THE SINGLE TRANSFERABLE VOTE
"The law regulating the form of voting may be thus expressed. Every vote
shall be given on a document setting forth the name of the candidate for
whom it is given; and if the vote be intended, in the events provided
for by this Act, to be transferred to any other candidate, or
candidates, then the names of such other candidate, or candidates, must
be added in numerical order."--Thomas Hare, _The Election of
Representatives_ (Fourth edition, 1873)
The single transferable vote was the distinguishing characteristic of
the scheme of electoral reform proposed by Hare in 1857, but it was
associated with the proposal to treat the whole kingdom as a single
constituency. The later advocates of this new method of voting have
recommended its application to constituencies of more moderate size,
such as counties and large towns, and in this form the system has found
a more ready acceptance and has been used with success in parliamentary
elections.
_Its present application_.]
The first application of the single transferable vote took place in
Denmark[1] in 1855, and it is still being used under the Constitution of
1867 in the election of members of the Danish Upper House. It is also
used, as provided by the South Africa Act of 1909, in the elections of
the Senate of the United Parliament and in the election of the Executive
Committees of the Provincial Councils. In each of these cases the
electorates are small, and the electors possess special qualifications.
The Danish Upper House is elected in two stages, the transferable vote
being used only in the final stage in which electors of the second
degree alone take part. In South Africa the members of the first Senate
were elected by members of the local parliaments of the several
Colonies,[2] and the Executive Committees of the Provincial Councils by
members of the Councils. The system has, however, been subjected to the
test of popular parliamentary elections in Tasmania and of municipal
elections in Pretoria and Johannesburg.
Ever since the publication of Hare's scheme, proposals for proportional
representation have been associated in English-speaking countries with
the idea of a transferable vote. Hare's proposals were warmly endorsed
by John Stuart Mill first in _Representative Government_, and again in a
memorable speech delivered in the House of Commons on 30 May 1867, when
he moved an amendment to the Electoral Reform Bill.[3] Mill's amendment
was defeated, but he retained to the full his faith in the great value
and need of the improved method of voting, as the following passage from
his _Autobiography_ shows: "This great discovery," said he, "for it is
no less, in the political art, inspired me, as I believe it has inspired
all thoughtful persons who have adopted it, with new and more sanguine
hopes respecting the prospects of human Society, by freeing the form of
political institutions towards which the whole civilized world is
manifestly and irresistibly tending from the chief part of what seemed
to qualify and render doubtful its ultimate benefits. ... I can
understand that persons, otherwise intelligent, should, for want of
sufficient examination, be repelled from Mr. Hare's plan by what they
think the complex nature of its machinery. But any one who does not feel
the want which the scheme is intended to supply; any one who throws it
over as a mere theoretical subtlety or crochet, tending to no valuable
purpose and unworthy of the attention of practical men, may be
pronounced an incompetent statesman, unequal to the politics of the
future."[4]
_An English movement_.]
The English advocates of proportional representation who have succeeded
Mill have equally favoured the single transferable vote. This system was
embodied in the Bill introduced into the House of Commons in 1872 by Mr.
Walter Morrison, Mr. Auberon Herbert, Mr. Henry Fawcett, and Mr. Thomas
Hughes; it was advocated in the important debates which took place in
the House of Commons in 1878 and 1879; and the Proportional
Representation Society, founded in 1884 in view of the Electoral Reform
Bill of that year, created, under the leadership of Sir John Lubbock and
Mr. Leonard Courtney, a strong movement in its favour. Owing to the
agreement between the leaders of the Liberal and Conservative parties in
favour of single-member constituencies this movement had no immediate
result. Since its revival in 1905 the Proportional Representation
Society has continued to press the claims of the single transferable
vote, and with some success. The practicability of the system was
admitted by the Select Committee of the House of Lords appointed to
examine the Municipal Representation Bill introduced into that House by
Lord Courtney in 1907; the model elections organized by the Society in
1906, 1908, and 1910,[5] have to some extent familiarized the British
public with its details; it found, as already mentioned, a place in the
South African Constitution of 1909, whilst the Royal Commission on
Electoral Systems reported in 1910 that "of schemes for producing
proportional representation we think that the transferable vote would
have the best chance of ultimate acceptance."
_The system in brief_.]
What then is the single transferable vote, and how does it help to
secure a true representation of the electors? Its mechanism and
advantages will best be understood by a comparison with the existing
system. The city of Birmingham is at present divided into seven
single-member constituencies, with the result that the majority in each
of these constituencies secures a representative, while the minority in
each case is unrepresented. Suppose there were in Birmingham 40,000
Unionist, 20,000 Liberal, and 10,000 Labour voters: it might easily
happen that the Unionists would be in a majority in each of the seven
divisions and, if so, the 40,000 Unionist electors would obtain the
seven seats and the remaining 30,000 voters none. The transferable vote,
as will presently appear, would enable these 70,000 citizens to group
themselves into seven sections of equal size, each returning one member,
so that there would be four Unionist groups returning four members, two
Liberal groups returning two members and one Labour group returning one
member; and this is the ideal representation of such a community.
_Large constituencies_.]
In order to achieve this result several changes in electoral mechanism
are required. In the first place, Birmingham, instead of being divided
into seven constituencies, must be polled as one constituency, otherwise
the necessary grouping could not take place. This change is not in
itself sufficient, because if Birmingham were polled as one constituency
electing seven members, and if each elector could give, as with the
"block" vote, one vote apiece to seven candidates, then the seven
nominees of the majority would all receive a higher number of votes than
the seven nominees of the minority. In the numerical case cited above,
each Unionist candidate would command 40,000 votes, each Liberal 20,000,
and each Labour candidate 10,000, and the largest party would win all
the seats.
_The single vote_.]
It is therefore necessary, however many may be the number of members to
be elected, to limit the voting power of each elector to one vote--hence
the name "the single vote." An obvious result of this limitation is that
if a group numbering 10,000 electors concentrates its support upon one
man, then the group is certain of returning that candidate, because not
more than six equally large groups can be formed out of the remaining
electors. With open voting the grouping of electors could be arranged
with comparative ease, for if more electors than were sufficient to
constitute his group desired to vote for a particular candidate, those
who arrived late at the poll could be asked to give their votes to
another candidate, and so help to build up another group of the
requisite size. Or, if a candidate was receiving so little support that
he had no chance of election, the small group that had gathered round
him could be disbanded and these electors, instead of having their votes
wasted, could make their selection from among the other candidates
available. In this way seven groups could be formed, each of which would
obtain a representative.[6]
_The vote made transferable_.]
As, however, the ballot is secret and the result of the voting is not
known until the close of the poll, some provision must be made to
facilitate the equal grouping of the electors upon which fair
representation depends. This will be made clear by an example. Were Mr.
