all the papers were emptied into one box and were well mixed. The papers were then sorted at a central table, as in the election already described; the superintendent took the papers to the counters, each of whom ascertained the number of votes for that candidate whose papers he had been deputed to count. The superintendents brought a statement of the totals for each candidate to the returning officer, and if the aggregate of these figures did not agree with the number of ballot papers distributed to the sorters a fresh count was ordered. The elections at Johannesburg and Pretoria demonstrated that the requisite accuracy in counting could be easily attained. The operations were characterized with remarkable precision. There was no error in the counting of the votes at Pretoria during the whole of the operations, and the same remark holds good of Johannesburg, save that one ballot paper which had been accidentally torn was omitted to be counted. The two pieces had been pinned together, and the paper, which in consequence had been rendered shorter than the others, was overlooked. The omission was quickly discovered, and no other error took place during the whole of the proceedings. The various counting processes check one another. Any errors occurring in the earlier operations are thrown out in the course of the subsequent proceedings, for the totals of the votes at the conclusion of each operation must agree with the total shown at the commencement of the count. In another feature the organization of the Transvaal elections might be copied. All spoilt or doubtful papers were brought to the returning officer's table by his assistants, and were not examined until the conclusion of the first count. The whole of these papers were then gone through by the returning officer, who decided the question of their validity in the presence of the candidates or their representatives. The returning officer also examined all papers which were treated as "exhausted," but this work might have been deputed to the assistant returning officer.[17]

Criticisms of the single transferable vote.

After reviewing the whole of the evidence submitted to them, the Royal Commission on Electoral Systems reported that "of schemes for producing proportional representation we think that the transferable vote will have the best chance of ultimate acceptance," but the Report contains some criticisms of its mechanism which demand consideration. These criticisms are directed to two points: (1) the effect of later preferences in deciding the result of an election; (2) the process of eliminating candidates at the bottom of the poll.

Effect of late preferences.

The Royal Commission express the opinion that late preferences may have an undue weight in deciding the result of an election. But the Commissioners seem to have been unnecessarily alarmed in this matter. A careful analysis of the preferences recorded in the Tasmanian elections was made by a Committee appointed for the purpose by the Tasmanian Government. This Committee ascertained that the comparative values of the various preferences in determining the result of the election were as follows:—

1st preference .739 2nd .140 3rd .051 4th .029 5th .014 6th .008 7th .009 8th .008 9th .003

In other words 73.9 per cent, first preferences became effective votes, 14.0 per cent, second preferences became effective votes, and so on. These figures show the great superiority in value of the earlier preferences, and this superiority was also seen in the Transvaal elections. In Pretoria 68 per cent, of the first preferences were directly effective in returning candidates, in Johannesburg 67.5 per cent. Second preferences primarily come into play in favour of candidates of similar complexion to the candidates first chosen, and when, as is possible in the last resort, a vote is passed on in support of a candidate of a different party, this is no more than the Commissioners themselves approve and recommend for adoption in the case of three or more candidates standing for a single seat. The difference between the effect of the final transfers under a system of proportional representation and of transfers under the system recommended by the Commission is that in the first case they might determine the character of one out of five or more members representing a constituency, in the other they might affect the representation of each of the five or more divisions into which the constituency would be divided.

The elimination of candidates from the bottom of the poll.

