The Belgian electoral system.]

List systems are in operation for parliamentary purposes in Switzerland, Belgium, Wuertemberg, Sweden, and Finland. The simplest of these is that adopted by Belgium, and the description of a Belgian election may serve as an introduction to the study of other systems. Through the courtesy of M. Steyeart, the President of the Tribunal of First Instance and Chief Electoral Officer for the constituency of Ghent-Eecloo, the author was enabled to watch the elections in May 1908 in that constituency. Proportional representation is, however, only one of the points in which the Belgian and English electoral systems differ, and in order to obtain a true estimate of the working of the Belgian law it is necessary to distinguish between results which are due to the franchise qualifications and those which are due to the system of proportional representation. The effects arising from these two separate features of the electoral system have sometimes been confused, and it is therefore desirable to give a brief outline of the conditions which govern a Belgian election.

In the first place, Belgium has manhood suffrage modified by a system of graduated voting. Secondly, each elector is compelled to vote or, at least, to present himself at the polling place. Thirdly, both the Chambers are elective, and, although provision exists for the dissolution and the election of Parliament as a whole, only one-half of each Chamber is, in the ordinary course, elected at a time, each Senator being elected for a fixed period of eight years, and each member of the House of Representatives for a period of four years.

The franchise.

The unique franchise system embodied in the Belgian constitution in 1893 was adopted only after months had been spent in discussing the schemes of rival parties. All attempts at compromise failed until attention was seriously directed to the suggestions of M. Albert Nyssens, Professor of the University of Louvain, contained in his pamphlet Le Suffrage Universel Tempere. His proposals had the merit of recognizing the validity of the arguments advanced by all the political parties. Conservatives desired the introduction of a system based on occupation coupled with the payment of taxes; many Liberals were anxious to secure special recognition for electors of admitted capacity—in short, an educational qualification; the Radicals inside and Socialists outside Parliament demonstrated continually in favour of universal, direct and equal suffrage. The claim for universal suffrage was recognized by granting to every male Belgian who had attained the age of twenty-five years the right to vote, but a counterpoise to so democratic a suffrage was sought in the granting of additional votes to electors possessing specified qualifications. A supplementary vote was awarded to every married man who had attained the age of thirty-five years and paid five francs in taxes on his dwelling. An additional vote was given to every owner of land or house property of the value of two thousand francs, or to the possessor of an income of a hundred francs derived from Belgian public funds. Thus were met the demands of the Catholics for the representation of property, whilst the Liberal advocacy of the claims of the educated voter were met in a similar way. Two additional votes were awarded to those who had obtained a diploma of higher education; to those who filled, or had filled, a public position; or to those engaged in a profession which implied the possession of a good education. The highest number of votes awarded to any elector, for parliamentary purposes, whatever qualifications he might possess, was three.

Compulsory voting.

The exercise of the franchise is regarded in Belgium as a duty which each citizen owes to the State, and the obligatory vote is therefore universally accepted without demur. The elector must attend at the polling place, take his ballot paper and deposit it in the ballot box. If he places the ballot paper in the urn without voting there are no means of ascertaining the fact; but unless he forwards to the Electoral Officer an explanation, in due form, of his absence from the polling booth he is liable to prosecution. The percentage of abstentions is thus very low, but, in addition to this result, the obligatory vote has had a considerable indirect effect upon the character of electoral contests. Voting has become an official matter. Formerly, as here, it rested with the political organizations to persuade and exhort electors to vote; now, each elector receives from the Returning Officer an official command to attend at the polling place.

Partial renewal of chamber.

The third difference—the partial renewal of the Chambers—dates from the constitution of 1831, and the reason for its adoption was the same as that which underlies the partial renewal of English municipal councils—the desire to ensure continuity in the composition and proceedings of Parliament. There was some justification for this practice under the old voting methods, for then the result of elections largely depended, as is the case in England to-day, upon the chance distribution of party strength. The composition of the Chamber of Representatives was liable to violent oscillations and changes, and the partial renewal of the Chambers moderated the violence of these changes. But whilst the partial renewal may be defended on these grounds, it has two distinct disadvantages. When only one-half of the Chamber is to be elected (as in the renewal of only one-third of our municipal Councils) a considerable diminution takes place in the amount of public interest evoked by an election. There is, moreover, a further and even more serious drawback that, when the election turns upon a question of vital importance, such for instance as the annexation of the Congo, the verdict of only one-half the people is obtained. In 1908 elections took place in four provinces only—East Flanders, Hainaut, Liege, and Limbourg—and so, whilst the citizens of Ghent and Liege were expressing their opinion upon the policy of the Government, the citizens of Brussels were reduced to the position of spectators of a fight in which doubtless many would have liked to have taken a part. The introduction of proportional representation has rendered this particular feature of the Belgian electoral system quite unnecessary. Electors are not so fickle as an irrational method of voting made them appear to be.

The presentation of lists.

For the purpose of parliamentary elections each of the nine provinces of Belgium is divided into large constituencies returning several members; Brussels returns twenty-one members, Ghent eleven, but several of the smaller constituencies return as few as three representatives. Fifteen days before the date of the election lists of candidates which, before presentation, must have received the support of at least one hundred electors, are sent to the returning officer. After verification, each list is given an official number and the lists are then published, no official title other than the number being given to the lists. In the copy of the ballot paper used at Ghent, shown on the opposite page, list No. 1 was presented by the Catholics; No. 2 by the Liberals; No. 3 by those Socialists who were dissatisfied with their party's list; No. 4 by the small tradesmen; No. 5 by the official Socialists; whilst No. 6 contains the name of a candidate standing as an independent. It will be observed that each of the first five lists is divided into two parts separated by the word "Suppleants." The candidates so described are not taken into account in the actual election of representatives; they are, however, voted for in the same way and at the same time as the other candidates, and are called upon (in the order determined by the result of the election) to fill any vacancy occasioned by the retirement or death of a duly-elected representative belonging to the same list. This arrangement obviates the necessity for bye-elections, and the relative strength of parties remains the same from the time of one election to the next. The order in which the names of the candidates appear upon the lists is arranged by the organizations responsible for their presentation. It should, however, be stated that this provision, about which public opinion is much divided, is not an essential feature of a proportional system. It was not a part of the original proposals of M. Beernaert, and it certainly strengthens the hands of political organizations, although, as will be shown subsequently, proportional representation considerably modifies, if it does not altogether prevent, abuse of the power conceded to political bodies.



The act of voting.

The work of the elector is simplicity itself. He can select one list or one candidate in a list but not more for each of the votes to which he may be entitled. His choice can be recorded in four different ways. In each case the act of voting consists in pencilling one or other of the white spots contained in the black squares at the head of the lists or against the names of individual candidates. In the first place, the elector may vote by blackening the spot at the head of the list. The significance of such a vote is that the elector votes for the list, and, at the same time, approves of the order in which the candidates have been arranged by the party organization. Naturally all the party organizations and journals advise their supporters to vote in this way.

Secondly, the elector may vote by blackening the white spot against the name of one of the "effective" candidates on one of the lists. Such a vote implies that the elector votes for the list on which the candidate's name appears, but that, instead of approving of the order in which the candidates have been arranged, he prefers the particular candidate he has marked. The third and fourth methods are but variations of the second. The elector can indicate a preference for one of the supplementary candidates, or he can indicate preferences for an effective and also for a supplementary candidate. In brief, the elector votes for one of the lists, and either approves of the list as arranged or indicates the change he desires.

The allotment of seats to parties.

The number of representatives awarded to each party is determined by the method formulated by M. Victor d'Hondt, a professor of the University of Ghent. Its working may best be shown by an illustration. Let it be assumed that three lists have been presented; that they have obtained 8000, 7500, and 4500 votes respectively, and that there are five vacancies to be filled. The total number of votes for each list is divided successively by the numbers 1, 2, 3, and so on, and the resulting numbers are arranged thus:—

List No. 1. List No. 2. List No. 3. 8,000 7,500 4,500 4,000 3,750 2,250 2,666 2,500 1,500

The five highest numbers (five being the number of vacancies to be filled) are then arranged in order of magnitude as follows:—

8,000 7,500 4,500 4,000 3,750

The lowest of these numbers, 3750, is called the "common divisor"[1] or the "electoral quotient," and forms the basis for the allotment of seats. The number of votes obtained by each of the lists is divided by the "common divisor" thus:—

8,000 divided by 3,750 = 2 with a remainder of 500. 7,500 " 3,750 = 2 4,500 " 3,750 = 1 with a remainder of 750.

