Proportional Representation: A Study in Methods of Election

by John H. Humphreys

Mr. Henry Vivian, M.P., thus refers to the pressure which small groups of voters bring to bear upon parliamentary candidates: "One serious evil which he hoped might be abolished by a change of system was the ragging of constituencies by a comparatively small number of busybodies interested in some particular fad. A large number of members of Parliament really had to bend to some two or three hundred electors, although there might be 20,000 in the whole constituency. He had the misfortune to be elected by only a gross. It was strictly true that in many cases a candidate was compelled to consent to support something that he felt strongly against, merely because a certain percentage of the electors insisted upon it. He was not suggesting that proportional representation would entirely get rid of this evil, but he was satisfied that proportional representation rested on a larger basis—that they would have larger constituencies and a number of men from whom the elector might make selection; and therefore there would be a possibility of their lessening, if not altogether getting rid of, this most intolerable evil. He was not at all sure that he would not at times rather be out of political life than in it; it became so threatening that he absolutely refused to reply to the letters at all, or to be dictated to, in the way that these people attempted to do. He would venture to say that with a system of proportional representation they would be able to get rid of some at least, if not of most, of the objectionable features of the present system."[3] The same feature of our electoral system has been condemned in the strongest terms by Mr. Balfour. "Everybody," said he, "who has watched the actual course of a contested election in a constituency where parties were fairly evenly balanced, knows perfectly well the monstrous power which is given to a very small minority to exact a pledge from the candidate, not that he should support this or that great policy, but that he should help their small and particular interest. I know nothing which is more corrupting, both to the electors or to the elected, than that process; and although I have fully seen the difficulties which attach to what is commonly known as minority representation, it surely is an extraordinary criticism upon our existing system that, while a small handful of interested people can turn an election one way or the other on their own personal issue, huge minorities, like the minority of the Unionists in Scotland, are utterly and grossly unrepresented. We give every privilege to the little knot of people in the individual constituencies; we ignore the great mass who under our existing system find no representation at all comparable either to their numerical strength or to their public spirit, or to any other quality which makes them useful, able and independent citizens."[4]

The organizations of different branches of the Civil Service have, in furtherance of their interests, sought to bring pressure to bear upon members of Parliament, and in consequence of this action it has been suggested that civil servants should be disfranchised. In other words, it is proposed to meet an evil encouraged by defective electoral methods by inflicting a gross injustice upon a large body of citizens, the majority of whom, like other citizens, consider political problems purely from the point of view of national advantage. The true remedy for the unfair pressure of small sections must be sought in such a change in the method of election as will allow the country to appraise them at their true value. Direct representation, by means of which sectional interests can, if necessary, be defended or advanced within the House of Commons, is far less injurious to the State than a system which allows such interests to bring unfair pressure to bear upon a considerable number of members of Parliament, or to enforce their demands upon the nation by linking themselves to a national party. There is, however, but little danger of any large number of members being returned in support of single interests only. The results under systems of proportional representation show that the members elected are returned upon political grounds, and when any question has attained such importance as to command the support of 10,000 votes in any constituency, doubtless that question has become ripe for discussion in Parliament, and can no longer fairly be described as a fad.

It is, however, said that the direct representation of sectional interests will enable these to exercise in Parliament the same pressure that they at present exercise in the constituencies. This statement also is based upon a misconception of the changed conditions which would result from a system of proportional representation. A small body of electors can at present exercise pressure in the constituency, because the result of the election is in their hands. A small group of members could only exercise the same influence in the House of Commons if the large parties were willing to bid for their support and were, at the same time, able to enforce upon their followers the observance of any agreement entered into. The great difference in the new conditions of party discipline will here come into play. Members of a party who have been able to win elections in spite of the opposition of sectional interests, would be able to withstand pressure in Parliament. They would know that they could appeal with confidence to their supporters in the constituency to endorse their action, and, indeed, they would much more likely lose their seat if they acted contrary to the wishes of those who had returned them. Any sacrifice of principle by a party for the sake of conciliating a small faction would cause a loss of support greater than the gain. When proportional representation is established such grouping as may take place within the House of Commons will be based upon political affinities.

The representation of localities.

Another objection which is often brought against proportional representation is that it will destroy the intimate relation which exists at present between a constituency and its representative in Parliament. Here the arguments used are not only as a rule self-destructive, but they are obviously in conflict with the suggestion that proportional representation would give undue weight to sectional interests. "Parliament," said Burke, "is a deliberate assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where not local purpose, not local prejudices, ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole. You choose a member indeed, but when you have chosen him he is not a member of Bristol, but he is a member of Parliament. If the local constituent should have interest, or should form a hasty opinion, evidently opposite to the real good of the rest of the community, the member for that place ought to be as far as any other from any endeavour to give it effect."[5] Were the primary duty of a member for any constituency to consider the special needs of that constituency, local considerations would outweigh national interests.