Joseph Chamberlain one of the Unionist candidates for Birmingham, the
group of voters who would record their votes for him would probably
considerably exceed the number required for his election. His Unionist
colleagues might, in consequence, find themselves left without adequate
support, and the party might fail to secure its fair share of the
representation. In order to prevent a mischance of this kind the very
simple device has been adopted of making the vote transferable. By this
means the necessary accuracy in grouping is secured automatically.
_How votes are transferred_.]
The transferable vote enables the elector to instruct the returning
officer to whom his vote is to be transferred in the event of his first
favourite _either_ receiving more support than he requires _or_
receiving so little as to have no chance of election. Continuing the
example already given, an elector who desired to vote for Mr.
Chamberlain would place on the ballot paper the figure 1 against his
name. If, in addition, he placed the figures 2, 3, &c. against the names
of other candidates in the order of his choice, these figures would
instruct the returning officer, in the event of Mr. Chamberlain
obtaining more votes than were necessary to secure his election, as to
whom the vote was to be transferred. The votes given to Mr. Chamberlain
in excess of the number required for his election would thus be rendered
effective. They would be used and not wasted. If, on the other hand, an
elector had recorded his vote for a candidate who, after all excess
votes had been transferred, was found to be at the bottom of the poll,
the returning officer would similarly give effect to the wishes of the
elector as recorded on the ballot paper by transferring the vote to the
elector's second choice. Again the vote would not be wasted, but would
be used in building up a group sufficiently large to merit
representation.
The ideas which have led up to the single transferable vote are,
therefore, of a simple character. Constituencies returning several
members are formed. A representative is given to every group of
electors which attains to a definite proportion of the whole, the
proportion depending upon the number of members to be returned. If a
candidate receives more votes than are sufficient, _i.e._ if too large a
group is formed, the surplus votes are transferred. If, after all
surplus votes have been transferred, there still remain more candidates
than there are vacancies, the lowest candidate on the poll is eliminated
from the contest, _i.e._ the smallest group is disbanded. The transfer
of surplus votes and of votes recorded for the candidates lowest on the
poll are all carried out in accordance with the wishes of the electors
as indicated by them on the ballot paper at the time of the poll. The
proportionate representation of all the electors is secured; each party
obtains the number of members to which it is entitled.
_The Quota._
A few questions will at once occur to the reader as to the application
of these simple rules. How is the number of votes required for success
to be determined? In what way are the surplus votes to be distributed?
What is the order in which the elimination of unsuccessful candidates
shall proceed? The number of votes necessary to secure the election of a
candidate is called the "quota." At first sight it would seem that this
number should be ascertained, as suggested in the preceding paragraphs,
by dividing the number of votes by the number of vacancies. But a
smaller proportion is sufficient. Thus, in a single-member constituency
a candidate has no need to poll all the votes; it is evident that if he
polls more than a half he must be elected. No other candidate can equal
him; the quota in this case is, therefore, one more than a half. So, in
a two-member constituency the quota is one more than a third, for not
more than two candidates can poll so much; in a three-member
constituency, one more than a fourth, and so on. In a seven-member
constituency, like that of Birmingham, the quota would be one more than
an eighth. In general terms the quota is ascertained by dividing the
votes polled by one more than the number of seats to be filled and
adding one to the result.[7]
_A simple case._
The processes involved in distributing the votes are described at some
length in the account which appears further on in this chapter of the
model election organized by the Proportional Representation Society in
1908, but the method of transferring votes and deciding the result of an
election may be more easily understood from a simple case. Let us
imagine there are six candidates for three seats, of whom A, B, C belong
to one party and X, Y, Z to another. On the conclusion of the poll the
ballot papers would be sorted into heaps, or files, corresponding to the
names against which the figure 1 had been marked, and in this way the
number of votes recorded for each candidate would be ascertained. Let
us assume that the result of the sorting is as follows:--
A is marked 1 upon 1801 papers, and therefore has 1801 votes
B " 1 " 350 " " 350 "
C " 1 " 300 " " 300 "
X " 1 " 820 " " 820 "
Y " 1 " 500 " " 500 "
Z " 1 " 229 " " 229 "
---- ----
Total number of papers 4000 Total number of Votes 4000
As there are three seats the quota is one more than a fourth of the
total of the votes polled. The total in this case is 4000, and the quota
is therefore 1001.
A, having obtained more than the necessary quota of votes, is declared
elected.
_The transfer of surplus votes._
It will be seen that A has obtained nearly two quotas of votes, and his
supporters, in the absence of any provision for the use of his surplus
votes, would not obtain the full share of representation to which they
are entitled. The next step is therefore to transfer A's surplus votes
in accordance with the wishes of his supporters. These have indicated on
the ballot papers to whom they desire their vote to be transferred. The
different methods in which the transfer of votes can be carried out will
be described, but for the present it may be assumed that the result of
the operation was to transfer:
648 of the 800 surplus votes to B (a member of the same party as A)
132 " 800 " C (also a member of A's party)
20 " 800 " Z
The votes transferred to the several candidates are added to those
already obtained by them as follows:--
Original Votes. Transferred Votes. Total.
B 350 + 648 = 998
C 300 + 132 = 432
X 820 nil = 820
Y 500 nil = 500
Z 229 + 20 = 249
_The elimination of the lowest unelected candidate_.]
Had any candidate, as a result of the transfer of A's surplus votes,
been raised above the quota he would have been declared elected and his
surplus distributed in the manner just described. In this case no
candidate, as the result of the transfer, has obtained the quota, and
there are, therefore, no further surplus votes to distribute. There are,
however, two vacancies still remaining unfilled, and the next operation
is to distribute the voting papers of Z, who, being the lowest on the
poll, is clearly out of the running. Z's papers are sorted, as in the
previous process, according to the candidates who are marked by the
voters as their next preferences, and it may be supposed that the result
is as follows:--
B is marked as next preference on 20 papers
X " " 200 "
Y " " 29 "
These papers are then added to the heaps of the respective candidates,
B, X, and Y, and, with these additions, the votes credited to each
candidate may be shown thus:--
Previous Transfer of
Total. Z's Votes. Total.
B 998 + 20 = 1018
C 432 + nil. = 432
X 820 + 200 = 1020
Y 500 + 29 = 529
Since B and X, as a result of the distribution, each obtain a quota of
votes, they are declared elected, and all the vacant seats now being
filled, the election is at an end.
_The result._
The candidates elected, A, B, and X, each represent a "quota" of voters.
Each considerable section of the constituency is thus able to choose a
representative, whilst the party to whom both A and B belong return two
members, these candidates taken together having secured the support of
two quotas of voters. The voters who failed to secure a representative,
namely the supporters of C and Y, number less than a quota.
_Different methods of transferring surplus votes.--The Hare
Method_.]