The first list contains the "electoral quotient" twice, the second twice, and the third once, and the five seats are allotted accordingly. Each party obtains one representative for every quota of voters which it can rally to its support, all fractions of "quotas" being disregarded.

The method of determining the electoral quotient may appear at first sight rather empirical, but the rule is merely the arithmetical expression, in a form convenient for returning officers, of the following train of reasoning. The three lists with 8000, 7500, and 4500 supporters are competing for seats. The first seat has to be allotted; to which list is it to go? Plainly to the list with 8000 supporters. Then the second seat has to be disposed of; to which list is it to go? If it is given to the first list, then the supporters of the first list will have two members in all, or one member for each 4000 votes. This would be unfair while 7500 supporters of the second list are unrepresented, therefore the second seat is allotted to the list with 7500 supporters. Similar reasoning will give the third seat to the list with 4500 supporters, the fourth to the list with 8000 supporters, which now will rightly have one representative for each 4000, and the fifth to the list with 7500. The question in each case is to what list must the seat be allotted in such a way that no one group of unrepresented electors is larger than a represented group. The separate allotment of seats one by one in accordance with the foregoing reasoning may be shown thus:—

8,000 (List No. 1) 7,500 ( " No. 2) 4,500 ( " No. 3) 4,000 ( " No. 1) 3,750 ( " No. 2)

This result of course agrees with that obtained by the official process of dividing the total of each list by the electoral quotient.

The selection of successful candidates.

The seats having been apportioned to the respective lists it becomes necessary to ascertain which of the candidates on the respective lists are to be declared elected. In this second process it will be seen now great an advantage is obtained by the candidates at the top of each list.[2] A11 the votes marked in the space at the top of a list, i.e., list votes, form a pool from which the candidates of the list draw in succession as many votes as are necessary to make their individual total equal to the electoral quotient, the process continuing until the pool is exhausted. In the example already given, assume that List No. 1 consists of three candidates, A, B, and C, arranged in the order named, and that the 8000 supporters of the list have given their votes as follows:—

Votes at the head of the List 4,000 Preferential votes for A 600 " " B 500 " " C 3,000 ——- Total 8,000

Candidate A, being the first in order on the list, has the first claim on the votes recorded for the list. The electoral quotient is 3750, and A's total 500 is raised to this number by the addition of 3250 votes taken from those recorded for the list. This secures his election, and there remain 750 list votes which are attributed to candidate B, this candidate being the second in order on the list. B, however, also had 500 votes recorded against his name, and his total poll therefore amounts to 1250. But candidate C has obtained 3000 votes, all recorded for himself personally, and as this total exceeds B's total of 1250, C would be declared elected. The two candidates chosen from List No. 1 would, in this case, be A and C. The successful supplementary candidates are ascertained in the same way.

A Belgian election. Ghent, 1908: the poll.

In a Belgian election the polling proceeds very smoothly and quietly. This is largely due to the fact that the law for compulsory voting has relieved the party organizations of the necessity of whipping up their supporters to the poll. At the election of Ghent, which the author was privileged to witness, the candidates for the Chamber of Representatives were as given in the ballot paper on page 177. It will be seen that six lists of candidates were presented, but in the election of Senators only the three chief organizations took part. There were eleven members of the House of Representatives and five Senators to be elected.

The constituency was divided into 350 polling districts, the maximum number of electors for a district being 500. To each district was assigned a polling place in charge of a presiding officer, appointed by the returning officer of the district; the presiding officer was assisted by four citizens, each of whom was required to be in possession of the maximum number of votes, and to be at least forty years of age. In addition, the party organizations sent duly accredited witnesses to watch against possible fraud, and to assure themselves of the absolute regularity of the proceedings. The poll opened at 8 A.M. Each elector had to present his official "summons" to vote, and received from the presiding officer one, two, or three ballot papers according to the number of votes to which he was entitled. The elector took the papers to a private compartment, as in an English election, marked them, placed them in the ballot box and received back his official letter, now stamped—evidence, if need be, that he had carried out the obligation imposed upon him by law. At 1 P.M. the poll was closed; the ballot boxes were opened and the ballot papers counted in the presence of the assessors and party witnesses for the purpose of ascertaining that all papers in the possession of the presiding officer at the opening of the poll had been duly accounted for.

The counting of the votes.]

In order to maintain as far as possible, not only the secrecy of the individual vote, but the secrecy of the vote of any locality, the votes of three polling places were counted together, the grouping of polling places for this purpose having been previously determined by lot. Thus the votes counted at the town hall (polling district No. 1) were those recorded in the districts Nos. 1, 112, and 94. The proceedings were directed by the presiding officer of the first polling place, assisted by the presiding officers of the other two. The only other persons present were witnesses representing the three chief parties. The counting commenced soon after 3 P.M., and was completed, both for the Senate and Chamber, by 7 P.M. The papers were sorted according to the votes given for each list, subsidiary heaps being made for those candidates who had received individual votes of preference. A separate heap was made of spoiled and blank voting papers, but it was evident from the very commencement of the proceedings that the method of voting had presented no difficulty to the elector. Of the 1370 votes recorded in this division for candidates for the Chamber there were but twenty-six spoiled papers; of these thirteen were blank, indicating that the voters, although attending the poll, did not wish to record any opinion. The thirteen other papers showed in nearly every case some confusion in the mind of the elector with the elections for the communal councils, when the elector can give several votes of preference. The official returns, after endorsement, were forwarded by post to the returning officer, whose duty it was to prepare the returns for the whole constituency. The figures for each district were given to the press at the close of the count, and special editions of the journals, containing the probable result of the election, were issued the same evening.

The final process.

The compilation of the returns for the whole constituency took place on the following day. The returning officer presided, and was assisted by four assessors, a secretary and three witnesses, who attended on behalf of the chief parties. In addition there were two professional calculators, who were responsible for the accuracy of the arithmetical processes. The proceedings, in brief, consisted in extracting the details of the returns furnished by the 120 counting places. The final sheet for each list showed not only the total number of votes obtained by the party, but the number of votes of preference recorded for each candidate. The votes for each list were as follows:—

List No.1. List No.2. List No.3. List No.4. List No.5. List No.6. 78,868 39,788 913 1,094 23,118 271

The process of allotting the seats to the respective parties then commenced. The totals for each list were divided by the numbers 1, 2, 3, and so on, and arranged thus:—

List List List List List List No. 1. No. 2. No. 3. No. 4. No. 5. No. 6 78,865 39,788 913 1,094 23,118 271 39,432 19,894 11,559 26,288 13,262 19,716 9,947 15,773 13,144 11,266

The eleven highest figures thus obtained were then arranged in order of magnitude, and the seats allotted accordingly:—

1st Seat 78,865 (List No. 1—Catholic) 2nd " 39,783 ( " No. 2—Liberal) 3rd " 39,432 ( " No. 1—Catholic) 4th " 26,288 ( " No. 1—Catholic) 5th " 23,118 ( " No. 5—Socialist) 6th " 19,894 ( " No. 2—Liberal) 7th " 19,716 ( " No. 1—Catholic) 8th " 15,773 ( " No. 1—Catholic) 9th " 13,262 ( " No. 2—Liberal) 10th " 13,144 ( " No. 1—Catholic) 11th " 11,559 ( " No. 5—Socialist)

Thus the Catholics, Liberals, and Socialists obtained six, three, and ten seats respectively. It will be noticed that the eleventh figure, 11,559, which is the "common divisor," or "electoral quotient," is contained six times in the Catholic total, with a remainder of 9511; three times in the Liberal total, with a remainder of 5000; and twice in the Socialist total.