The second criticism concerns the elimination of candidates. It is sometimes contended that it is unfair to eliminate the candidate at the bottom of the poll, because had he remained longer in the contest he might have received at the next stage a considerable amount of support. Taking an extreme case, the candidate at the bottom of the poll may have been so generally popular as to have been the second choice of the majority of the electors. This is theoretically conceivable, but it does not conform to the facts of elections. The principle of eliminating a candidate at the bottom of the poll is not peculiar to the single transferable vote. When a constituency returns but one member and there are three candidates, and it is desired by means of the second ballot to ensure the election of the candidate who commands the support of the majority of the electors, the candidate lowest on the poll is eliminated and a second ballot is held to decide between the claims of the remaining two candidates. In such a case it is conceivable that the candidate lowest on the poll may have been more acceptable to the majority of the electors than the candidate finally selected. But the system of the single transferable vote with constituencies returning several members diminishes very considerably any such possibility. In the first place, the candidate to be successful need only obtain a much smaller proportion of the total number of votes than in a single-member constituency. In the latter he must poll just over one-half before he is safe from defeat; in a seven-member constituency if he polls one-eighth he will escape this fate. The candidate who has a reasonable proportion of support, therefore, stands less chance of being excluded. In the second place no candidate is excluded until after the transfer of all surplus votes has been completed. If, in a constituency returning several members, a candidate, after the transfer of all surplus votes, is still at the bottom of the poll, the facts would seem to indicate that he was not even the second favourite of any considerable number of electors. The preferences actually given in elections show how little force this criticism possesses. The table below was prepared by the Committee appointed by the Tasmanian Government. It shows the result of an examination of all the votes cast in the district of Wilmot for the election of five members of the Tasmanian House of Assembly in April 1909. The names of the candidates are given with the numbers of the various preferences recorded for each candidate. The total number of second preferences recorded for Waterworth, the first candidate to be excluded, was 141. Similar tables for the other four districts show that no injustice arose from the exclusion of the lowest candidate. The only occasion on which the criticism has any force is when, in filling the last seats, the conditions are analogous to those which obtain in a three-cornered fight in a single-member constituency. Yet in the latter case the Royal Commission did not hesitate to recommend the exclusion of the lowest candidate.

DISTRICT OF WILMOT: NUMBERS OF VARIOUS PREFERENCES

Name. Preferences. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Best 935 690 596 609 615 550 23 2 7 5 Dumbleton 518 537 603 632 819 650 24 4 3 5 Field 930 699 692 619 555 585 21 9 4 5 Hope 1,232 1,302 1,077 551 229 159 13 6 2 5 Jensen 1,955 894 1,087 132 58 58 13 19 7 36 Kean 599 1,521 1,370 118 53 50 11 28 38 15 Lee 822 750 902 618 512 488 27 4 7 1 Lyons 1,079 1,444 1,329 93 76 65 21 29 32 12 Murray 572 885 972 848 625 395 14 6 7 1 Waterworth 221 141 236 590 198 254 141 21 6 9 ——- ——- ——- ——- ——- ——- —- —- —- — 8,863 8,863 8,863 4,810 3,740 3,254 308 128 113 94

The elimination of candidates has been criticized from another point of view. The Royal Commission, while careful not to endorse this criticism, and referring to it with reluctance, "because doubts about the absolute reliability of the mechanism of the system may arouse prejudices disproportionate to the importance of the subject, which is very small in comparison with the other considerations involved," review the evidence which had been submitted to them as follows: "The element of chance involved in the order of elimination is exceedingly difficult to determine. It would appear that the element is perceptible in certain contingencies, but the rarity or frequency with which these would occur in actual practice is a matter of pure speculation, as it apparently depends on the amount of cross-voting which voters permit themselves in the use of their later preferences, a point only to be decided by experience. 'Chance' in this connexion has not quite the same meaning as when used in respect of the method of transfer. In the case of the latter we were dealing with mathematical probabilities; the chance which is said to be involved in the process of elimination consists in the fact that the results of the election may vary according to the strength of quite irrelevant factors. Thus, a case was put to us to show that with certain dispositions on the part of the electors the representation of a party might be so much at the mercy of the order of elimination that while it would only obtain one seat with 19,000 votes of its own it would obtain two with 18,000, because in the latter case the order of elimination of two candidates would be reversed."[18]

