THE REPRESENTATION OF MINORITIES
The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority that
succeeds by force or fraud in carrying elections. To break off that
point is to avert the danger. The common system of representation
perpetuates the danger. Unequal electorates afford no security to
majorities. Equal electorates give none to minorities. Thirty-five years
ago it was pointed out that the remedy is proportional representation.
It is profoundly democratic, for it increases the influence of thousands
who would otherwise have no voice in the Government; and it brings men
more near an equality by so contriving that no vote shall be wasted, and
that every voter shall contribute to bring into Parliament a member of
his own opinion."--LORD ACTON
The disfranchisement of minorities, noted in the two previous chapters
as the outcome of our electoral methods, attracted considerable
attention during the latter half of the nineteenth century, and several
legislative proposals were carried with the specific object of remedying
the evil. Indeed every electoral reform bill, beginning with that of
1832, has been accompanied with a demand or a suggestion for an
improvement in methods of election in order to secure for the House of
Commons a fully representative character. For it was clearly realized
that without some such improvement neither an extension of the franchise
nor a redistribution of seats would necessarily make the House a mirror
of the nation. These attempts to secure representation for minorities
have, however, often been confounded with the movement in favour of
proportional representation--the just representation of all parties--and
this confusion of thought may be partly due to the eloquent plea for the
representation of minorities advanced by Mill in the chapter in
_Representative Government_ devoted to the advocacy of Hare's scheme of
proportional representation. This confusion showed itself in the speech
which the Marquis of Ripon contributed to the debate[1] on the second
reading of the Municipal Representation Bill, introduced by Lord
Courtney of Penwith in 1907, for the purpose of enabling municipalities
to adopt a system of proportional representation. "It was a remarkable
thing," Lord Ripon said, "that so far as the experiments had gone they
had not succeeded, and that, he thought, should make them cautious when
looking into proposals of this kind." The experiments to which Lord
Ripon referred were legislative proposals for the representation of
minorities, and it cannot be admitted that these experiments were
failures. They did secure the representation of minorities. The
machinery provided did not enable them to do more, and an analysis of
the results of these experiments will show to what extent they succeeded
in their object, and at the same time disclose in what respects these
experiments fell short of a true electoral method.
_The Limited Vote_.]
The first of these experiments was known as the Limited Vote--a method
of voting which involves the creation of constituencies returning
several members but limits the elector in the number of his votes; the
elector is only permitted to vote for a number of candidates which is
less than the number of members to be elected, whilst he may not give
more than one vote to any one candidate. The Limited Vote was first
proposed by Mr. Mackworth Praed in Committee on the Reform Bill of 1831,
and the proposal was renewed by him in the following year in the Bill
which became the great Reform Act of 1832. Up to that time the
constituencies of England returned two members apiece, with the
exception of the City of London, which returned four, and of five
boroughs each returning one member. The Reform Bill provided that a
third member should be added to the representation of each of seven
counties, and that certain other counties should be divided into two or
more constituencies, each returning two members. Mr. Praed proposed to
drop this subdivision of counties, although permitting the additional
members to be given, and proposed that in constituencies returning
three or four members an elector should not be allowed to vote for more
than two candidates. The arguments advanced by Mr. Praed are worth
quoting. "He was of opinion," said he, "that it was an error in the
original construction of the Representative Assembly of this country to
allow any person to have more than one vote, for, by the present system,
it was frequently the case that the same persons, constituting perhaps a
bare majority of the electors, returned both members.... In the present
case, if large counties were not divided each freeholder would have four
votes. He wished to restrict them to two, and he thought that this
object might be attained even without the division of counties by
allowing each freeholder to vote only for two members although four was
to be the number returned. Some measure should be taken to make the vote
and views of a large minority known in the legislature."