The highest number of preferences recorded for any individual candidate (although placards had been posted inviting votes of preference for M. Buysse, the candidate fourth on the Liberal list, and for M. Cambier, the candidate third on the Socialist list) were 1914 and 1635, much too small to effect any change in the order of the candidates as arranged by the associations. It remains to add that the task was accomplished with perfect regularity and despatch; the figures were checked at each stage, but as the number of votes polled in the double election (for the Senate and for the Chamber) amounted to no less than 270,892, it is not surprising that the compilation of the final figures was not completed until midnight.

Public opinion favorable to the system.

This was the fifth parliamentary election[3] in which the system of proportional representation has been put to the test; its practicability, both from the point of view of the elector and of the returning officer, is now no longer open to question. Interviews on the effects of the system with Catholic leaders like M. Beernaert or M. Van den Heuvel, with Liberals like Count Goblet d'Alviella, or M. Gustave Abel, the editor of La Flandre Liberale, or with Socialists like M. Anseele, revealed the fact that there is no party in Belgium which desires to return to the former electoral system. The Liberals and Socialists are hostile to plural voting, but their attitude to proportional representation may be summed up in the desire to make the system more perfect.[4] Constituencies returning three or four members are not sufficiently large to do complete justice to a system of proportional representation, and many, among whom must be included M. Vandervelde, desire the grouping of these smaller constituencies into larger ones. The general trend of public opinion is in complete agreement with the views of party leaders, and found forcible expression in the press comments on the elections in 1908 for the provincial councils.

The relation of the Belgian to other list systems.

The Belgian list method, although simple in form, is based upon a very careful examination of earlier list systems, and represents an attempt to avoid the defects and inconveniences of those systems. As already stated, the vote in a "list" system has two aspects. Indeed, in the canton of Solothurn in Switzerland each elector is invited, first, to record his vote for a list as a separate act, and secondly, to vote for the particular candidate he prefers.

In tracing the growth of the Belgian system it will be best to consider these two aspects separately, and, in the first place, the vote in so far as it affects the fortunes of the list. The object in view—the allotment of the seats in proportion to the total number of votes obtained by the respective lists—would seem quite simple of attainment, and would be so were the totals obtained by each list such that it was possible to divide the seats among them in exact proportion. Voters do not, however, group themselves in exact proportion, and it becomes necessary therefore to devise a rule of distribution that shall approximate to the desired end as closely as possible.

The different methods of apportioning seats to lists.

The first rule—a very simple one—was adopted because, in the words of Ernest Naville, "it seemed most intelligible to the general public." The grand total of votes polled by the different lists was divided by the total number of seats, and the distribution of seats was based upon the quotient, or "quota" thus obtained. The total of each list was divided by the quota for the purpose of ascertaining the number of seats to which it was entitled. The answers, as will be seen from the following example, usually contained fractions. Assume that seven seats are to be distributed among three lists, A, B, C; that the grand total of votes is 7000, and that the respective lists have polled as follows:—

List A 2,850 votes " B 2,650 " " C 1,500 " ——- Total 7,000

The quotient in this case is 1000. The totals of the lists A, B, and C contain the quotient twice, twice and once respectively, but in each case with a remainder, and it is the remainder that constitutes the difficulty. According to the earliest list schemes the remaining seats were allotted to the lists having the largest remainders, and, in the example given, lists A and B would each receive an additional seat. Party organizers were not slow to perceive that it was advisable to obtain as many of the largest remainders as they could, and considerable dissatisfaction arose in Ticino from the action of the Conservatives, who very skilfully divided their forces into two groups, thereby obtaining additional seats. A simple example will explain. Assume that three deputies are to be elected, that the grand total of votes is 3000, and that the party votes are as follows:—

Party A 1,600 votes " B 1,400 " ——- Total 3,000

The quota would be 1000 votes. Party A, having the larger remainder, would obtain two seats, and party B only one seat; but if party B should present two lists and arrange for the division of its voting force, the following result might ensue:—

Party A 1,600 votes " B1 700 " " B2 700 " ——- Total 3,000

The quota would still be 1000 votes, but party A would only obtain one seat, whereas party B would obtain two, because each of its two lists would show a remainder larger than A's remainder. This possibility led to a modification of the rule, and the seats remaining after the first distribution were allotted to the largest parties. But this was also far from satisfactory, as will be seen from the following example taken from a Ticino election:[5]—

Conservatives 614 votes Radicals 399 " ——- Total 1,013

The constituency to which the figures refer returned five members; the quotient therefore was 202, and the Conservatives obtained three seats on the first distribution, and the Radicals one. As, under the rule, the remaining seat was allotted to the largest party, the Conservatives obtained four seats out of the five when, obviously, the true proportion was three to two.

The rule subsequently devised aimed at reducing the importance of remainders in the allotment of seats. The total of each list was divided by the number of seats plus one. This method yielded a smaller quota than the original rule and enabled more seats to be allotted at the first distribution. The final improvement, however, took the form of devising a rule which should so allot the seats to different parties that after the first distribution there should be no seats remaining unallotted. This is the great merit of the Belgian or d'Hondt rule, which has already been fully described.

Criticism of d'Hondt Rule.

The d'Hondt rule certainly accomplishes its purpose; it furnishes a measuring rod by which to measure off the number of seats won by each list.[6] But the rule is not without its critics.[7] As in the earlier Swiss methods objection was taken to the undue favouring of certain remainders, so in Belgium objection is taken to the fact that remainders are not taken into account at all. The Belgian rule works to the advantage of the largest party, a fact that many may consider as a point in its favour.

A further simple example will explain how the larger parties gain. Assume that eleven seats are being contested by three parties, whose votes are as follows:—

Party A 6,000 votes " B 4,800 " " C 1,900 " ——— Total 12,700

Arrange these numbers in a line, and divide successively by 1, 2, 3, and so on, thus:—

Party A. Party B. Party C. 6,000 4,800 1,900 3,000 2,400 960 2,000 1,600 1,500 1,200 1,200 960 1,000

The eleventh highest number, which constitutes the measuring rod, will be found to be 1000; the largest party obtains six seats, the second party obtains four seats, with a remainder of 800 votes, and the third only one seat, with a remainder of 900 votes. The two smaller parties taken together poll 6700 votes but only obtain five seats, as compared with the six seats obtained by the larger party with 6000 votes; the two remainders of 800 and 900 votes, which together constitute more than a quota, having no influence on the result of the election. Even if, in the allotment of seats, the largest party has a remainder of votes not utilized, yet this remainder necessarily bears a smaller proportion to the total of the votes polled than is the case with a smaller party. Thus the system works steadily in favour of the larger party.

The question of remainders, or votes not utilized in the distribution of seats, is of minor importance when the constituencies return a large number of members. When, for example, as in the city of Brussels, there are twenty-one members to be elected, the votes not utilized bear a small proportion to those that have been taken into account in the allotment of seats. In Belgium, however, there are several constituencies returning as few as three members, and there is naturally a demand that these constituencies should be united so that the method of distribution should yield more accurate results.

If the d'Hondt rule, like every other method of distribution, is open to criticism from the point of view of theoretical perfection, it must be admitted that in practice it yields excellent results. The election at Ghent resulted in the return of six Catholics, three Liberals and two Socialists; it would have been impossible to have allotted the seats more fairly. Under the old non-proportional method the Catholics would have obtained eleven representatives and the Liberals and Socialists none. The immeasurable improvement effected by every true proportional method is apt to be overlooked in the critical examination of the working of these methods in those extreme cases which rarely occur in practice.

The formation of "cartels."