It is here suggested that the results may depend upon the amount of cross-voting which voters would permit themselves in the use of their later preferences. The whole paragraph abounds in obscurities, and the word "cross-voting" is used in such a context as to make it quite uncertain whether the Commission mean by it inter- or intra-party voting, or both. It is somewhat difficult to make a definite answer to a charge so indistinctly formulated. Cross-voting, in the ordinary sense, may certainly affect the result. If the supporters of a Radical candidate prefer to give their second preferences to a Labour candidate rather than to a moderate Liberal, such cross-voting obviously may determine whether the Labour candidate or the moderate Liberal will be successful. There is no element of chance involved. The object of the system is the true representation of the electors, and the returning officer must give effect to their wishes. The numerical case cited by the Commissioners can only occur when so-called supporters of the party in question are so indifferent to its fate as to refrain from recording any preferences for any members of the party other than their own favoured candidate. Such voters can hardly be called "members of a party" for the purpose of contrasting its strength with that of another party.[19] Even such cases, supposing them at all probable in practice, could be provided against, as has been suggested by Mr. Rooke Corbett of the Manchester Statistical Society, by determining a new quota whenever any votes have to be set aside as exhausted. But the elections in which the system has been tried show how little these cases accord with the facts. The large number of exhausted papers which occur in the model election described in this chapter, which was organized through the press, perhaps accounts for much of this criticism. In real elections the percentage of exhausted papers is much less. Thus in Johannesburg, where one rigidly organized party, another party more loosely organized, and ten independent candidates took the field, the electors made good use of their privilege of marking preferences. Some 11,788 votes were polled. At the conclusion of the tenth transfer only 104 votes had been treated as exhausted. In Pretoria, where there were 2814 votes, the total number of exhausted votes at the end of the election was only 63. This happened on the occasion of the first trial of the system in Johannesburg and Pretoria, and further experience will lead to an even fuller exercise of the privilege of marking preferences. There is no case for a criticism based on such a hypothetical example as that hinted at by the Commission.

Quota Representation on the basis of the system.

Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, in criticizing this method of voting, complains that its advocates "assume, quite erroneously, that a second preference should carry the same political value as a first preference." But it would be obviously unfair to penalize an elector by depriving him of any part of the value of his vote because he failed to secure his first choice as his representative. In making this criticism Mr. Macdonald has lost sight of the reason for which the vote is made transferable. Every elector has but one vote, and unless this vote retains its full value when transferred, the proportionate representation of the electors cannot be achieved. Thus it is conceivable that in a constituency returning several members Mr. Macdonald might poll two quotas of Labour votes, and if his excess votes were not transferred to the second preferences of his supporters at their full value, the representation of the party would suffer. Each quota of electors is entitled to a member, and the transferring of votes enables the electors to group themselves into quotas of equal size.

In a critical analysis of the regulations adopted in the Transvaal, Mr. Howard Pim, President of the Statistical Society, South Africa, stated that: "However defective these regulations may be, the system of election introduced by this Act is a great advance upon any previously in existence in this Colony, for by it a minority which can command a number of votes equal to or exceeding a number equal to the quota can elect its candidate. This advantage far outweighs any defects that exist in the regulations, and I trust that this principle of the quota will never be surrendered, even if the Second Schedule of the Act be modified."[20] Representation by quota has always been recognized by advocates of the single transferable vote as being the great reform accomplished by the new method of voting. The Government Statistician of Tasmania, Mr. R. M. Johnston, declared that "those who ignore this keystone, or foundation of the Hare system, and restrict their attention entirely to peddling or unimportant details—such as the element of chance involved in quota-excess-transfer-votes—fail altogether to comprehend the grandeur and perfection of the cardinal features of the system, which secures just and equitable representation of all forces, whether of majorities or minorities." In attempting to give effect to this great principle it is unnecessary to impose more work upon the returning officers than is absolutely essential for the purpose, and such experience as is available shows that the rules contained in the Municipal Representation Bill[21] accomplish this end.

[Footnote 1: Denmark was thus the first country to make use of a system of proportional representation. An excellent account of its introduction is given in La Representation Proportionelle, published in 1888 by the French Society for the Study of Proportional Representation.]

[Footnote 2: In addition to the eight members elected by each Parliament, the Senate includes eight nominated members appointed by the Governor in Council. In future elections, unless otherwise determined by the Union Parliament, eight Senators for each province will be elected at a joint session of the members of the Provincial Council and the members of the Union House of Assembly elected for the province.]