This form of voting was proposed by Lord Aberdeen's Government in the
Parliamentary Representation Bill of 1854. In this Bill it was proposed
to give a third member to 38 counties and divisions of counties (in
addition to the seven counties which already possessed that privilege),
and also to eight boroughs. Lord John Russell, in introducing the
measure, made a powerful plea on behalf of the representation of
minorities in each of these constituencies, but the Crimean War rendered
further consideration of the Bill impossible. The system was, however,
applied to thirteen constituencies by the Representation of the People
Act of 1867. It was not provided for in the Bill as submitted by the
Government, nor was it supported by the leader of the Opposition. Its
introduction was due to the action of Lord Cairns, who, on 30 July 1867,
carried in the House of Lords, with the support of Lord Russell and Lord
Spencer, the following amendment:--
"At a contested election for any county or borough represented by three
members, no person shall vote for more than two candidates." A further
amendment applicable to the City of London, which returned four members,
was also carried. The system remained in force until the Redistribution
Act of 1885, when three-member constituencies were abolished. "There is
nothing," said Lord Cairns, in the course of a memorable speech, "so
irksome to those who form the minority of one of these large
constituencies as to find that from the mere force of numbers they are
virtually excluded from the exercise of any political power, that it is
in vain for them to attempt to take any part in public affairs, that the
election must always go in one direction, and that they have no
political power whatever."
The following table will show that Lord Cairns' proposal secured the
object which he had in view--the representation of minorities:--
1868. 1874. 1880.
Constituency. Actual Probable Actual Probable Actual Probable
results results results results results results
with without with without with without
Limited Limited Limited Limited Limited Limited
Vote. Vote. Vote. Vote. Vote. Vote.
L. C. L. C. L. C. L. C. L. C. L. C
Berkshire 1 2 0 3 1 2 0 3 1 2 0 3
Birmingham 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0
Buckinghamshire 1 2 0 3 1 2 0 3 1 2 0 3
Cambridgeshire 1 2 0 3 1 2 0 3 1 2 0 3
Dorsetshire 1 2 0 3 1 2 0 3 1 2 0 3
Glasgow 3 0 3 0 2 1 3 0 3 0 3 0
Herefordshire 1 2 0 3 1 2 0 3 2 1 3 0
Hertfordshire 2 1 3 0 1 2 0 3 1 2 0 3
Leeds 2 1 3 0 1 2 3 0 2 1 3 0
Liverpool 1 2 0 3 1 2 0 3 1 2 0 3
London (City) 3 1 4 0 1 3 0 4 1 3 0 4
Manchester 2 1 3 0 1 2 0 3 2 1 3 0
Oxfordshire 1 2 0 3 1 2 3 0 1 2 0 3
Totals 22 18 19 21 16 24 9 31 20 20 15 25
The actual results show the relative strength of the two great political
parties in each constituency; the probable results are based on the
hypothesis that if each voter could have given one vote to each of three
candidates, each of the parties would have nominated three candidates,
and that as the electors would for the most part have voted on party
lines, the larger body would have secured all three seats. In Berkshire,
Buckinghamshire, Cambridgeshire, Dorsetshire, Hertfordshire,
Oxfordshire, Liverpool and London, the Liberal minorities each obtained
a representative, whilst the Conservative minorities in Herefordshire,
Leeds, and Manchester also obtained representatives. There were only two
constituencies--Birmingham and Glasgow--where the minority failed to
obtain representation, and this was due to the fact that the minorities
in these particular constituencies were comparatively small.
A consideration in detail of the election in Birmingham in 1880 will
show why the minority sometimes failed to obtain representation, and
will, at the same time, direct attention to the defects of the system.