The steady working of the d'Hondt rule in favour of the larger parties has, however, not escaped the attention of advocates of proportional representation. The late Professor Hagenbach-Bischoff has formulated the proposal that parties should be allowed to put forward combined lists, and that in the first allotment of seats the totals of the combined lists should be taken as the basis of distribution. The need of some such provision may be shown by an example used in illustration of the d'Hondt system, at a meeting held under the auspices of the French Proportional Representation League.[8] A constituency with eleven members was taken; four lists, A, B, C, and D, received 6498, 2502, 1499, and 501 votes respectively; the d'Hondt rule made 834 the measuring rod, and gave A seven members, B three, C one, and D none. The question was asked why provision was not made for the transfer of the votes from list D to list C, so that if, for example, these lists were put forward by Radical-Socialists and by Socialists respectively, the parties might obtain the additional seat to which their combined totals entitled them. It will be seen that lists C and D, with a total of 2000 votes (more than twice 834), obtained but one representative, while list A, with 6498 votes, obtained seven representatives.[9]

Professor Hagenbach-Bischoffs proposal, which would meet this difficulty, has not been embodied in the Belgian law, but "cartels" (arrangements for the presentation of a common list) are formed between the Liberals and Socialists so as to lessen their loss of representation due to the working of the d'Hondt rule. The "cartels," however, do not give satisfaction, as experience shows that many Liberals who would vote for a Liberal list decline to vote for a "cartel" of Liberals and Socialists; whilst, on the other hand, extreme Socialists decline to support a Liberal-Socialist coalition. In the Finnish system, however, provision is made for the combination of lists in accordance with Professor Hagenbach-Bischoff's suggestion. Indeed, as the Finnish law forbids any list to contain more than three names, some such provision was necessary in order to allow each separate party to nominate a full list of candidates.

The experience of the Belgian "cartels" would seem to show that, even where party organization and discipline are highly developed, many electors resent the disposal of their votes by a bargain between the organizations concerned. The single transferable vote, by allowing each elector to indicate his second choice in the way in which he himself prefers, would enable smaller parties to obtain their share of representation without involving a preliminary compact between party organizations. A list system seems to establish a rigid division between parties, whilst there is no such corresponding rigid division in the minds of many electors. The model elections conducted by the Proportional Representation Society cannot perhaps be accepted as a conclusive guide to the action of voters at a real election, yet the number of Liberals who, in the last of these elections, gave an effective preference to a representative of the Independent Labour Party, in the person of Mr. Henderson, was very noteworthy. In the Belgian system no such fluidity is possible; the Liberal electors would be shut off from any relation with the supporters of Mr. Henderson, who could figure only upon the Labour Party's list.

The different methods of selecting successful candidates.

It will be seen that the problem of allotting seats to lists has been solved in several different ways. Similarly, different methods have been tried for the purpose of selecting the successful candidates from the respective lists. The instructions to voters vary accordingly. The earlier schemes (and the practice obtains in several Swiss cantons to-day) provided that each elector should have as many votes as there were members to be elected, and that he might distribute (without the privilege of cumulating) his votes over the whole of the candidates nominated, selecting, if he desired, some names from one list, some from another, and some from another. After the number of seats secured by each list had been ascertained those candidates were declared elected who, in the respective lists, had obtained the highest number of individual votes.

Panachage.

The practice of voting for candidates belonging to different lists—panachage, as it is called—has evoked considerable discussion, and still gives rise to differences of opinion among the advocates of proportional representation on the Continent. At first sight there would appear to be nothing to discuss, and that there was no possible reason why the elector should not be allowed to exercise his choice in the freest manner. It has, however, been found that this privilege can be used in an unfair way. When each elector has as many votes as there are candidates, and is not permitted to cumulate his votes on any one, it usually happens that the votes obtained by individual candidates in any given list vary but little in number. When in some elections it was realized that the party could only obtain a certain number of seats, but that it had a few hundred votes to spare, some extreme partisans used these votes for the purpose of voting for the least competent men of their opponents' list, and their action sometimes resulted in the election of those men in preference to the more competent men of the party. The danger from this cause would appear to be exaggerated, but although success has seldom attended the abuse of panachage, the fear of a successful attempt has a disturbing influence. The later Swiss laws allow electors to cumulate three votes, but not more, upon any one candidate, so that the success of popular candidates is assured.

The single vote and the case de tete.

The Belgian parliamentary system suppresses panachage, and that in a most effective way. In this system each elector has but one vote, and therefore can only vote for one candidate. In addition, the Belgian system confers upon the organization presenting a list the right to arrange the order in which the candidates shall appear upon the list, and, further, it provides that the voter may approve of this arrangement by voting at the head of the list in the space provided for that purpose and which is known as the case de tete. Party organizations naturally advise their supporters to vote in this way. Public opinion is divided on this feature of the Belgian system, but M. Van den Heuvel, formerly Minister of Justice, who took a responsible part in the passing of the law, and with whom the author discussed this provision, defended it most vigorously, on the ground that the party as a whole had a right to determine which of its members should be elected. In the absence of the provision referred to it might happen that some candidate would be elected in preference to one who was more generally approved of by the party. This may be made clear by an example given by M. Van den Heuvel himself. A, B, C and D are candidates. Suppose that the party is strong enough to return three candidates, but no more, and that five-sixths of the party are in favour of candidates A, B and C, whilst the minority, one-sixth, are ardently in favour of candidate D. It will be necessary that the majority of the party (the five-sixths) should cleverly divide their votes equally between the candidates A, B and C in order to prevent the possibility of candidate D being elected by a small minority of the party. A little reflection will show that in the absence of any such provision the popular candidate of the majority, say A, might attract too large a proportion of the votes, thereby allowing D to pass B or C. Each provision of the Belgian system has been most carefully thought out, and, if it strengthens the hands of party organizations, it does so in order to secure the representation of the party by the candidates most generally approved. It may, however, be pointed out that had the single transferable vote been used, the candidates A, B and C, who, in M. Van den Heuvel's example, were supported by five-sixths of the party, would have been sure of election; there would have been no need to have conferred a special privilege upon the party organizations.

The limited and cumulative vote.

The French Proportional Representation League, which, impressed with the simplicity of the Belgian system, desired to introduce it into France, refrained from advocating the adoption of the case de tete, and suggested that the order in which candidates should be declared elected on each list should be determined by the votes of the electors. The French League in its first proposal recommended that each elector should, as in Belgium, have but one vote. It was soon realized that the popular candidate of the party might attract a large majority of the votes, and that, in consequence, candidates might be elected who were the nominees of only a small section of the party. The League in its second proposal recommended the use of the limited vote, each elector having two votes when six deputies were to be elected, and three in larger constituencies. The League, however, followed the Belgian practice in confining the choice of the elector to candidates on one list. This proposition was examined in 1905 by the Commission du Suffrage Universel, which, in the Report, declared that it was impossible to approve of such a limitation of the elector's freedom. "Nous ne pouvons," runs the Report, "laisser si etroitment enchainer, garrotter, ligotter l'electeur proclame souverain et qui doit en tout cas etre libre." The Committee recommended the use of the limited vote without the restriction recommended by the League. In a further Report, issued in 1907, this Committee again emphasized the necessity of leaving the elector quite free in the choice of candidates, and a new Bill, drafted by the Committee, provided that each elector should have as many votes as there were deputies to be elected, and that he should be allowed to cumulate the whole, or several of his votes, upon any one candidate. Where, however, the cumulative vote has been introduced into recent Swiss laws, as in that of the Canton of Bale City, the elector is not permitted to cumulate more than three votes upon any one candidate. It will thus be seen that the single vote, the multiple vote without the privilege of cumulating, the limited vote, and the cumulative vote, have all been proposed or adopted as methods of determining which candidates shall be declared elected.

Special characteristics of Swedish and Finnish systems.

This summary of the different methods used in solving the double problem of a list system—the allotment of seats to parties and the selection of successful candidates—is not fully complete.[10] Special features have been incorporated in the Swedish and Finnish systems for the purpose of securing as much freedom of action as possible to electors, and these systems are described in Appendices Nos. III. and IV. The differences between the various list systems are, however, not so great as those between a list system and the single transferable vote, but the consideration of these must be reserved for the next chapter.

[Footnote 1: The text of the Belgian law (Art. 263 of the Electoral Code) runs as follows: "Le bureau principal divise successivement par 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, &c. le chiftre electoral de chacune des listes et range les quotients dans l'ordre de leur importance jusqu'a concurrence d'un nombre total de quotients egal a celui des membres a elire. Le dernier quotient sert de diviseur electoral.

"La repartition entre les listes s'opere en attribuant a chacune d'elles autant de sieges que son chiffre electoral comprend de fois ce diviseur."]