There are several methods by which surplus votes may be transferred. In
the case imagined the simplest way to distribute A's surplus votes is
to take the 800 papers last filed and to sort these papers according to
the second preferences indicated thereon. This method, which was
recommended by the advocates of proportional representation in the
movement of 1884-85, is based upon that contained in Mr. Hare's
proposals. It has, however, been objected that if some other 800 voting
papers are taken the result may be different, and that in this way an
element of chance is introduced. This objection is considered in detail
in Appendix VI., and it will be sufficient to state here that, when
large numbers of votes are dealt with and the papers are well mixed,
this element of chance is negligible. But small as it is it can be
eliminated by adopting more accurate methods of transferring the votes.
_The Hare-Clark method_
One of these more accurate methods was embodied in the Tasmanian Act of
1896, and also in the Municipal Representation Bill approved by the
Select Committee of the House of Lords in 1907. It is known as the
Hare-Clark system, its inception being due to Mr. Justice Clark, of
Tasmania. With this method the surplus votes of any successful candidate
are transferred to the unelected candidates in such a way that each
unelected candidate marked as the voter's next preference on the
successful candidate's papers receives a proportionate share of the
surplus. Continuing with the illustration already given, the returning
officer, instead of taking from A's heap the 800 papers last filed,
takes the whole of A's heap and sorts all these papers according to the
next preferences. Assume that the result is as follows:--
B is marked 2 on..... .................. ..1296 papers
C " 2 on......... .............. .. 264 "
Z " 2 on............. .......... .. 40 "
Total papers showing second preferences .. 1600
Papers on which no further preferences are shown ...201
Total of A's papers.................... ...1801
In this case there are 800 surplus votes, whilst there are in all 1600
papers on which next preferences have been marked. It is therefore clear
that each of the candidates B, C, Z is entitled to receive one-half the
papers on which his name has been marked as the next preference. Each of
the three bundles of papers showing next preferences for B, C, Z are
divided into two portions. One portion is transferred to the next
preference, the other is retained for the purpose of constituting A's
quota, in which is included the papers on which A's name is
alone marked.
The complete operation is shown below:--
Candidate indicated as Number Number of Number of
next Preference. of next Papers Transferred Papers
Preferences. to the next Retained for
Preference. A's Quota.
B 1290 648 648
C 264 132 132
Z 40 20 20
---- --- ---
Total of next preferences 1600 800 800
Papers showing no
further preference 201 -- 201
---- --- ----
Totals 1801 800 1001
In this way each of the candidates B, C, and Z obtains in strict
proportion that share of A's surplus to which he is entitled, and, so
far as this operation is concerned, the element of chance is wholly
eliminated.[8]
The papers selected for transfer, however, are those last filed in the
process of sorting, and should it become necessary to transfer these
papers a second time there would enter in this further distribution an
element of chance which, as explained in the Appendix already referred
to, is so trifling as to have no practical effect upon the result unless
the number of electors is small as compared with the number of members
to be elected.
_The Gregory Method._
A third method, in which the element of chance is eliminated from every
transfer, has been embodied in the Tasmanian Act of 1907. Whenever it is
necessary to transfer surplus votes, the whole of the successful
candidate's papers on which preferences are marked are transferred, but
at a reduced value. In the example given the whole of A's papers on
which next preferences had been marked for B, C, and Z would be carried
forward to those candidates, but each paper would be transferred at the
value of one-half, the remaining portion of the value of each paper
having been used for the purpose of electing A. This method is known as
the fractional, or Gregory, method of transfer, having been first
suggested by Mr. J. B. Gregory of Melbourne, in 1880. The regulations
for the conduct of elections contained in the Tasmanian Act are given in
Appendix VIII.
The committee which investigated the working of this system as applied
to the Tasmanian General Election of 1909, made a very valuable
comparison between the rules contained in the Municipal Representation
Bill[9] and the more exact rules of the Tasmanian Act. A fresh scrutiny,
based on the rules of the Municipal Representation Bill, was made of all
the ballot papers used in that election. It was found that in each
district the same candidates were excluded in the same order and the
same candidates returned as at the actual election. The same results
would, therefore, have been attained and much labour saved if the rules
of the Municipal Representation Bill had been used. This committee,
however, in view of the fact that the more exact method had already been
established in Tasmania, and that the ascertainment of the results only
involved an expenditure of a few hours more time, and that there were
no data available to show the frequency of close contests in which a
small change in the distribution of votes might possibly affect the
result, recommended that no change should be made in the law. Still it
would seem that the rules of the Municipal Representation Bill are
sufficiently exact for all practical purposes except where the number of
electors is small. The fractional transfer is of course the most perfect
from the mathematical point of view, but the Royal Commission on
Electoral Systems, after a careful examination of its working, report
that "we agree with the Proportional Representation Society in regarding
the additional labour involved as greater than it is worth."[10]
Where the number of electors is small, however, it is not only desirable
to carry out the transfers with the exactness prescribed by the
Tasmanian rules, but in important elections, such as those of the
Senators in South Africa, it is desirable to introduce a further
modification. In transferring the votes in ordinary elections fractions
of votes are ignored, because such fractions do not affect the result.
Where, however, there are only a few electors such fractions may become
important, and, for this reason, the regulations (see Appendix IX.)
adopted by the South African Government for the election of Senators
provided that each ballot paper should be treated as of the value of
100, or, in other words, that fractions should be taken into account as
far as two places of decimals. The application of these regulations
presented no difficulty; the counting of the votes in each of the four
Colonies proceeded without the slightest hitch.
_The Gove or Dobbs Method._
The methods of transfer hitherto described all enable the voter to
maintain complete power over the disposal his vote. It has, however,
been suggested that the candidate for whom the vote is recorded should
have the privilege of deciding to whom it should be transferred. The
suggestion was first made by Mr. Archibald E. Dobbs, who, in 1872, in a
pamphlet entitled _General Representation_, made the proposal that
before the date of the election each candidate should publish a schedule
of the names of any of the other candidates to whom he desired his vote
to be transferred. This method of transfer by schedule is usually known
as the "Gove" method, and was contained in the Bill submitted by Mr. W.
H. Gove to the Legislature of Massachusetts, in 1891. Section 7 of this
Bill reads as follows: "Votes shall be transferred according to the
request of the candidate for whom they were originally cast to a person
named in the list furnished by said candidate before the date of the
election." With this method the elector in recording his vote for any
one candidate would have no independent power of indicating to whom the
vote should be transferred, and Mr. Dobbs, in a later pamphlet[11] has
suggested that the elector should be given the option of accepting the
schedule of preferences published by the candidate, or of indicating his
own. Mr. Dobbs thus gets rid of the compulsory acceptance of a schedule
of preferences, a proposal to which most English-speaking electors would
have an instinctive dislike. But even to an optional schedule certain
objections remain. The system has lost in simplicity, and the order of
the candidates in the particular schedules would be determined in most
cases by the party organizations.