The figures of this election were as follows:--
H. Muntz (Liberal) 22,969
John Bright (Liberal) 20,079
Joseph Chamberlain (Liberal) 19,544
62,592
Major F. Burnaby (Con.) 15,735
Hon. A. C. G. Calthorpe (Con.) 14,208
29,943
It will be seen that the Liberals obtained 62,592 votes and the
Conservatives 29,943 votes, and that the latter therefore numbered
slightly less than a third of the constituency. If the Liberal votes had
not been distributed as evenly as they were over their three candidates,
it might have resulted that the lowest candidate on the poll, Joseph
Chamberlain, would have received less votes than Major Burnaby, who was
the highest of the two Conservative candidates. In order to obtain the
full advantage of their numerical superiority it was necessary for the
Liberal organization to make an extensive canvass of their supporters,
to ascertain as accurately as possible their strength, and to issue
precise instructions to the voters in each district as to the manner in
which they should record their votes. The memorable cry associated with
these elections--"Vote as you are told and we'll carry you through
"--was fit accompaniment of these efforts of the Birmingham caucus.[2]
But had there been a mistake in the calculations of the Liberal
organization, had the polls disclosed a larger number of Conservatives,
disaster would have followed the nomination of three Liberal candidates.
If for example the votes had been as follows:--
Muintz Liberal)...... 21,000
Bright (Liberal)..... 20,000
Chamberlain (Liberal) 20,000
61,000
Burnaby (Conservative). 22,000
Calthorpe (Conservative). 21,000
43,000
the Conservatives would have returned two members, and the Liberals,
although in a majority, would have returned only one. In brief, the
party organizers had to be quite sure that their supporters numbered
more than 60 per cent. of the electorate, and that these supporters
would vote faithfully as ordered before they could recommend the
nomination of three candidates. The attempt to obtain all three seats at
Leeds, in the General Election of 1874, failed, with the result that the
minority got the larger share of the representation. The poll on this
occasion was as follows:--
M. Carter (Liberal)..... 15,390
E. Baines (Liberal) .... 11,850
Dr. F. R. Lees (Liberal). 5,945
33,185
W.St.J.Wheelhouse (Con.) 14,864
R. Tenant (Con.) . . .....13,192
28,056
In this election the total Liberal vote amounted to 33,185, and the
total Conservative vote amounted to 28,056, but the Conservatives
obtained two seats out of three.
The practical working of the Limited Vote has therefore shown that the
representation of a minority in a three-member constituency was always
secured whenever that minority numbered not less than two-fifths of the
electors, and as, in the majority of constituencies, the minority
exceeded this proportion the minority was able to return one of the
members. The system, however, possesses no elasticity. No party can put
forward a complete list of candidates without incurring considerable
risk, and even if the party has an ascertained strength of more than
three-fifths complete victory is only possible if the members of the
party are willing to carry out implicitly the instructions of the party
organization. It should be noted, in connexion with this system of
voting, that the more limited the vote the greater is the opportunity
afforded to the minority to obtain representation. When in a four-member
constituency each elector has three votes the minority must number
three-sevenths before it can obtain a representative; if, however, each
elector is limited to two votes a smaller minority, namely, a minority
which exceeds one-third of the electors, can make sure of returning a
member.[3]
_The Cumulative Vote_.]
The Cumulative Vote, the second of the experiments referred to by Lord
Ripen, although by no means free from serious defects, has also secured
the object for which it was designed--the representation of minorities.