[Footnote 2: The order in which the names appear is arranged by the party presenting the lists.]

[Footnote 3: A further election (the sixth) took place in 1910.]

[Footnote 4: See La Representation Proportionnelle integrale, 1910. Felix Goblet d'Alviella (fils).]

[Footnote 5: Rapport de la Commission du Suffrage Universel, 1905, p. 45.]

[Footnote 6: Professor Hagenbach-Bischoff, of Bale, formulated a different rule which is finding favour in Swiss cantons. The quota which will ensure the apportionment of all the seats among the lists without remainder is ascertained by trial. In practice the same results are obtained as with the d'Hondt rule. Full directions for applying the rule are contained in Clause XIII. of the law adopted for the canton of Bale Town.—Appendix IX.]

[Footnote 7: For recent French criticism, see page 202.]

[Footnote 8: At Lille, December 1906.]

[Footnote 9: The new French Bill (see Appendix X.) provides for the presentation of combined lists (apparentement).]

[Footnote 10: Cf. La Repesentation Proportionelle en France et en Belgique, M. Georges Lachapelle (1911) and the new report of the Commission du Suffrage Universel (No. 826, Chambre des Deputes, 1911). M. Lachapelle recommends a new proposal, le systeme du nombre unique. The electoral quotient for all constituencies would be fixed by law at, say, 15,000 votes. The number of deputies chosen at each election would be allowed to vary. Each list in each constituency would receive as many seats as its total contained the quotient. The constituencies would be grouped into divisions. The votes remaining over after the allotment of seats in each constituency would be added together, and further seats would then be allotted to the respective lists.]



CHAPTER IX

A COMPARISON OF LIST SYSTEMS WITH THE SINGLE TRANSFERABLE VOTE

"Les partis sont une institution de la vie politiquo actuelle. Ils sont une partie, non ecrite, de la Constitution."—P. G. LA CHESNAIS

Influence of previous conditions.]

List methods of proportional representation have been favoured on the Continent, the transferable vote in English-speaking countries, and the question naturally arises, whence this difference? It would appear from the history of proportional representation that advocates of the reform have always kept in mind local customs, and have adapted their proposals to them. Thus a list system of proportional representation was adopted in Switzerland because such a system was more easily grafted upon previous electoral conditions. This is the explanation given by Ernest Naville, who for more than forty years was the leading advocate of electoral reform in Switzerland, in a letter[1] addressed to the late Miss Spence of Adelaide, South Australia. "The Swiss Cantons," said he, "have adopted the system of competing lists. I do not think the system is the best, but, as it involved the least departure from customary practices, it was the system for which acceptance could be more easily obtained. My ideal is a system which leaves the electors face to face with the candidates without the intervention of lists presented by parties; that is to say, that the method of voting indicated at the end of the pamphlet[2] forwarded by you has my preference. It is the system which I, inspired by the works of Mr. Hare, first proposed in Geneva, but, in order to obtain a practical result, account has to be taken of the habits and prejudices of the public to which the appeal is made, and the best must often be renounced in order to obtain what is possible in certain given circumstances." In a further letter Professor Naville was even more emphatic. "I consider," said he, "the Hare system preferable to that of competing lists. I have always thought so. I have always said so. But our Swiss people are so accustomed to the scrutin de liste, or multiple vote, that we could not obtain from them the profound modification which would have been necessary to pass to the Hare-Spence system."

Partly the basis of representation in a list system.

The long familiarity of the Belgian electors with the scrutin de liste also paved the way for the adoption of the list system of proportional representation, but there is an additional reason why list systems have found favour on the Continent. Some continental writers consider that parties as such are alone entitled to representation in Parliament, and are not enamoured of any scheme which makes personal representation possible. This view is also taken by Mr. J. Ramsay Macdonald, who, speaking of the Belgian scheme, says that "it makes party grouping the most important consideration in forming the legislative order, and is therefore much truer to the facts of Government than any other proportional representation scheme."[3] The Royal Commission on Electoral Systems also seems to have accepted the continental theory, that "in political elections it is the balance of parties which is of primary importance." In England, however, representation has never theoretically been based upon party. The limited vote, the cumulative vote, the double vote in double-member constituencies, have all allowed the elector complete freedom of action to follow party instructions, or to act independently. The electoral method has not been chosen to suit the convenience of party organizations; parties have had to adapt themselves to the system of voting. The single transferable vote in accordance with these traditions bases representation upon electors, and preserves to them freedom to vote as they please. So much is this the case that some critics consider it unsuitable for a system of proportional representation, and although Mill evidently regarded the Hare scheme not only as a system of personal representation, but as a plan for securing the representation of majorities and minorities in due proportion, the Royal Commission on Electoral Systems took the view that the transferable vote "was not originally invented as a system of proportional representation, but as a system of personal representation to secure the return of men as men, not as party units." Again, Professor Commons says that "the Hare system is advocated by those who, in a too doctrinaire fashion, wish to abolish political parties."[4] But in making this statement Professor Commons himself supplies the answer. "They apparently do not realize," says he, "the impossibility of acting in politics without large groups of individuals, nor do they perceive that the Hare system itself, though apparently a system of personal representation, would nevertheless result in party representation." The more complete organization of parties is a direct consequence of the more democratic franchise now existing. Political action in modern times without organization is impossible. The Johannesburg municipal elections in November 1909, despite the success of two independent candidates, showed that the most effective way of conducting elections with the transferable vote is that of organizations presenting lists of candidates. Indeed, so great a part does organization take in the political life of to-day that it is desirable, if possible, to have some counteracting influence. The transferable vote supplies this by securing for the elector the utmost measure of freedom of action.

This freedom of action is greatly appreciated by electors. A voter, asked after the Johannesburg elections to give his impressions of the new method of voting, stated that "the new system had put him on his mettle. He had never experienced so much pleasure in the act of voting; he had had to use his intelligence in discriminating between the claims of the various candidates." Voting with the single transferable vote ceases to be a purely mechanical operation, the voter becomes conscious of the fact that in voting he is selecting a representative. It is of little value to ask electors to exercise their intelligence if on the day of the poll they have no means of doing so. There was some complaint in Sweden after the first proportional representation elections because the new system compelled an elector, if he wished to use his vote with effect, to act rigidly with his party. With the transferable vote party action has sufficient play. Electors can freely combine and vote as parties, and effective organization will reap its legitimate reward. But the elector will not be constrained to act against his wishes. He will play an effective part in the election. In view of the great freedom conferred by the single transferable vote on electors, it is not surprising that the Royal Commission on Electoral Systems reported that the "Belgian system is foredoomed to rejection by English public opinion," and Mr. J. R. Macdonald states that "the British mind would not submit to this (the Belgian) simplest and most efficient form of proportional representation."

The freedom of the elector within the party.