Yet Burke's declaration is not intended to relieve the representative of a constituency from the duty of attending to its administrative necessities. "Only members of Parliament," said Mr. Gulland, M.P., "appreciate how largely their time is taken up with local matters. They have to approach the different Government Departments upon an endless variety of topics." But Mr. Gulland proceeds: "These matters as a rule have no reference to existing Parliamentary divisions, and in a city it would be very much better if a man were member for the whole city rather than for a division. And in the case of a county, including burghs, it would be better that the general interests of the county should be attended to by members representing the county as a whole than by a member who is only the representative of the burgh."[6] It is also possible that the interests of some division of the city or county might be opposed to the interests of the city as a whole, and this is an additional reason against the subdivision of such constituencies for the purpose of parliamentary representation. An admirable illustration occurs in a speech made in the Canadian House of Commons by Mr. F. D. Monk, K.C. "In a very large constituency," said he, "say of the size of the entire island of Montreal, it would be impossible to resort to the promise of a great many small public works, which by the admission of everybody are not at present advantageous, when we have such large problems to solve in connexion, for instance, with the problem of transportation. Nobody in a constituency such as I have just indicated could advocate the construction of a small wharf or a small public building, but would be obliged to consider the relation of such a large territory as the island and city of Montreal to the all-important question of transportation. He would be obliged to lay before the electors, not promises of small and very often useless, though comparatively costly improvements, but the necessity of carrying out such a plan of transportation as was laid before the country and the Government some years ago by a commission composed of very experienced men, who after considerable labour had in my opinion solved that very vital question in every part of the country."[7] If local representation is necessary it would therefore appear to be most desirable that the representatives should be able to speak in the name of the whole of the town or of the county, as the case may be, and that is the kind of local representation which a system of proportional representation provides. The members for the larger area can and do take a wider view than the member for the smaller electorate.

But what kind of local representation does a system of single-member constituencies provide? A large number of constituencies are represented by members who have no connexion with the locality other than that of being its spokesman in Parliament. Mr. Winston Churchill, defeated in a division of Manchester, is elected member for Dundee, a Scottish constituency. In what sense is the local representation of Dundee preserved? What were the special qualifications possessed by Mr. Churchill for giving utterance to the needs of a Scottish constituency? Doubtless Mr. Churchill made every effort to become acquainted with the local conditions of Dundee, and the necessity of doing so must have made considerable demands upon his time and energy. Yet it is more than doubtful whether Mr. Churchill can ever be an ideal representative from the standpoint of locality of a constituency to whose local life he is a stranger. Mr. Churchill's experience is in no sense singular. Mr. Gladstone found it necessary to leave Greenwich for Midlothian; Lord Morley to leave Newcastle for Forfarshire; Sir William Harcourt to leave Derby for Monmouthshire; Mr. Balfour to leave Manchester for the City of London, and, however honoured the new constituencies might be by the distinction of their members, it cannot be said that the intimate relation between the representative and the constituency was maintained. Under proportional representation the representation of localities becomes much more real. Excellent examples can be seen in the working of the system in Belgium. Before the introduction of the new methods leaders of political parties in Belgium were compelled, as in England, to leave the towns with which they were identified and to seek election for constituencies, in which, comparatively speaking, they were unknown. Here the cause was not the subdivision of constituencies but the absence of any provision for the representation of minorities. M. Anseele, the leader of the Socialists in Ghent, and intimately acquainted with the life of that city, had to seek entrance into the Chamber of Deputies as one of the Socialist representatives of Liège. Similarly, M. Vandervelde, whose activities had always been identified with Brussels, had to proceed to Charleroi in order to secure election. But on the introduction of the proportional system, M. Vandervelde returned to Brussels and was immediately elected as one of the Socialist members of the constituency, of whose special requirements he could, if need be, speak with effect in Parliament. M. Anseele returned to Ghent and was elected as one of the members for the city with which the whole of his life had been associated. He was relieved from the double burden of continuing his work in Ghent and of acting as the representative of a constituency in another part of the country. It is abundantly clear, if it is desired to maintain the local character of representation, that a proportional system secures such representation in its most efficient form.

So flimsy and contradictory are some of the arguments brought against proportional representation that it is not surprising that certain critics, impressed by such facts as are recorded in the previous paragraph, have alleged that the system will so favour the representation of localities that no one but a local candidate will ever have any chance of success. The conclusion is drawn that proportional representation will militate against the return of eminent politicians, and is, for this reason, undesirable. But the facts cited as to Belgium bear no such interpretation. It is true that under all electoral systems the local candidate has, other things being equal, an advantage, and rightly so, over candidates who are not directly connected with the constituency, but it is also true that under all systems local candidates give way, if necessary, to distinguished statesmen. In Belgium the Socialists of Liège and Charleroi willingly accepted as their representatives M. Anseele and M. Vandervelde when these failed to secure representation in their own towns. So welcome are eminent politicians that there can be no ground for supposing that they will suffer from a proportional system. Indeed, large constituencies returning several members give to these a much surer foothold in Parliament than they can possibly secure with single-member areas. The distinguished candidate can appeal almost with certainty of success for the "quota" of votes which is sufficient to secure his election. The only change that will be made by the proportional system is that he will be able to retain his seat in the constituency with which he is really identified; he will no longer be compelled to wander from place to place with every swing of the pendulum.

The member and his constituents.

There is perhaps one other aspect of the representation of localities which deserves attention. The fictions are still maintained that a member of Parliament represents and is intimately associated with all his constituents. As regards the latter, it is obvious that only in a very small constituency can a member become personally acquainted with the electors. This might have been feasible in the days of the restricted franchise prior to 1867, but in modern constituencies which, on an average, contain some 11,000 voters it is impossible. Further, in respect of representation, since votes, save those of ignorant and corrupt electors, are given more and more on political grounds, an elector can derive but little consolation from the fact that he is "represented" in Parliament by the candidate whom he did his best to defeat, nor does such an elector, should he take a considerable interest in political work, care to approach the member in any cause; he prefers to seek help of a member of his own party who is the representative of another constituency. If a member of Parliament is elected to defend Free Trade he cannot possibly represent the political convictions of constituents who believe that Free Trade is disastrous to the country. But under a proportional system Free Traders and Tariff Reformers would each have their own representatives, and whilst all the members would be able to speak for the constituency when its local interests were concerned, the various parties within the constituency would find expression given to their views when the question of Free Trade or of Tariff Reform was under discussion. So far as modern conditions permit, the relations between the member and his constituents would be of an intimate character, and at least there would be that bond of sympathy which springs from identity of purpose and of political faith.