With this system the member has as many votes as there are members to be
elected, and is permitted to distribute them amongst candidates, or to
cumulate them among one or more candidates according to his own
discretion. It was warmly advocated for the first time under the name of
the Cumulative Vote by James Garth Marshall in an open letter entitled
"Minorities and Majorities: their Relative Rights," addressed by him in
1853 to Lord John Russell. But three years earlier, in 1850, it was
recommended[4] by the Committee of the Privy Council for Trade and
Plantations, and adopted by Earl Grey in the draft Constitution proposed
for the Cape of Good Hope. The Legislative Council of Cape Colony
continued to be elected under this system until the Council disappeared
under the new Constitution of United South Africa. The Cumulative Vote
secured the representation of minorities in the Legislative Council of
Cape Colony, and a striking testimony to its value, from this point of
view, was given by Lord Milner when speaking in the House of Lords on 31
July 1906, on the announcement of the terms of the new Transvaal
Constitution:--
"I hope," said Lord Milner, "that when the time for making the Second
Chamber elective comes, this matter may be reconsidered, for it is
certainly very remarkable how much more fairly the system of
proportional representation works out in the Cape Colony than the
system, not of single members there, but of double-member
representation. Take only a single instance. In the Cape Colony, take
the bulk of the country districts; you have, roughly speaking, about two
Boers to every one white man who is not a Boer. On the system which
prevails for the Lower House the representation of these districts is
exclusively Boer, for one-third of the population is absolutely excluded
from any representation whatever. Under the system which prevails in the
election to the Upper House, as nearly as possible one-third of the
representatives of those districts are British. Inversely, in the case
of the Cape Peninsula, where there is an enormously preponderant British
population, but still a considerable Dutch population also, you get in
the Lower House no single Dutch representative, whereas in the Upper
House there are three representatives, one of whom represents the Dutch
section. You could not have a more curious illustration of the great
difference in fairness between the two principles as applied to the
practical conditions of South Africa. And I cannot help hoping that
between this time and the time when the Constitution of the projected
Upper House comes to be decided, there may be such a development of
opinion as will enable and justify the Government of that day adopting
the far sounder principle for the elections to the Upper Chamber. It
certainly has a great bearing upon that development of better feeling
between the two great races of South Africa whom we are all agreed in
desiring to see ultimately amalgamated and fused."
The Cape Assembly was elected by constituencies returning one or more
members, and when more than one each voter could give a single vote to
as many candidates as there were members to be elected, with the
consequence that the majority in every constituency commanded the whole
of its representation. The Council was elected by larger areas with the
cumulative vote. Lord Milner in his speech refers to the cumulative vote
as proportional voting, but it cannot, strictly speaking, be so
described. Nevertheless his testimony clearly shows that the cumulative
vote secured the representation of minorities--the great need of which
has been recognized by all impartial students of South African political
conditions.
Mr. Robert Lowe endeavoured to introduce this form of voting into the
Electoral Reform Bill of 1867, but failed, and the only practical
application of the system within the United Kingdom has been in
connexion with School Board elections. It was introduced into the
Education Act of 1870 on the motion of a private member, Lord Frederick
Cavendish, whose proposition, supported as it was by W.E. Forster,
Vice-President of the Council for Education, by W.H. Smith and by Henry
Fawcett, was carried without a division. Under this Act London was
divided into eleven electoral areas, returning from four to seven
members each; whilst the large towns, such as Manchester, Birmingham,
and others, each constituted an electoral area itself, electing a Board
of some fifteen members. The Education Act for Scotland which followed
in the same Parliament embodied the same principle in the-same manner.
The figures of any School Board election will show that the object aimed
at--the representation of minorities--was undoubtedly achieved. The last
election of the School Board for London, that of 1900, will serve for
purposes of illustration. The figures are as follows:--
Votes Obtained. Members Returned.
Constituency. Mode- Pro- Inde- Mode- Pro- Inde-
rate. gressive. pendent. rate. gressive. pendent.
City 4,572 2,183 3 1
Chelsea 7,831 5,408 2,144 3 2
Finsbury 7,573 7,239 837 3 3 1
Greenwich 6,706 6,008 3,375 2 1
Hackney 5,438 9,130 1,579 2 3
Lambeth, E 4,370 9,913 1,313 1 3
Lambeth, W. 8,709 14,156 54 2 4
Marylebone 9,450 7,047 536 4 3
Southwark 2,636 3,430 2,328 1 2 1
Tower Hamlets 6,199 7,437 5,495 1 3 1
Westminster 4,829 2,354 3 2
Totals 68,313 74,305 17,661 25 27 3
In each constituency the minority was enabled to obtain some
representation, and although in the majority of cases the representation
was still confined to the two main parties, yet it was possible for an
independent candidate, as in the Tower Hamlets, or a Roman Catholic
candidate, as in Southwark, to succeed in their respective candidatures.