Even when representation is based, as in the list systems, upon parties as such, it becomes necessary to determine the degree of liberty that shall be allowed to the individual elector in the exercise of the franchise. If a party has obtained five seats and the party has nominated seven candidates, how are the five successful ones to be selected, and what part is the elector to take in the selection? There is considerable dissatisfaction in Belgium with that part of the system which enables the party organizations to arrange the order in which the names shall appear upon the ballot paper, although this order may have been arrived at by a preliminary election among members of the party. In the election of 1910 there was a considerable increase in the number of voters who exercised their right of giving a vote of preference to individual candidates. The extensive use of this right resulted at Brussels in the alteration of the order of election as determined by the party organizations, and Count Goblet d'Alviella points out that this will demand the consideration of the political parties.[5] Some device such as that of making the vote transferable within the list will be required in order to ensure that the majority within the party shall obtain its full share of the representation. As stated in the previous chapter, the French Parliamentary Committee felt it necessary to provide for the elector a greater freedom of action than is possible under the Belgian system. In the report issued by this Committee in 1905 the use of the limited vote was recommended; in the report of 1907 the cumulative vote, which confers still greater freedom upon the elector, was proposed. In the Swedish system electors not only have full power to strike out, to add to or to vary the order in which candidates' names appear upon the ballot papers issued by the party organizations, but they have the opportunity of presenting a non-party list. The Finnish electoral law was deliberately framed so as not to interfere with or to check the liberty of the voter in making up the lists.[6] This law not only allows the names of candidates to figure on more than one list, but permits the voter to prepare a list of his own composed of any three of the candidates who have been duly nominated. In a list system two problems, the allotment of seats to parties and the selection of the successful candidates, have to be solved and the solution must in each case respect the personal freedom of the elector. With the single transferable vote the same mechanism solves both problems; it gives to each party its due proportion of seats, it determines in the most satisfactory way which of the candidates nominated by a party shall be declared elected, and it does not encroach in any way upon the elector's freedom of action. There is one point in which the single transferable vote differs essentially from the list systems. With the former the vote never passes out of the control of the voter, and the returning officer can only transfer the vote to some candidate whom the elector has named. With the list systems adopted in Belgium, Switzerland, Sweden and Finland, or with that recommended by the French Parliamentary Committee, a vote given for any one candidate is also a vote for the party which has nominated the candidate, and the vote may contribute to the success of some candidate of this party whose election the voter did not desire to advance. This fact explains the difficulties which have been associated with the formation of cartels in Belgium. A cartel is an agreement between two parties to present a common list, and if, as has taken place in some of the Belgian constituencies, Socialists and Liberals present a combined list, a Liberal by voting for one of the Liberal candidates of the cartel may contribute to the success of one of the Socialist candidates. The Socialist voter may, on the other hand, contribute to the return of a Liberal candidate. For this reason some Liberals and some Socialists refuse to support cartels. In Sweden it is possible that the elector's vote may, if he make use of a party ticket, contribute to the return of some candidate whom he may have struck off the list. If two parties agree to place the same motto at the head of their respective lists, which may be quite distinct, a member of one party may help to elect an additional candidate of the other party. Yet a list system affords no way by which votes can be transferred from one party to an allied party save by a cartel; if transferred at all they must be transferred en bloc from one party to another party, and not from one candidate to another candidate, in accordance with the expressed wishes of the elector. Mr. J. R. Macdonald states that "proportional representation seeks to prevent the intermingling of opinion on the margins of parties and sections of parties which is essential to ordered and organic social progress." The statement is in no sense true of the single transferable vote which affords every facility for the intermingling of opinion on the margins of parties and sections of parties, whilst even in Belgium groups within a party have always presented a common list.

Comparative accuracy.

Considerable discussion has taken place as to which of the list systems yield the most accurate results. It is obvious that as electors do not divide themselves into groups which are exactly one-fourth, one-fifth, or one-sixth of the whole, the utmost that a system of proportional representation can do in the allotment of seats is to approximate as closely as possible to the proportions in which the electors are divided. There is very little difference in the results obtained by the various list systems and by the single transferable vote. The Belgian (d'Hondt) rule slightly favours the larger party; this rule allots seats to parties according to the number of times the party total contains the common divisor, the votes remaining over being ignored. For this reason other advocates of list systems prefer the simple rule-of-three or methode rationelle.[7] With this system the total number of votes polled is divided by the number of seats. The totals gained by the respective lists are then divided by the quotient thus obtained and the seats allotted to the lists accordingly. If after the allotment of seats to the different lists there remain some seats not allotted, these are awarded to the lists with the largest numbers of votes not utilized. The transferable vote in practice, if not in theory, also awards seats to the various parties according to the number of times the party total contains the quota. If there is a seat not allotted it does not necessarily fall to the party having the largest number of votes not utilized. All the votes not utilized are taken into consideration, and the smaller remainders may, by combination, win the odd seat. For example, suppose that in a six-member constituency five seats have been allotted and three candidates remain in competition for the last seat with votes as follows:—

Candidate A 4,000 " B 3,000 " C 2,000

Then if the supporters of candidate C prefer B to A and have indicated this fact on the ballot papers, the votes given to C would be transferred to B, who would be elected to fill the last seat. With the d'Hondt rule remainders are ignored; with the "rational method" the largest remainders are favoured; with the single transferable vote the last seat is awarded to the majority of the electors not otherwise represented. The transferable vote therefore gives a result at least as accurate as any of the rules devised in connexion with the list systems. But in the majority of cases all three rules will yield the same result.

Panachage.

In the previous chapter reference has been made to the possible abuse of panachage. In order to prevent such practice the Belgian system provides that the elector shall vote for a member on one list only. In Switzerland the elector is permitted to vote for members of more than one list, and any abuse of this privilege is prevented by allowing the elector to cumulate as many as three votes upon any of his favourite candidates. This provision assures the return of the favourite candidates of each party. The problem hardly arises with the single transferable vote; the favourites of each party will doubtless always receive more votes than are sufficient to ensure their election. The elector who desires to advance the interests of his own party as much as possible must indicate his preferences among all the members of his own party before recording any preference for a candidate of another.

Applicability to non-political elections.

The single transferable vote possesses another advantage over list systems. It is not only applicable to political elections, but to all elections in which it is desired that the elected body should be representative in character, but in which party lists are undesirable. The British Medical Association has decided to conduct all its elections so far as possible by the transferable vote; Trades Unions have made use of it in the election of their committees; it has been used in Australia by the Labour party for the selection of parliamentary candidates by members of the party before the date of election. Thus the single transferable vote would produce a much to be desired uniformity in method in different elections.

Bye-elections.

The list systems have an advantage over the transferable vote in the simplicity of their solution of the problem of bye-elections. Under list systems bye-elections are abolished. But the preliminary question, whether it is desirable that they should be abolished, needs consideration. The Report of the Royal Commission on Electoral Systems says: "Neither the single transferable vote nor list systems provide for a solution of the problem of bye-elections which is both fitted to English ideas and practically satisfactory." The Report continues: "Bye-elections are generally regarded as valuable, if rough, tests of public approval or disapproval of the proceedings of the Government, and useful indications of the trend of political feeling. A system, therefore, which would abolish or seriously hamper them is bound to excite opposition."[8] If bye-elections are desirable because of the indications which they give of the trend of political feeling, then the large constituencies which the proportional system demands would add to their value. The opinion of a larger number of electors would be obtained.

Wherever the single transferable vote has been adopted bye-elections have been retained. In Tasmania, whenever a vacancy occurs the whole constituency is polled; the Transvaal Municipal Act allows single vacancies to remain unfilled, but provides for bye-elections when two or more seats become vacant. The Proportional Representation Society, in view of the demand for the retention of bye-elections, suggests that single vacancies should be immediately filled by a bye-election when they occur in a three-membered constituency, but that in larger areas no bye-election should be held until two seats are vacated. But is not the importance of bye-elections overrated? In many respects they are the least satisfactory feature of English elections, and it is noticeable that the change of opinion registered in a bye-election has often not been maintained when the same constituency is polled at a General Election. A considerable proportion of bye-elections are consequent upon the taking of office by members of Parliament, and it is generally agreed that such bye-elections are not necessary. Further, the House of Commons has already resolved that it is desirable to reduce the length of parliaments to five years, which in practice would mean a working life of four years. The shortening of parliaments would destroy what little value bye-elections possess.

With a system of proportional representation bye-elections may produce results which are unfair to the minority. If, for example, at a General Election a constituency returned four Conservatives, two Liberals, and one Socialist, and the Socialist member died or retired during the lifetime of the parliament, the largest party would at a bye-election be able to gain another member at the expense of the smallest party in the constituency. This possible injustice is avoided in the list systems by the abolition of bye-elections. Supplementary members are chosen at the time of the General Election, and these are called upon to fill vacancies in the order of their election. The party character of representation remains unchanged from one election to another. When the cumulative vote was used for School Board elections casual vacancies were filled by co-option, and the party in whose ranks the vacancy occurred was usually allowed to nominate his successor by consent of the whole Board. Doubtless were bye-elections abolished there would be a similar willingness to act fairly towards the smaller parties, but if it was felt desirable to bring the transferable vote into agreement with the practice followed in the list systems the necessary arrangements could be made. On the death or retirement of a member the quota of ballot papers by which he was elected, kept meanwhile under official seal, could be re-examined, and the candidate who had secured a majority of the highest preferences recorded on the papers could be called upon to fill the vacancy.