The _transferability_ of votes is the connecting link between all these
systems; it is the essential feature upon which depends the
proportionate representation of the contending parties, and the mode of
transfer is properly regarded as a matter upon which different views may
be held. As regards the second and third systems of transfer outlined
above--which so far are the only ones which have been put into
practice--experience confirms the theoretical conclusions of
mathematicians that, save in the case of small electorates, both methods
yield the same result. The second method was that used by the
Proportional Representation Society for the purpose of its model
elections, and is now applied in the election of Municipal Councils in
Johannesburg and Pretoria. A description of the Model Election of 1908
will serve to illustrate the various processes involved in the sorting
and counting of votes.
_The model election of 1908._
In this election it was assumed that the voters in a constituency
returning five members were asked to make their choice among twelve
candidates. These candidates were all well-known political men, and were
chosen with an attempt at impartiality from the Liberal, the Unionist,
and the Independent Labour parties. As no Irish newspaper was publishing
the ballot paper, no Nationalist was included.[12] This ballot paper, a
copy of which appears on page 147, was sent, accompanied by a short
explanatory article, for publication to, and appeared in, the following
newspapers: _The Times, The Morning Post, The Spectator, The Nation, The
Daily News, The Financial News, The Manchester Guardian, The Yorkshire
Post, The Yorkshire Daily Observer, The Western Morning News, The
Western Daily Mercury, The Glasgow Herald, The Dundee Advertiser, The
Woolwich Pioneer_, and _The Labour Leader_. Readers of the newspapers
were asked to cut out the ballot paper, mark it and return it to Caxton
Hall by the first post on the morning of Tuesday, 1 December 1908.
Ballot papers were also circulated independently among members of the
Proportional Representation Society and their friends. About 18,000
papers were returned by newspaper readers, and about 3700 by members of
the Society and their friends. In all a constituency of 21,690 electors
was formed, a number whose votes were enough, but not too many, for
counting in a single evening.
PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION ELECTION, 1908
BALLOT PAPER
PLEASE VOTE
In this Illustrative Election FIVE members are to be elected for a
single constituency, such as Leeds. The following TWELVE Candidates are
supposed to have been nominated.
Order of
Preference. Names of Candidates
........... ASQUITH, The Rt. Hon. H. H.
........... BALFOUR, The Rt. Hon. A. J.
........... BURT, The Rt. Hon. Thomas
........... CECIL, Lord Hugh
........... HENDERSON, Arthur
........... JONES, Leif
........... JOYNSON-HICKS, W.
........... LLOYD GEORGE, The Rt. Hon. D.
........... LONG, The Rt. Hon. Walter H.
........... MACDONALD, J. Ramsay
........... SHACKLETON, David
........... SMITH, F.E.
INSTRUCTIONS TO VOTERS
A. _Each Elector has one vote_, and one vote only.
B. _The Elector votes_
(a) By placing the figure 1 opposite the name of the candidate _he likes
best_.
He is also invited to place
(b) The figure 2 opposite the name of his _second choice_.
(c) The figure 3 opposite the name of his _third choice_, and so on,
numbering as many candidates as he pleases in the order of his
preference.
_N.B._--The vote will be spoilt if the figure 1 is placed opposite the
name of more than one candidate.
* * * * *
This Ballot Paper should be filled in and returned not later than
_Tuesday_, first post, 1 _December_ 1908, in open envelope (halfpenny
stamp), addressed to
THE RT. HON. LORD AVEBURY, Caxton Hall, Westminster, S.W.
_The counting of the votes. General Arrangements_.
The votes were counted at the Caxton Hall, Westminster, on the evening
of Thursday, 3 December. Unfortunately, it was not found possible for
all the newspapers to reproduce the ballot paper in its exact
dimensions, and the unevenness in the sizes of the papers, which would
not occur in a real election, caused some trouble to the counters. The
method on which the room was arranged may best be gathered from the plan
shown on next page.
[Illustration: ILLUSTRATIVE ELECTION, DECEMBER 3RD, 1908 PLAN OF ROOM]
In the centre of the room was the sorting table, where the votes were in
imagination discharged from the ballot boxes. At this table were
stationed a number of helpers, chiefly Post Office sorters, who through
Mr. G. H. Stuart, of the Postmen's Federation, and Mr. A. Jones, of the
Fawcett Association, had kindly volunteered their services. Here also
were a dozen sets of pigeon-holes, each set having twelve compartments,
and each compartment being labelled with the name of a candidate. As
soon as the count began, the sorters started sorting the ballot papers
according to the names marked 1, placing in each candidate's compartment
the papers in which his name was so marked, and setting aside spoilt or
doubtful papers. Printed instructions to the sorters had been
issued, thus:--
1. Sort the ballot papers according to the names marked 1.
2. Place spoiled or doubtful papers on top of the case (right-hand
side).
As the papers were sorted the two assistants supervising these processes
took them to the small tables (checking and counting tables) ranged on
either side of the sorting table. These tables were appropriated to the
various candidates, and when it was expected that a candidate would poll
a large number of votes--_e.g.,_ in the cases of Mr. Asquith and Mr.
Balfour--several tables were allotted to him. At each of these tables
sat two counters who acted in accordance with the following
instructions:--
1. Count the papers into bundles of fifty.
2. See that the figure 1 appears against the name of the candidate whose
papers are being counted.
3. Place mis-sorts at the side of the table.
4. Count each bundle twice.
5. Place on the top of each bundle a coloured slip bearing the
candidate's name (already printed).
6. Note the final bundle with the number of papers therein contained.
The counters thus checked the accuracy of the sorters' work, and
labelled the bundles of each candidate's votes with a card of a
distinctive colour bearing his name. These bundles of votes were then
taken to the returning officer's table, where there awaited them a row
of twelve deep, three-sided open boxes, each labelled with the name of a
candidate. The returning officer's assistants at this table made up the
bundles of 50 into parcels of 500, and ascertained the total number of
votes for each candidate, carefully keeping each candidate's papers in
his own allotted box.
Lastly, the results as ascertained were shown on large blackboards. If
and whenever any doubt arose as to the validity of a vote, it was taken
to the returning officer by the supervisors and adjudicated upon by him.
The accuracy of the sorting may be judged by the fact that when the 9043
votes attributed to Mr. Asquith on the first count were subsequently
analyzed, it was found that only one paper was wrongly placed to his
credit, a Liberal vote which should have gone first to Mr. Lloyd George.
As to these arrangements, one suggestion may be made for the guidance of
future returning officers: it was found in practice that the work at the
returning officer's table was too heavy for the two assistants to keep
pace with the rapidity with which the votes were sorted and counted. Two
assistants are required for the purpose of keeping a record of the
various processes; two others for receiving and distributing the
ballot papers.