The Cumulative Vote not only secured the representation of minorities,
but in so doing facilitated very considerably the working of the
Education Act. Mr. Patrick Cumin, at that time permanent secretary of
the Education Department, in giving evidence before a select committee
of the House of Commons, stated that "it would not have been possible to
carry the Act into effect, and certainly there would have been more
friction if the cumulative vote had not been in existence; for instance,
he did not believe that the bye-laws could possibly have been carried
into effect without co-operation." The Right Hon. W.E. Forster and Sir
Francis Sandford bore similar testimony, and the Royal Commission on the
Elementary Education Acts, in the Report issued in 1888, strongly
advised the retention of a system of minority representation.
The Cumulative Vote was also adopted by the State of Illinois for the
elections to the State House of Representatives. Each constituency
returns three members, and the elector may cumulate or divide his votes,
giving one vote to each candidate, or one and a half votes to each of
two candidates, or three votes to one candidate. "As a result," says
Professor Commons, "both parties have representatives from every part of
the State instead of from the strongholds only, and there are no
hopeless minorities of the two main parties. Every citizen who has
business before the Legislature has some member of his own party to
transact that business." Constituencies returning three members are,
however, not sufficiently large to do justice to this method of voting.
The Cumulative Vote, whilst securing representation to the minority,
does not necessarily secure the representation of majorities and
minorities in their true proportions. As with the Limited Vote, the
party organizations, if they desire to make use of their polling
strength to the fullest advantage, must make as accurate an estimate as
possible of the numbers of their supporters, and must issue explicit
directions as to the way in which votes should be recorded. To nominate
more candidates than the party can carry may end in disaster. In the
first School Board elections in Birmingham the Liberal organization
endeavoured to obtain the whole of the representation, and nominated
fifteen candidates. The party polled a majority of the votes, but as
these votes were distributed over too many candidates, the Liberals
succeeded in returning only a minority of representatives. It is not
easy to understand how the Birmingham National League came to imagine
that, with the Cumulative Vote, they would still be able to elect a
Board composed of members entirely of their own side, and Mr. Forster
banteringly suggested that the League should obtain the assistance of a
well-taught elementary schoolboy who would be able to show them that it
was impossible to get the return which they supposed they might obtain.
While there was little excuse for the mistake made by the Birmingham
National League, it must be remembered that with the Cumulative Vote it
is easy to fall into the opposite error of nominating too few
candidates. Every School Board election furnishes examples of an
excessive concentration of votes upon individual candidates. The Glasgow
School Board election of 1909 resulted as follows:--
Elected----James Barr 81,109
Canon Dyer 58,711
John Shaughnessy 54,310
Charles Byrne 54,236
Rev. James Brisby 51,357
W. Rounsfell Brown 35,739
R. S. Allan 24,017
Rev. J. Fraser Grahame 23,806
Dr. Henry Dyer 23,422
Mrs. Mary Mason 22,929
W. Martin Haddow 21,880
Rev. Robert Pryde 21,692
Miss K. V. Bannatyne 18,864
Mrs. Agnes Hardie 18,794
J. Leiper Gemmil 18,619
Unelected--Rev. J. A. Robertson 18,534
James Welsh 13,951
Dr. Sloan 13,114
S. M. Lipschitz 12,680
Dr. Charles Workman 7,405
James Laidlaw 4,869
Patrick Gallagher 2,478
-------
602,516
It will be seen that the candidate at the head of the list, Mr. Barr,
obtained over 81,000 votes, and the highest of the unsuccessful
candidates 18,534 votes. The total number of votes polled was 602,516,
and one-fifteenth of this number, viz. 40,167, would have been amply
sufficient to secure the return of any one candidate. The votes given to
Mr. Barr in excess of this number were wasted, and thus, although with
the cumulative vote minorities can secure representation, neither
majorities nor minorities secure with any degree of certainty
representation in their true proportions.
_The Single Vote_.]