Relative simplicity of scrutiny.

Experience shows conclusively that proportional systems, even the most complex, present no great difficulty to the voter, and therefore there is little to choose between them. The work thrown upon the returning officer varies considerably, but in every country the returning officers have proved equal to their task. The author has been present at Belgian elections and at Swedish elections; he has conducted model elections in England, and has been present at elections in the Transvaal, and has therefore had some opportunity of judging different systems from the point of view of facility in the counting of votes. The conclusion arrived at is that the different schemes may be arranged in the following order:—

1. The single transferable vote when the surplus votes are taken from the top of the successful candidate's heap;

2. The Belgian list system with its single vote;

3. The single transferable vote with the surplus votes distributed proportionately to the next preferences, as prescribed in the Schedule of Lord Courtney's Municipal Representation Bill.

4. List systems in which more than one vote is recorded. With these, the counting increases in difficulty with the complexity of the scheme.

The reasons for this conclusion are briefly these: Whenever the ballot paper (as in the Belgian system and with the single transferable vote) represents but one vote only, the process of counting consists of sorting papers according to the votes given, and then in counting the heaps of papers so formed. Whenever there is more than one vote recorded upon a ballot paper it becomes necessary to extract the particulars of each paper upon recording sheets. This is the case in the London Borough Council elections, when the scrutin de liste in its simple form is used, and when, as in the list system proposed by the committee of the French Chamber, the elector may cumulate or distribute his votes as he pleases, selecting candidates from any or all the lists, this process of extracting the details of the ballot papers must involve considerable labour. By comparison, the process of sorting and counting ballot papers is extremely simple. The Belgian law makes provision for the employment of two "professional calculators," who are responsible for the accuracy of the arithmetical calculations, and if the more accurate form of the single transferable vote is adopted, it will be desirable that the returning officer should have two assistants whose special duty it should be to verify the accuracy of each stage of the process.

In any comparison between the two main systems of proportional representation there is no need to understate the advantages of either. The results which have followed from the adoption of list systems on the continent have shown how immeasurably superior these are to ordinary electoral methods. Even in the most rigid of these systems—the Belgian—there is within each party considerable freedom of opinion in respect of all political questions which do not spring directly from the principles on which the party is based. It is claimed, however, for the single transferable vote that it is more elastic than the most complex of list systems, that it more freely adapts itself to new political conditions, and that in small constituencies returning, say, five or seven members, it yields better results. Moreover, this system, based as it is upon the direct representation of the electors, has appealed with greater force to English-speaking peoples; it has its advocates in South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and Canada, as well as in England, and as a common electoral method for the British Empire is a desideratum in itself, the balance of advantage, at least for English-speaking peoples, would appear to be with the single transferable vote.

[Footnote 1: October 1894.]

[Footnote 2: An address given by Miss Spence at River House, Chelsea, London.]

[Footnote 3: Socialism and Government, vol. i. p. 146.]

[Footnote 4: Proportional Representation, New Edition, p. 104.]

[Footnote 5: "Il serait desirable que nos associations politiques se prononcent plus explicitement sur sa legitimite, si l'on ne veut pas que ce genre de propagande reste une duperie pour les candidats les plus scrupuleux." —Nos Partis Politiques au lendemain du 22 Mai 1910, p. 10.]

[Footnote 6: Cf. pamphlet, The Finnish Reform Bill, Helsingfors, 1906.]

[Footnote 7: Readers who desire to follow the discussion as to the comparative merits of the d'Hondt rule and the methode rationelle, should consult the following works:—

Examen Critique des Divers Precedes de Repartition Proportionnelle en Matiere Electorale, par M. E. Macquart; Revue Scientifique, 28 October 1905.

La Representation Proportionnelle et les Partis Politiques, par M. P.G. la Chesnais.

La Vraie Representation Proportionnelle, par M. Gaston Moch.]

[Footnote 8: Ibid., par. 83.]



CHAPTER X

PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION AND PARTY GOVERNMENT

"Parties form and re-form themselves; they come together, dissolve, and again come together; but in this flux and reflux a stability reigns such as we observe amid similar phenomena in the course of nature; and indeed it is the course of nature, only working in the world of politics instead of the world of physics."—LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH

"To think in programmes is Egyptian bondage, and works the sterilization of the political intellect."—AUGUSTINE BIRRELL

Hitherto the objection most often urged against proportional representation has been that it is impracticable; the successful working, however, of the single transferable vote in Tasmania, in the elections of the South African Senate and in the Transvaal Municipal elections, and of list systems in Belgium, Switzerland, Sweden, Wuertemberg and Finland has furnished a complete answer to this objection. Manhood suffrage obtains in Belgium, adult suffrage in Tasmania and Finland, and if, in countries possessing a franchise so democratic, proportional systems have proved successful, it is no longer possible to declare that proportional representation is impracticable. Indeed, the practicability of proportional representation is now generally admitted, and its critics prefer to lay stress upon objections of another character. They even complain, as does Professor Jenks, that "the supporters of the movement appear to be concentrating all their arguments on the feasibility of their project, quietly assuming that its desirability is axiomatic."[1] It does seem axiomatic that it is desirable that representative institutions should reflect the views of those represented, but it is now alleged that the representative principle is merely "a means of getting things done," that the chief function of the House of Commons is to provide the country with a strong Government, and that proportional representation would render these things impossible "because there would be no permanent majority strong enough to get its own way."

Proportional representation and the two-party system.

This fear of a weakened executive doubtless explains why many others who admit the justice and practicability of proportional representation, still hesitate to support a reform the effects of which may greatly modify existing parliamentary conditions. "We have still," said The Westminster Gazette,[2] "to be convinced that we shall do well to make still more difficult the maintenance of the two-party system, and that it seems to us would almost certainly be the effect of proportional representation." Ten years ago some professed supporters of proportional representation took up the extraordinary position of allowing it only in respect of two great parties within a State,[3] and quoted in support of their views the words of Professor Paul Reinsch in his work on World Politics: "It is still as true as when Burke wrote his famous defence of party, in his Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents, that, for the realization of political freedom, the organization of the electorate into regular and permanent parties is necessary. Parliamentary government has attained its highest success only in those countries where political power is held alternately by two great national parties." Is no allowance to be made for the fluidity of progressive democracy? Is it imagined that active political thought can be compelled to follow stereotyped channels? Too profound a respect for a system designed to meet former conditions led the Royal Commission on Electoral Methods to the conclusion that, "reviewing the whole of the evidence, and duly considering the gravity of the change involved, we are unable to report that a case has been made out before us for the adoption of the transferable vote here and now for elections to the House of Commons."[4] The Commission proceed "to emphasize the exact nature and limitations of this conclusion," which ultimately amounts to no more than a suggestion for the postponement of an inevitable change.[5] But the fact remains that the Royal Commission accepted the theory of government placed before it by those who desire to maintain the existing party system and who are of opinion that that system can only be maintained by single-member constituencies and the majority method of election. "On the question," says the Commission, "whether the representation of all parties in proportion to their voting strength is in itself desirable, we may point out that it is not a fair argument against the present system that it fails to produce such a result, because it does not profess to do so. A General Election is, in fact, considered by a large portion of the electorate of this country as practically a referendum on the question which of two governments shall be returned to power."[6] " ... The case of those who hold that the transferable vote is not capable of application in this country rests only to a very slight extent on its mechanical difficulties.... The most potent arguments are a theory of representation on the one hand and a theory of government on the other."[7] It is evident that the most important objection which advocates of proportional representation have to meet concerns its probable effect upon party organization and upon party government, and it is therefore necessary to consider this objection in detail.

Burke's view of party and party discipline.

