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 Représentation 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.]