Japan, keenly alive to the evils of a defective electoral system,
abandoned, after a short trial, the system adopted when the Japanese
Constitution was promulgated in 1889. The administrative areas (with
some exceptions) were then divided into single-member constituencies,
but it was soon found how unsatisfactorily this system works. It would
appear from a memorandum prepared by Mr. Kametaro Hayashida, Chief
Secretary of the Japanese House of Representatives--a memorandum which
is printed in full in Appendix I.--that in certain of the administrative
areas a minority of the voters often obtained a majority of the members
elected. It was almost impossible for political parties to obtain
representation in proportion to the strength of their supporters. In
1900 a new election law was adopted. The administrative areas,
irrespective of size, were made parliamentary constituencies returning a
number of members varying from one to twelve according to the population
of the area, but the voter in any area was permitted only one vote. He
can vote for one candidate and no more. Under this system minorities can
and do get a share of representation whenever the area returns two or
more members. A secondary advantage of considerable importance was
secured by making the administrative areas conterminous with the
parliamentary constituencies. Future redistributions of seats would
leave the boundaries of these areas untouched; they would merely
consist of a re-arrangement of the number of members to be returned by
each area.
The new system secured not only the representation of minorities, but
also the representation of the chief parties in reasonable proportion to
their voting strength. Further, to men of independent mind and character
the new system offered a greater opportunity of maintaining their
position in the House of Representatives. As will be seen from Mr.
Hayashida's memorandum, both Mr. Ozaki, the Mayor of Tokio, and Mr. S.
Shimada, have never lost their seats in Parliament, although they have
stood as independent candidates. At the General Election of 1908 they
were returned for their native prefecture or town with a great number of
votes. These are results of no mean value which are certainly not
possible with our Parliamentary system of single-member constituencies,
or with the block vote as used in the London municipal elections. Yet,
in spite of the marked superiority of the Japanese system, it falls
short of a true system of representation; it lacks the elasticity and
adaptability which should characterize such a system. Like the limited
vote and the cumulative vote, the Japanese system of the single vote
demands exact calculations on the part of party organizations, which
otherwise may fail to secure for their party the maximum number of
representatives. The number of candidates nominated must depend upon a
careful estimate of probable support, and when the nominations have
taken place efforts must be made by the party organizations to allot
this support to their candidates in such a way that not one of them is
in danger of defeat. Moreover, as the nomination of too large a number
of candidates would, as with the limited vote, be disastrous, parties
have in some constituencies been unwilling to nominate more than the
number of candidates who were successful at the previous election.
_The need of minority representation_.]
It cannot be maintained then, as was suggested by Lord Ripon, that the
experiments made for the purpose of securing the representation of
minorities have failed. All the methods tried--the limited, the
cumulative, and the single vote--have without question accomplished
their purpose. They have done even more. The cumulative vote facilitated
the smooth working of the Elementary Education Act, the single vote has
secured for Japan a House of Representatives which reflects in
reasonable proportions the political forces of the country. The problem
for the future is not the abandonment of the principle of minority
representation, but the adoption of such improvements in voting
mechanism as will do justice to majorities and to minorities alike. For
the need of minority representation is becoming more and not less
urgent. A brief reference to the more important Parliamentary Bills of
recent years will show that the most difficult problems which our
administrators have had to face in the framing of those Bills have
centred round the problem of representation--and that problem will recur
with greater frequency in the future. Mr. Birrell, the Chief Secretary
for Ireland, considered it essential that some special provision for the
representation of minorities should be embodied in the Irish
Administrative Council Bill introduced into the House of Commons in May
1907. But the method proposed--that the Council should consist of
eighty-two elected members and twenty-four nominated members--was
essentially undemocratic. The nominated members, even if they were
representative of the minority, would never have had the same authority
or influence as they would have had as members duly elected by the votes
of the minority; and even if we admit the special difficulties attending
the representation of minorities in Ireland the solution proposed by Mr.
Birrell was in every sense of the term unsatisfactory, and obviously of
a temporary character. The first step towards the solution of Irish
problems will have been taken when due provision has been made by
popular election for the representation of minorities.