_The first count._
The first duty of the returning officer, as already explained, was to
ascertain the total number of votes polled by each candidate, each
ballot paper being a vote for the candidate marked 1 thereon. This was
a simple task, which took about an hour and a quarter, and yielded the
following result:--
Asquith (Liberal) 9,042
Balfour (Unionist) 4,478
Lloyd George (Liberal) 2,751
Macdonald (Labour) 2,124
Henderson (Labour) 1,038
Long (Unionist) 672
Hugh Cecil (Unionist Free Trader) 460
Shackleton (Labour) 398
Burt (Liberal) 260
Leif Jones (Liberal) 191
Smith (Unionist) 164
Joynson-Hicks (Unionist) 94
------
Total 21,672
_The Quota._
It will be seen that, with this method of election, the general result,
showing the relative strength of the parties, can be quickly
ascertained, but, some time elapses before the definitive result, with
the names of all the successful candidates, can be published. The first
step necessary in determining which candidates were successful was to
ascertain the _quota_, and this, in accordance with the rule above
stated,[13] was found by dividing the total number of votes by six and
adding one to the result. The number was found to be 3613, and the table
given above shows that on the first count Mr. Asquith and Mr. Balfour
had each polled more than a quota of votes. Both these candidates were,
in accordance with the rules, declared elected, and, as some
misapprehension prevails on this point, it should be stated that the
order of seniority of members elected under this system would be
determined by the order in which they were declared elected. In this
case Mr. Asquith and Mr. Balfour would be the senior members in the
order named.
_The transfer of surplus votes._
The peculiar feature of the single transferable vote now came into play.
Both Mr. Asquith and Mr. Balfour had polled more votes than were
sufficient to ensure their election, and in order that these excess
votes should not be wasted and a result produced such as that already
shown to be possible where the votes are not transferable, it was the
duty of the returning officer to transfer these surplus votes, and in
doing so to carry out strictly the wishes of the electors as indicated
on their ballot papers.
The largest surplus, that of Mr. Asquith, was first dealt with, and the
transfer of votes, as already mentioned, was effected in accordance with
the provisions of Lord Courtney's Municipal Representation Bill. All the
votes recorded for Mr. Asquith were re-examined, all the ballot papers
contained in his box being taken to the central table and re-sorted
according to the next available preferences indicated by the electors.
For this purpose the names of the elected candidates were removed from
their former pigeon-holes, and one of the compartments vacated was
marked "exhausted" and used as a receptacle for those papers which
contained no available next preference. The instructions to
sorters were:--
1. Sort the ballot papers according to the highest available preference.
2. When no further preference is indicated, place the ballot paper in
the compartment marked "exhausted."
The term "next available preferences" needs definition. As a rule the
next preference was the candidate marked with the figure 2; but if any
supporter of Mr. Asquith had indicated Mr. Balfour (already elected) as
his second choice, then the elector's third choice became the "next
available preference." The papers for each next preference were made
into bundles of 50, but, instead of a coloured card with the name of the
candidate, a white "transfer" card was placed with each bundle. The
transfer card was marked with the name of the candidate whose papers
were being re-sorted and also with the name of the candidate who had
been indicated as the next available preference. The instructions
issued to the counters were as follows:--
_(a)_1. Check the sorting of the papers, _i.e.,_ see that the candidate
whose papers are being counted is the highest available preference.
2. Place mis-sorts at the side of the table.
_(b)_ 1. Count the papers into bundles of fifty.
2. Count each bundle twice.
3. Place on the top of each bundle a "transfer card" showing from and to
whom the votes are being transferred.
4. Note each bundle with the number of papers therein contained.
These bundles were placed in a second series of open boxes on the
returning officer's table, each box being labelled with the name of a
candidate and being smaller in size than the boxes containing the first
preferences. The number of next available preferences for each candidate
was then ascertained. It was, of course, not the duty of the returning
officer to transfer all the re-sorted papers; it was necessary to retain
a "quota" for Mr. Asquith; and an operation which requires some care now
took place. The papers contained in each of the second series of boxes
were divided into two portions, bearing in each case the same proportion
to one another. One portion was transferred to the candidate who had
been indicated as the next preference, and the other was placed in Mr.
Asquith's box, the portions reserved for him constituting his quota; the
actual papers transferred to each next preference were those last placed
in the box bearing his name. The details of this process are set forth
in the table overleaf.
PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION ELECTION, 1908
TRANSFER SHEET
Distribution of the Rt. Hon. H. H. ASQUITH's surplus.
Surplus Votes 5429
No. of Papers showing a next preference 9009
Surplus 5429
Proportion to be transferred = ------------------------- = ----
Total of next preferences 9009
Column Headings:
A. Names of Candidates indicated as next preference.
I. No. of papers on which Candidate is marked as next preference.
II. No. of Votes transferred to next preference. (Fractions ignored.)
III. No. of Votes retained for Mr. Asquith's Quota.
A. I. II. III.
Balfour, The Rt. Hon. A. J. -- -- --
Burt, The Rt, Hon. Thomas 468 282 186
Cecil, Lord Hugh 132 79 53
Henderson, Arthur 261 157 104
Jones, Leif 176 106 70
Joynson-Hicks, W. 17 10 7
Lloyd George, The Rt. Hon. D. 7,807 4,704 3,103
Long, The Rt. Hon. Walter H. 46 27 19
Madonald, J. Ramsay 51 30 21
Shackleton, David 35 21 14
Smith, F. B. 16 9 7
----- ----- -----
Total of next preferences 9,009 5,425 3,584
Preferences exhausted . . 33 -- 33
----- ----- -----
Total 9,042 5,425 3,617[14]
This table needs, perhaps, a further word of explanation. The first
column shows the result of the re-sorting of Mr. Asquith's papers, Mr.
Burt having been indicated as the next preference on 468 papers, Lord
Hugh Cecil on 132 papers, and so on. The papers for each next preference
were, as already staked, divided into two portions, and the second and
third columns show the result of this division. The division is carried
out in a strictly proportional manner, according to the following
principle. If 5429 surplus votes are to be transferred from a total of
9009 unexhausted voting papers, what portion should be transferred from
468, from 132, and so on. The proper numbers, which are given in the
second column, are found by a simple rule of three process; each of the
numbers in the second column is obtained from the corresponding number
in the first column by multiplying by the fraction 5429/9009, that being
the fraction which represents the proportion of unexhausted papers to be
transferred. The figures in column III., which are the votes retained in
each case to make up Mr. Asquith's quota, are obtained by subtracting
the corresponding numbers in column II. from those in column I. Ten
separate calculations were thus necessary, and for this part of the
election it is desirable that the returning officer should have two
assistants who are accustomed to figures. These should check one
another's work. In Belgium the returning officer is assisted by two
"professional calculators."