[Footnote 3: The first section of the amendment was as follows: "From and after the passing of the present Bill, every local constituency shall, subject to the provisions hereinafter contained, return one member for every quota of its registered electors actually voting at that election, such quota being a number equal to the quotient obtained by dividing by 658 the total number of votes polled throughout the kingdom at the same election, and if such quotient be fractional, the integral number nest less. Provided always, that where the number of votes given by the constituency shall not be equal to such quota, the quota may be completed by means of votes given by persons duly qualified as electors in any part of the United Kingdom; and the candidate who shall have obtained such quota may, notwithstanding, be returned as a member for the said constituency if he shall have obtained a majority of the votes given therein as hereinafter mentioned."]

[Footnote 4: Autobiography, 1873, p. 259.]

[Footnote 5: The election of 1910, which was held in Glasgow, was organized by the Scottish Branch of the Society.]

[Footnote 6: This mode of voting is simple and effective where the electing body is small and where there is no need or desire to avoid full publicity. It is in use in the municipality of Toronto for the election of committees, and was proposed for use in the election of a number of Lords of Parliament from the whole body of peers in a memorandum submitted by Lord Courtney of Penwith to the Select Committee on the Reform of the House of Lords. See Report of this Committee [(234) [(234) 1908] ]

[Footnote 7: This rule for ascertaining the quota was first suggested by Mr. H.R. Droop in a paper read by him before the Statistical Society in April 1881. Both Mr. Hare and M. Andrae proposed that the quota should be ascertained by dividing the number of votes cast by the number of members to be elected. Mr. Droop pointed out that such a quota might, with constituencies returning from three to eight representatives each, yield on some occasions an incorrect result. "Suppose, for instance," says he, "that the election is a contest between two parties of which one commands 360 votes and the other 340, and that each party runs four candidates for seven seats; then M. Andrae's quota will be (360 + 340) / 7 = 700 / 7 = 100, while mine will be: 700 / 8 + 1 = 88. Consequently, if the 360 voters should divide their first votes so as to give originally to each of three candidates 100, or more, votes, say 110, 104, and 100, their fourth candidate will originally have only 46 votes, and will obtain by transfer with M. Andrae's quota only 14 additional votes, and thus he will not get altogether more than 60 votes, and therefore if the 340 can by organization arrange to divide their first votes so that each of their four candidates has originally more than 60 votes (which would not be difficult, as an equal division would give each of them 85 votes) they will carry the odd candidate. On the other hand, with my quota, the fourth candidate will get by transfer (however the votes may be originally distributed) 360 - (3 x 88) = 360 - 264 = 96 votes, and it will be impossible for the 340 to place all their four candidates ahead of those of the 360. Therefore, with my quota nothing can be gained by dividing the votes equally, or lost by dividing them unequally, while with M. Andrae's and Mr. Hare's quota there will always be a possibility of gaining by this, and therefore it may be worth while in an important election to organize and ascertain how many candidates the party's votes can carry, and arrange for such votes being divided equally between these candidates, the very thing which preferential voting is intended to render unnecessary."]

[Footnote 8: The proportion will not in practice be so simple as in this example—one-half. In every case the proportion is that which the number of next preferences marked for any one unelected candidate bears to the total number of preferences marked for all unelected candidates. Cf. p. 164.]

[Footnote 9: Vide Appendix VII.]

[Footnote 10: Report of the Royal Commission on Electoral Systems (Cd. 5163), Par. 65.]

[Footnote 11: Real Representation for Great Britain and Ireland, 1910, p. 23.]

[Footnote 12: In the model election held in Glasgow, 1910, the list contained the name of a Nationalist candidate (see Representation, No. 19, November 1910).]

[Footnote 13: See page 137.]

[Footnote 14: This total slightly exceeds the quota, 3613, owing to the neglect of fractions in the second column. The loss of votes due to neglect of fractions will be found separately recorded in the result sheet, p. 160-61. This loss of votes can be avoided by treating the largest fractions as unity.]

[Footnote 15: See page 257.]