Lord Morley of Blackburn, in preparing his great scheme of Indian
reforms, found himself face to face with the same problem--the
representation of minorities. He had, moreover, been advised by the
Indian Government that "in most provinces the Muhammadans are in favour
of election, and regard nomination as an inferior method of obtaining
admission to the Legislative Council."[5] Lord Morley, willingly or
unwillingly, was compelled to brush aside the English electoral methods
as inapplicable to India, and to provide for the representation on the
proposed Provincial Legislative Councils of Hindus and Muhammadans in
proportion to their strength. The method proposed was an arbitrary one,
and can be best described by quoting the terms of Lord Morley's
preliminary despatch.
"Let it be supposed that the total population of the Province is twenty
millions, of whom fifteen millions are Hindus and five millions
Muhammadans, and the number of members to be elected twelve. Then since
the Hindus are to Muhammadans as three to one, nine Hindus should be
elected to three Muhammadans. In order to obtain these members, divide
the Province into three electoral areas, in each of which three Hindus
and one Muhammadan are to be returned. Then, in each of these areas,
constitute an electoral college, consisting of, let us say, a hundred
members. In order to preserve the proportion between the two religions,
seventy-five of these should be Hindus and twenty-five Muhammadans. This
electoral college should be obtained by calling upon the various
electorates ... to return to it such candidates as they desired, a
definite number being allotted to each electorate. Out of those offering
themselves and obtaining votes, the seventy-five Hindus who obtained the
majority of votes should be declared members of the College, and the
twenty-five Musalmans who obtained the majority should similarly be
declared elected. If the Musalmans returned did not provide twenty-five
members for the Electoral College, the deficiency would be made good by
nomination. Having thus obtained an Electoral College containing
seventy-five Hindus and twenty-five Musalmans, that body would be called
upon to elect three representatives for the Hindus and one for the
Muhammadans; each member of the College would have only one vote, and
could vote for only one candidate. In this way it is evident that it
would be in the power of each section of the population to return a
member in the proportion corresponding to its own proportion to the
total population."[6]
Lord Morley proceeded to explain that "in this manner minorities would
be protected against exclusion by majorities, and all large and
important sections of the population would have the opportunity of
returning members in proportion to their ratio to the total population.
Their choice would in that event be exercised in the best possible way,
that, namely, of popular election, instead of requiring Government to
supply deficiencies by the dubious method of nomination." The system of
nomination, considered by Mr. Birrell as an adequate solution of this
problem in Ireland, was summarily rejected, and rightly so, by Lord
Morley as being inferior to popular election, inferior even to the
arbitrary method proposed by himself. The plan finally adopted by Lord
Morley was a modification of the proposal here outlined, and its
working, as the working of all arbitrary schemes must, has evoked
criticism on the ground that it does not hold the scales even as between
the two sections to be represented.
The Select Committee appointed by the House of Lords "to consider the
suggestions made from time to time for increasing the efficiency of that
House," was compelled to propose a method of election by which the
Liberal minority might retain some representation in that House. In the
election of Representative Peers for Scotland the majority method of
election is followed, with the result that none but Unionists are
chosen. It was obvious that no proposal for the reform of the House of
Lords which embodied an electoral method so unjust could possibly be
entertained, and therefore this Select Committee, following in this all
previous proposals for the reform of the Upper House, reported that the
representation of the minority was essential. A new Second Chamber is
now advocated both by Liberals and Unionists.
Again, Mr. Asquith's Government experienced a very distinct rebuff in
its attempt to abolish the cumulative vote in the elections of Scottish
School Boards without making any alternative provision for the
representation of minorities. The Government proposed to substitute the
block vote for the cumulative vote. The block vote would have enabled
the majority of the electors to have secured the whole of the
representation on the Board. The deletion of the Government's proposal
was proposed in the Scottish Grand Committee, but was defeated. A
further amendment by Mr. Phipson Beale in favour of the principle of
proportional representation was, in spite of the strong opposition of
the Secretary for Scotland, defeated only by twenty-two votes to
eighteen. The Government finally withdrew their proposal to abolish the
cumulative vote, and it has been made abundantly clear that, while the
cumulative vote is far from satisfactory, it can only be dispensed with
by the introduction of a better and more scientific way of securing the
representation of minorities.