The ballot papers with the votes constituting Mr. Asquith's quota were
replaced in his original box and never touched again. The ballot papers
transferred were placed in each case on the top of the papers already
contained in the box of the candidate to whom the transfer was made.
As the result of the transfer of Mr. Asquith's surplus it was found that
the total of Mr. Lloyd George's votes amounted to 7455, and as this
number exceeded the quota, Mr. Lloyd George was declared elected, he
being the third member chosen. Mr. Balfour's surplus was then
distributed in a similar manner. The number of votes transferred is
shown in the result sheet, pp. 160-61. As Mr. Lloyd George's total
exceeded the quota, it was also necessary to dispose of his surplus. In
the latter case only the papers transferred to Mr. Lloyd George, and not
his original votes, were re-examined, as his surplus consisted of votes
originally given to Mr. Asquith.
The poll now stood:--
Asquith (Liberal) 3,613 \
Balfour (Unionist) 3,613 > Elected
Lloyd George (Liberal) 3,613 /
Macdonald (Labour) 2,387
Henderson (Labour) 2,032
Burt (Liberal) 1,793
L. Jones (Liberal) 1,396
Long (Unionist) 1,282
Cecil (Unionist Free Trade) 822
Shackleton (Labour) 683
Smith (Unionist) 258
Joynson-Hicks (Unionist) 167
Votes lost through neglect of fractions 13
It will readily be seen that these transfers have been in accordance
with what might have been assumed to be the general political
preferences of the electors. The Liberal surplus votes from Mr. Asquith
naturally went on chiefly to Mr. Lloyd George, and the overflow from Mr.
Lloyd George, after filling up his quota, went on to Mr. Burt and Mr.
Leif Jones, whose positions were greatly improved in consequence, though
neither obtained the quota. At the same time a formidable addition of
834 votes was given to Mr. Henderson, the votes doubtless of Liberal
sympathisers with Labour; and Lord Hugh Cecil received 88 votes,
presumably from moderate Liberals who lay chief stress on Free Trade. On
the other hand, Mr. Balfour's smaller Unionist surplus was divided
mainly between Mr. Walter Long, who received 526 additional votes, and
Lord Hugh Cecil, who received 195.
_The elimination of unsuccessful candidates_.]
After the transfer of all surplus votes had been completed, the work of
the returning officer again became very simple. Three members only had
been elected, two more were required, and there remained in the running
nine candidates, none of whom obtained a quota of votes. Another process
now began, namely the elimination of candidates at the bottom of the
poll, beginning with the lowest and working upwards. The group of
electors who have recorded their votes for the candidate lowest on the
poll are evidently not sufficiently numerous to have a direct
representative of their own. The process of elimination allows these
electors to re-combine with other groups until they become part of a
body large enough to be so entitled. The supporters of the lowest
candidate are treated as being asked (and answering, if they care to do
so, by their next preferences) the question: "The candidate of your
first choice having no chance of election, to whom now of the candidates
still in the running do you prefer your vote to go?" By this process,
first the two candidates, Mr. Smith and Mr. Joynson-Hicks, who at this
stage were at the bottom of the poll and whose combined votes were less
than those of the third lowest candidate, were eliminated and their
votes transferred to the next preferences of their supporters. No one
was elected as a result of this operation, and accordingly the votes of
Mr. Shackleton and Lord Hugh Cecil, now lowest on the poll, were
transferred in the order named.
These and all other eliminations were of the same character. _All_ the
papers of the eliminated candidates which showed an available next
preference were transferred, and no calculations such as were required
in the case of the transfer of surplus votes were needed. It will be
sufficient if the details of one process--the transfer of Mr.
Shackleton's votes--are given; for the details of all other similar
transfers the full table on pp. 160-61 should be consulted. The votes of
Mr. Shackleton were disposed of as follows:--
TRANSFER OF MR. SHACKLETON'S VOTES
Names of Candidates Number of Papers
indicated as next for each next
preference. preference.
Burt 89
Cecil 18
Henderson 233
Jones 57
Long 8
Macdonald 252
Preferences
exhausted 45
---
Total 702
The transfers of the votes both of Mr. Shackleton and of Lord Hugh
Cecil were completed, but still no fresh candidate had the quota, and
Mr. Lief Jones's 1500 votes came next for distribution. These 1500 votes
might have been expected to go to Mr. Burt, the sole remaining unelected
Liberal, who had already 2025 votes, and make his election practically
secure. But here came a surprise; Mr. Leif Jones's supporters (who had,
of course, in most instances, come to him from Mr. Asquith and Mr. Lloyd
George) had in some cases marked no further preferences, so that their
votes were no longer transferable, and in many other cases had marked
Mr. Henderson or Mr. Macdonald as their next preference; thus at the
conclusion of this operation the result of the election was
still doubtful.
Two places had still to be filled, and the poll stood:--
Asquith (Liberal) 3,613 \
Balfour (Unionist) 3,613 > Elected
Lloyd George (Liberal) 3,613 /
Macdonald (Labour) 2,851
Henderson (Labour) 2,829
Burt (Liberal) 2,683
Long (Unionist) 2,035
Mr. Long's votes had now to be distributed; the majority of his
supporters were Unionists who had not marked any preference for either
of the two remaining Labour candidates or for the remaining Liberal
candidate, and their votes consequently were not capable of being
transferred. But some 370 of Mr. Long's supporters had shown a
preference for Mr. Burt (presumably as being reckoned not so Socialistic
as his competitors) as against some 27 for Mr. Macdonald and 80 for Mr.
Henderson, so that the poll stood:--
Asquith (Liberal) 3,613 \
Balfour (Unionist) 3,613 > Elected
Lloyd George (Liberal) 3,613 /
Burt (Liberal) 3,053
Macdonald (Labour) 2,938
Henderson (Labour) 2,910
Mr. Henderson, being at the bottom of the poll, was then eliminated,
but it was unnecessary to proceed with the transfer of his votes as,
after his elimination, there were only five candidates remaining, and
five was the number of members to be elected. The work of the returning
officer was at an end, the following candidates being elected:--
Asquith (Liberal)
Bafour (Unionist)
Lloyd George (Liberal)
Burt (Liberal)
Macdonald (Labour)
The whole process of the election is shown by the returning officers'
full result sheet.
_The fairness of the result._
The fairness of this method of voting is at once apparent. Each group of
electors as large as a quota secured a representative. The Liberals were
in a very large majority, and with the block system and probably with
the single-member system would have nominated five candidates and have
obtained all five seats. In this election the two smaller groups, the
Unionist and Labour parties, each returned one member. The voters did
not, in recording their preferences, restrict themselves to candidates
of one party, but nevertheless, it will be of interest to compare the
seats gained with the strength of parties as indicated by the first
preferences. The party vote disclosed in the first count was as
follows:--
Votes polled.