[Footnote 16: It was at first intended to adopt the arrangement of staff and method of recording preferences used at the election of 1897. These arrangements were after a test abandoned in favour of the much more convenient method used at the Proportional Representation Society's model election held December 1908.—Report on the Tasmanian General Election, 1909, par. 8.]

[Footnote 17: For full details of these elections, see Report presented to both Houses of the Transvaal Parliament.—T.G. 5—'10.]

[Footnote 18: Report of Royal Commission on Electoral Systems, par. 76.]

[Footnote 19: A simple example will explain. Let it be assumed that P and Q are members of party A, and poll 18,000 votes, that R and S and T are members of party B, polling in all 19,000 votes, and that the following table records the votes given and the details of the transfers made in arriving at the final result:—

Quota = (37,000/4) + 1 = 9251

Transfer Transfer 1st of R's of T's Candidates. Count. Surplus. Result. Votes. Result.

P 9,050 9,050 9,050 (Elected). Party A. Q 8,950 8,950 8,950 (Elected).

R 10,000 -749 9,251 9,251 (Elected). Party B. S 6,000 +500 6,500 +2,400 8,900 T 3,000 +249 3,249 -3,249

Exhausted +849 849 ——— ——— ——— 37,000 37,000 37,000

The members of the two parties recorded their votes as follows:—

Party A. Party B. P. 9,050 R. 10,000 Q. 8,950 S. 6,000 T. 3,000

The total number of votes polled is 37,000, and the quota, therefore, is 9251. Candidate R, having received more than a quota would be declared elected, and his surplus of 749 votes carried forward. It may be assumed that candidates S and T, who are of the same party, received 500 and 249 as their shares of this surplus. The result of this transfer is shown in the table. T, the lowest candidate on the poll, would then be eliminated. Now, if the contingent of voters Supporting T are not fully loyal to their party, and as many as 849 have recorded no preference save for T, then 2400 would be available for transfer to S, whose total would be only 8900. S would be eliminated, and the three candidates elected would be P and Q of party A, and R of party B, although R and S between them represented 18,151 voters. This case can be met by providing that whenever votes are exhausted the quota should be counted afresh. The votes in play, ignoring those exhausted, would be in all 36,151, the new quota would be 9038, while an additional number of votes, viz. 213, would be available for transfer from R to S, with the result that the position of these candidates would be as follows:—

R 9,038 S 9,113 P 9,050 Q 8,950

Party B would obtain two seats, the party A only one seat.]

[Footnote 20: Address delivered on 6 September 1909.]

[Footnote 22: See Appendix VII.]



CHAPTER VIII

LIST SYSTEMS OF PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION

"'One man, one vote; one party, one candidate'—thus runs the cry."—COUNT GOBLET D'ALVIELLA

List systems of proportional representation are based upon the block vote or scrutin de liste—the method of election generally used on the Continent of Europe and in the United States of America when several members are to be elected for the same constituency. With the scrutin de liste, lists of candidates are nominated by the various political organizations or groups of electors; each elector has as many votes as there are members to be elected, but he may not give more than one vote to any one candidate. The party which can obtain the support of a majority of the electors can carry its list to the exclusion of all others; minorities are crushed even more completely than with the system of single-member constituencies. But as constituencies returning several members are an essential requirement of any scheme of proportional representation, the scrutin de liste facilitates the introduction of a proportional system, for the only great change involved is the allotment of seats to the respective lists in proportion to the totals of votes obtained by each. But this change brings in its train a change in the nature of the vote. It remains no longer a vote only for candidates as individuals; it obtains a twofold significance, and becomes what is termed the double simultaneous vote (le double vote simultanee). In the first place it is a vote for the party list as such, and is used for determining the proportion of seats to be allotted to the lists; and, in the second place, it is a vote for a particular candidate or order of candidates for the purpose of ascertaining which of the candidates included in a list shall be declared successful. This double function of the vote is characteristic of all list systems of proportional representation. Other changes of a subsidiary character, which experience has shown to be advisable, have been adopted in different countries so that the various systems differ in detail in the methods both by which seats are apportioned among the competing lists and by which the successful candidates are chosen.