In framing the Port of London Bill, Mr. Lloyd George had to make some
provision for the representation of the various interests concerned, and
so far as possible, in due proportion. It was impossible to entrust the
control of the new Port to the largest interest only, and accordingly he
proposed that "in prescribing the manner in which votes are to be
recorded, the Board of Trade shall have regard to the desirability of
votes being so recorded, whether by allowing the voter to record a vote
for a number of candidates in order of preference or otherwise, as to
secure that so far as possible the several interests concerned shall be
adequately represented on the Port Authority."[7] The reports of the
Poor Law Commission also raise in an acute form the problem of minority
representation. If the far-reaching suggestions of these reports are to
become law, and especially if the powers of County and County Borough
Councils are to be still further increased, the constitution of these
bodies will have to be closely examined. Are minorities to be excluded
altogether from the new authorities; are they to secure representation
through the processes of co-option and nomination; or are they to obtain
a hearing by a system of election that will provide them with
representation in their own right?
While these and other matters are bringing into greater prominence the
need of minority representation, a new problem--one with which the
Continent has long been familiar--has arisen in connexion with English
parliamentary elections. In an increasing number of contests three or
more candidates have taken the field, and the candidate obtaining the
highest number of votes has been elected although he may have received
less than half the votes recorded. A member so chosen obviously
represents only a minority of the electors in the constituency for which
he has been returned. Such results have come as a shock to those who
have hitherto accepted with composure the more glaring anomalies of our
electoral system, and so the growing frequency of three-cornered fights
will assist those other forces which are making for a complete
readjustment of our electoral methods. The new problem is, however,
quite distinct from that of minority representation, and is of
sufficient importance to warrant consideration in a separate chapter.
[Footnote 1: 30 April 1907.]
[Footnote 2: "One ward voted for A and B, another for A and C, a third
for B and C, a fourth for A and B, &c. The voter who had left the
selection of the three candidates to the general committee was also to
renounce the privilege of selecting from them the two which he
preferred. 'Vote as you are told' was the pass word."--Ostrogorski,
_Democracy and the Organization of Political Parties_, vol. i. p. 162.]
[Footnote 3: If in a four-member constituency the number of voters is
21,000 and the parties are in the ratio of 12,000 to 9000, the larger
party would, if each elector had three votes, have 36,000 votes in all
and the smaller party would have 27,000. No candidate of the smaller
party could obtain more than 9000 votes, whilst the 36,000 votes of the
larger party carefully divided among four candidates would also allow
each candidate to receive 9000 votes. If then the larger party had
slightly more than 12,000 supporters out of a total of 21,000, the
larger party would obtain all four seats, as each of its candidates
would, if the votes were carefully distributed, receive more than 9000
votes each.]
[Footnote 4: "If it is desired that the body should not be a
representation of a single interest and a single class of opinions, some
means must be adopted to guard against its falling entirely into the
hands of the dominant party. With this view we would recommend that, in
the election of the council, each elector should have as many votes as
there might be members to be chosen, and should be entitled to give all
these votes to a single candidate, or to distribute them among several.
By this arrangement a monopoly of power in the Legislative Council by
any one party, or any one district of the Colony, would be prevented,
since a minority of the electors, by giving all their votes to a single
candidate, would be enabled to secure his return."--Earl Grey, _The
Colonial Policy of the Administration of Lord John Russell_, vol. ii.,
Appendix, p. 362.]
[Footnote 5: _East India_ (Advisory and Legislative Councils, &c.) (Cd.
4426), p. 14.]
[Footnote 6: _East India_ (Advisory and Legislative Councils, &c.) (Cd.
4426), p. 45.]
[Footnote 7: Port of London Act, 1908, Schedule I., Part IV. (1).]