Liberal 12,244
Unionist 6,868
Labour 3,660
------
Total 21,672
The quota was 3613, and these totals show that the
Liberals obtained 3 quotas with 1405 votes over and gained 3 seats.
Unionists obtained 1 quota with 2265 votes over and gained 1 seat.
Labour obtained 1 quota less 53 votes and gained 1 seat.
PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION ELECTION, 1908--RESULT SHEET
No. of Votes,--21,672.
No. of Seats--5.
Quota = (21,672/6) + 1 = 3613
Col 1: First Count
Col 2: Transfer of surplus votes (Asquith's)
Col 3: Result
Col 4: Transfer of Surplus Votes (Bafour)
Col 5: Result
Col 6: Transfer of Surplus Votes (Lloyd George)
Col 7: Result
Names of Candidates. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Asquith, The Rt.Hon.H.H. 9,042-5,429 3,613 -- 3,613 -- 3,613
Balfour, The Rt.Hon.A.J. 4,478 -- 4,478-865 3,613 -- 3,613
Burl, The Rt. Hon. Thomas. 260 +282 542 +12 554+1,239 1,793
Cecil, Lord Hugh 400 +79 539+195 734 +88 822
Henderson, Arthur 1,038 +157 1,195 +3 1,198 +834 2,032
Jone, Leif 191 +157 297 +2 299+1,097 1,396
Joynson-Hicks, W. 94 +10 104 +52 156 +11 167
Lloyd George, The Rt.Hon.D. 2,751+4,704 7,455 -- 7,455-3,842 3,613
Long, The Rt.Hon. Walter H. 672 +27 699+520 1,225 +57 1,282
Macdonald, J. Ramsay 2,124 +30 2,154 +5 2,159 +228 2,387
Shackleton, David 398 +21 419 +2 421 +202 683
Smith, F.E. 184 +9 173 +65 238 +20 258
Votes lost through
neglect of fractions - +4 4 +3 7 +6 13
Preferences Exhausted - - - - -- -- --
Totals 21,072 - 21,672 -- 21,672 -- 21,672
Col 8: Transfer of votes (J Hicks and Smiths)
Col 9: Result
Col 10: Transfer of Votes Shackleston's)
Col 11: Result
Col 12: Transfer of Votes (cecil's)
Col 13: Result
Col 14: Transfer of Votes (L.Jones)
Col 15: Results
Col 16: Transfer of Votes (Long's)
Col 17: Final Result.
8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.
Asquith -- 3,613 -- 3,613 -- 3,613 -- 3,613 -- 3,613 E
Balfour -- 3,013 -- 3,613 -- 3,613 -- 3,613 -- 3,613 E
Burl. +21 1,814 +89 1,903+122 2,025 +658 2,683 +370 3,053 E
Cecil +88 908 +18 923-926 -- -- -- -- --
Henderson +14 2,046+233 2,270 +49 2,328 +501 2,829 +81 2,910
Jone +12 1,408 +57 1,465 +35 1,500-1,500 -- -- --
Joynson-Hicks 167 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Lloyd George -- 3,613 -- 3,613 -- 3,613 -- 3,613 -- 3,613 E
Long +233 1,505 +8 1,513+490 2,003 +32 2,035-2,035 --
Macdonald +21 2,408+252 2,680 +48 2,708 +143 2,851 +87 2,938 E
Shackleton +19 702-702 -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Smith -258 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Votes lost -- 13 -- 13 -- 13 -- 13 -- 13
Exhausted +29 29 +45 74+182 256 +166 422+1,497 1,919
Totals -- 21,672 -- 21,672 -- 21,672 -- 21,672 --21,672
This result is as fair as is possible, and would have been equally
attained if, as would probably be the case in a real election, there had
been but little cross voting. The total results in the Tasmanian General
Election, 1909 (six-member constituencies) showed an exact proportion
between the votes polled and the seats gained by the respective
parties.[15]
_Improved arrangements in the Transvaal elections._
The arrangements made at the model election were adopted by the Chief
Electoral Officer of Tasmania,[16] and were also adopted by the
returning officers of Pretoria and Johannesburg. Experience has shown
that some improvements in details can be made. Both at Pretoria and
Johannesburg less work was done at the returning officer's table. The
counters were placed more directly arrangements under the
superintendence of the returning officer's assistants, and the final
totals of each operation were ascertained at the counters' tables. When
the ballot boxes were brought in by the presiding officers of the
polling stations with a return of the votes they contained, the
returning officer handed them one by one to superintendents who took
them to that section of the counting force over which they had charge.
The counters ascertained the number of papers in each ballot box. The
superintendents reported the total number to the returning officer, and
if this number agreed with the presiding officer's return the ballot box
and contents were handed back to the returning officer. After the
contents of all the ballot boxes had been verified and the grand total
of votes ascertained, all the papers were emptied into one box and were
well mixed. The papers were then sorted at a central table, as in the
election already described; the superintendent took the papers to the
counters, each of whom ascertained the number of votes for that
candidate whose papers he had been deputed to count. The superintendents
brought a statement of the totals for each candidate to the returning
officer, and if the aggregate of these figures did not agree with the
number of ballot papers distributed to the sorters a fresh count was
ordered. The elections at Johannesburg and Pretoria demonstrated that
the requisite accuracy in counting could be easily attained. The
operations were characterized with remarkable precision. There was no
error in the counting of the votes at Pretoria during the whole of the
operations, and the same remark holds good of Johannesburg, save that
one ballot paper which had been accidentally torn was omitted to be
counted. The two pieces had been pinned together, and the paper, which
in consequence had been rendered shorter than the others, was
overlooked. The omission was quickly discovered, and no other error
took place during the whole of the proceedings. The various counting
processes check one another. Any errors occurring in the earlier
operations are thrown out in the course of the subsequent proceedings,
for the totals of the votes at the conclusion of each operation must
agree with the total shown at the commencement of the count. In another
feature the organization of the Transvaal elections might be copied. All
spoilt or doubtful papers were brought to the returning officer's table
by his assistants, and were not examined until the conclusion of the
first count. The whole of these papers were then gone through by the
returning officer, who decided the question of their validity in the
presence of the candidates or their representatives. The returning
officer also examined all papers which were treated as "exhausted," but
this work might have been deputed to the assistant returning
officer.[17]
_Criticisms of the single transferable vote._
After reviewing the whole of the evidence submitted to them, the Royal
Commission on Electoral Systems reported that "of schemes for producing
proportional representation we think that the transferable vote will
have the best chance of ultimate acceptance," but the Report contains
some criticisms of its mechanism which demand consideration. These
criticisms are directed to two points: (1) the effect of later
preferences in deciding the result of an election; (2) the process of
eliminating candidates at the bottom of the poll.