In the first place, can Burke's definition of party be used in defence of modern party organization and discipline? The character of these has fundamentally changed since Burke's time. His conception of national parties and also, perhaps, of the probable influence of a system of proportional representation upon their formation may be gathered from his own words. "Party," says Burke, "is a body of men united for promoting by their joint endeavours the national interest upon some particular principle in which they are all agreed. For my part I find it impossible to conceive that any one believes in his own politics, or thinks them to be of any weight, who refuses to adopt the means of having them reduced into practice. It is the business of the speculative philosopher to mark the proper ends of government. It is the business of the politician, who is the philosopher in action, to find out proper means towards those ends, and to employ them with effect. Therefore every honourable connexion will avow it is their first purpose to pursue every just method to put the men who hold their opinions into such a condition as may enable them to carry their common plans into execution, with all the power and authority of the state." No advocate of proportional representation would in the least quarrel with Burke's definition of party or deny that sustained effort and efficient organization are absolutely essential if practical effect is to be given to political principles. Burke, however, did not contemplate a party system in which complete submission to the programme of the party was considered an essential condition of membership. Burke's definition of party must be read in conjunction with his own interpretation of the term. "In order," says he, "to throw an odium on political connexion, these politicians suppose it a necessary incident to it that you are blindly to follow the opinions of your party, when in direct opposition to your own clear ideas; a degree of servitude that no worthy man could bear the thought of submitting to; and such as, I believe, no connexions (except some court factions) ever could be so senselessly tyrannical as to impose. Men thinking freely will, in particular instances, think differently. But still as the greater part of the measures which arise in the course of public business are related to, or depend on, some great leading general principles in government, a man must be peculiarly unfortunate in the choice of his political company, if he does not agree with them at least nine times in ten. If he does not concur in these general principles upon which the party is founded, and which necessarily draw on a concurrence in their application, he ought from the beginning to have chosen some other, more conformable to his opinions."[8] Burke does not limit the number of parties to two, and if his authority is to be invoked in support of the maintenance of the two-party system, it can only be invoked in support of the maintenance of two parties which are based on such leading general principles as will cover the whole field of politics, and the organization of which is such as to leave to members of the party a considerable measure of freedom in respect of individual questions. "We may be confident," says Lord Courtney of Penwith, "that the two main divisions will survive, the one pressing forward and the other cautiously holding back,"[9] and in so far as it corresponds to the two main tendencies in human thought the two-party system will doubtless survive any change in voting method. But with the spread of political intelligence it cannot possibly survive the rigidity of modern discipline—a rigidity which Burke would have been the first to repudiate—nor can it survive the modern tendency towards the formation of parties for the purpose of carrying specific reforms.

Narrow basis fatal to a large party.

The complete transformation of the Conservative Party into a Tariff Reform Party would considerably narrow its basis, and any narrowing of the basis of one party must help to break down the two-party system. For although Tariff Reform is a matter of great national interest, having very far-reaching effects, it obviously does not cover the whole field of politics. There is no fundamental and necessary relation between Tariff Reform and Home Rule, the constitutional position of the House of Lords, or the special problem of the place of religion in national education. Nor does it necessarily or even naturally attract those cautious intellects which are the typical supporters of Conservatism. The strenuous efforts which have been made in recent years to exclude from the Unionist Party all who are unwilling to accept the policy of Tariff Reform have, it is true, been crowned with considerable success, but there is a limit to the process of unification. Should the advocates of this fiscal change, for example, have desired to make terms with the Nationalist party for the purpose of carrying their policy, any attempt to impose those terms upon all members of the party would have resulted in a further and probably a more serious split. In such circumstances parties necessarily give place to groups, and the fissiparous tendency is most apparent where party discipline is most rigid. The solidarity of the German Social Democratic Party will only be maintained by according liberty of action in local matters to the South German Socialists.[10] The formation of the French Unified Socialist Party was a work of considerable difficulty, and its maintenance will only be possible if its constituent parts can tolerate differences of opinion. The two sections of the English Labour Party have been able to work together by concentrating their efforts on reforms which are advocated by both, whilst the troubles which have arisen within the smaller group, the Independent Labour Party, have sprung from attempts to insist upon a narrow interpretation of the term Independent. The narrower the basis on which the parties are formed and the more rigid the discipline employed, the more difficult will become the maintenance of the two-party system. If, then, it is considered essential to the successful working of parliamentary government that there should be but two parties, these parties must be based on broad leading principles and must be so organized as to allow for differences of opinion on minor matters. With the increase in the number of questions of first-class importance it will, however, be difficult to maintain even the semblance of the two-party system, and in the absence of those more elastic political conditions which a system of proportional representation provides, absolutely impossible.

Proportional representation and party discipline.

The argument in the preceding paragraphs can be illustrated from the effect of proportional systems on party organization in those countries in which they are at present in force. In Belgium the prophecy was repeatedly made that the new law would result in the splitting of parties into petty factions, rendering parliamentary government impossible. Its real effect has been, if anything, of the contrary character. There are still but three Belgian parties—Catholic, Liberal, and Socialist. Their principles have tended to become more clearly defined, but within each party there has arisen a considerable freedom of opinion in respect to all political questions which do not spring directly from the principles on which the parties are based. This was clearly shown in the discussion on the proposals for the annexation of the Congo. At the conference of Liberals held before the General Election of 1908 it was decided that the annexation of the Congo should be treated as a question libre. M. Vandervelde, at the same time, expressed opinions on this subject which were contrary to those held by the majority of Socialists, whilst several Catholics, who disapproved of the terms on which the Congo was offered to the nation, did not hesitate to say so. None of these expressions of opinion involved ostracism from the party, and, although party discipline is strict, there is but little doubt that this freedom of movement in respect to non-party questions will continue to grow. The annexation of the Congo was voted in due course, but the original draft of the Treaty received important modifications which were due largely to the action and criticism of the more independent Conservatives.

The question of free trade or protection does not, at the present time, occupy a prominent place in Belgian politics, but should it do so, there is no reason to assume that opinions either for or against free trade would involve, as here, ostracism from any party. Such conditions admit of a much more genuine discussion of public and of economic questions. In England, with the system of single-member constituencies, Unionist Free Traders have had the alternative placed before them of submitting to the opinions of the majority of the party or of retiring from all active participation in public life. In Belgium, on the other hand, proportional representation has induced parties, while adhering to their fundamental principles, to make their lists of candidates as inclusive as possible. The list presented by the Catholics at Ghent in 1908 contained not only a free trader and a protectionist, but representatives of different classes of interests within the constituency, of agriculture, of landed proprietors, of workmen and of masters of industry. Stress was laid upon the comprehensive character of their list in the election address issued by the Catholics, and each party endeavoured to make its list representative of the forces within the party. Special efforts indeed are taken to accomplish this end; in the preparation of the Liberal list members of the organization took part in the preliminary selection of candidates, the final choice being determined by a formal election. In reporting that the Belgian system of proportional representation "is not favourable to small independent parties, or, what is of greater interest to many observers in this country, to small sections or wings of large parties," the Royal Commission on Electoral Systems misinterpreted the working of the Belgian system. It is true that the Christian Democrats form the only small party in Belgium which has obtained direct representation, but the Belgian system has certainly given representation to the wings of large parties. Count Goblet d'Alviella, who was examined by the Commission, has kindly furnished some observations upon the Commission's statement. "Whenever there is room," he writes, "that is, where the seats are numerous enough, the leaders take the greatest care to choose representatives of the principal shades of opinion within their party lines. At Brussels in 1910 the Catholics placed on their list not only M. Colfs, who upset their order of precedence in the previous election, but also M. Theodor, who, for the last three times, headed—unsuccessfully—a separate list of the so-called Independent Party. The Liberal list at Brussels has been formed by the joint action of Moderates (Ligue liberale) and Radicals (Association liberale), each of these two organizations trying to give satisfaction to their own subdivisions (Flemish and Walloon, rural and urban, &c.). At Antwerp the Liberal list has been formed by five Liberal organizations, each one choosing its own representative." The M. Colfs referred to in Count Goblet d'Alviella's letter strongly opposed the military proposals of the Belgian Government, but he was, nevertheless, placed by the party organization on the official list. Thus, in Belgium wings of parties undoubtedly obtain their legitimate influence, and this renders the formation of independent small parties superfluous. The number of broad general principles on which political parties can be based is strictly limited, and this explains why neither the Belgian nor any other system of proportional representation will produce innumerable parties.