_Effect of late preferences._
The Royal Commission express the opinion that late preferences may have
an undue weight in deciding the result of an election. But the
Commissioners seem to have been unnecessarily alarmed in this matter. A
careful analysis of the preferences recorded in the Tasmanian elections
was made by a Committee appointed for the purpose by the Tasmanian
Government. This Committee ascertained that the comparative values of
the various preferences in determining the result of the election were
as follows:--
1st preference .739
2nd .140
3rd .051
4th .029
5th .014
6th .008
7th .009
8th .008
9th .003
In other words 73.9 per cent, first preferences became effective votes,
14.0 per cent, second preferences became effective votes, and so on.
These figures show the great superiority in value of the earlier
preferences, and this superiority was also seen in the Transvaal
elections. In Pretoria 68 per cent, of the first preferences were
directly effective in returning candidates, in Johannesburg 67.5 per
cent. Second preferences primarily come into play in favour of
candidates of similar complexion to the candidates first chosen, and
when, as is possible in the last resort, a vote is passed on in support
of a candidate of a different party, this is no more than the
Commissioners themselves approve and recommend for adoption in the case
of three or more candidates standing for a single seat. The difference
between the effect of the final transfers under a system of proportional
representation and of transfers under the system recommended by the
Commission is that in the first case they might determine the character
of one out of five or more members representing a constituency, in the
other they might affect the representation of each of the five or more
divisions into which the constituency would be divided.
_The elimination of candidates from the bottom of the poll._
The second criticism concerns the elimination of candidates. It is
sometimes contended that it is unfair to eliminate the candidate at the
bottom of the poll, because had he remained longer in the contest he
might have received at the next stage a considerable amount of support.
Taking an extreme case, the candidate at the bottom of the poll may
have been so generally popular as to have been the second choice of the
majority of the electors. This is theoretically conceivable, but it does
not conform to the facts of elections. The principle of eliminating a
candidate at the bottom of the poll is not peculiar to the single
transferable vote. When a constituency returns but one member and there
are three candidates, and it is desired by means of the second ballot to
ensure the election of the candidate who commands the support of the
majority of the electors, the candidate lowest on the poll is eliminated
and a second ballot is held to decide between the claims of the
remaining two candidates. In such a case it is conceivable that the
candidate lowest on the poll may have been more acceptable to the
majority of the electors than the candidate finally selected. But the
system of the single transferable vote with constituencies returning
several members diminishes very considerably any such possibility. In
the first place, the candidate to be successful need only obtain a much
smaller proportion of the total number of votes than in a single-member
constituency. In the latter he must poll just over one-half before he is
safe from defeat; in a seven-member constituency if he polls one-eighth
he will escape this fate. The candidate who has a reasonable proportion
of support, therefore, stands less chance of being excluded. In the
second place no candidate is excluded until after the transfer of all
surplus votes has been completed. If, in a constituency returning
several members, a candidate, after the transfer of all surplus votes,
is still at the bottom of the poll, the facts would seem to indicate
that he was not even the second favourite of any considerable number of
electors. The preferences actually given in elections show how little
force this criticism possesses. The table below was prepared by the
Committee appointed by the Tasmanian Government. It shows the result of
an examination of all the votes cast in the district of Wilmot for the
election of five members of the Tasmanian House of Assembly in April
1909. The names of the candidates are given with the numbers of the
various preferences recorded for each candidate. The total number of
second preferences recorded for Waterworth, the first candidate to be
excluded, was 141. Similar tables for the other four districts show that
no injustice arose from the exclusion of the lowest candidate. The only
occasion on which the criticism has any force is when, in filling the
last seats, the conditions are analogous to those which obtain in a
three-cornered fight in a single-member constituency. Yet in the latter
case the Royal Commission did not hesitate to recommend the exclusion of
the lowest candidate.
DISTRICT OF WILMOT: NUMBERS OF VARIOUS PREFERENCES
Name. Preferences.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Best 935 690 596 609 615 550 23 2 7 5
Dumbleton 518 537 603 632 819 650 24 4 3 5
Field 930 699 692 619 555 585 21 9 4 5
Hope 1,232 1,302 1,077 551 229 159 13 6 2 5
Jensen 1,955 894 1,087 132 58 58 13 19 7 36
Kean 599 1,521 1,370 118 53 50 11 28 38 15
Lee 822 750 902 618 512 488 27 4 7 1
Lyons 1,079 1,444 1,329 93 76 65 21 29 32 12
Murray 572 885 972 848 625 395 14 6 7 1
Waterworth 221 141 236 590 198 254 141 21 6 9
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- --- --- --- --
8,863 8,863 8,863 4,810 3,740 3,254 308 128 113 94
The elimination of candidates has been criticized from another point of
view. The Royal Commission, while careful not to endorse this criticism,
and referring to it with reluctance, "because doubts about the absolute
reliability of the mechanism of the system may arouse prejudices
disproportionate to the importance of the subject, which is very small
in comparison with the other considerations involved," review the
evidence which had been submitted to them as follows: "The element of
chance involved in the order of elimination is exceedingly difficult to
determine. It would appear that the element is perceptible in certain
contingencies, but the rarity or frequency with which these would occur
in actual practice is a matter of pure speculation, as it apparently
depends on the amount of cross-voting which voters permit themselves in
the use of their later preferences, a point only to be decided by
experience. 'Chance' in this connexion has not quite the same meaning as
when used in respect of the method of transfer. In the case of the
latter we were dealing with mathematical probabilities; the chance which
is said to be involved in the process of elimination consists in the
fact that the results of the election may vary according to the strength
of quite irrelevant factors. Thus, a case was put to us to show that
with certain dispositions on the part of the electors the representation
of a party might be so much at the mercy of the order of elimination
that while it would only obtain one seat with 19,000 votes of its own it
would obtain two with 18,000, because in the latter case the order of
elimination of two candidates would be reversed."[18]
It is here suggested that the results may depend upon the amount of
cross-voting which voters would permit themselves in the use of their
later preferences. The whole paragraph abounds in obscurities, and the
word "cross-voting" is used in such a context as to make it quite
uncertain whether the Commission mean by it inter- or intra-party
voting, or both. It is somewhat difficult to make a definite answer to a
charge so indistinctly formulated. Cross-voting, in the ordinary sense,
may certainly affect the result. If the supporters of a Radical
candidate prefer to give their second preferences to a Labour candidate
rather than to a moderate Liberal, such cross-voting obviously may
determine whether the Labour candidate or the moderate Liberal will be
successful. There is no element of chance involved. The object of the
system is the true representation of the electors, and the returning
officer must give effect to their wishes. The numerical case cited by
the Commissioners can only occur when so-called supporters of the party
in question are so indifferent to its fate as to refrain from recording
any preferences for any members of the party other than their own
favoured candidate. Such voters can hardly be called "members of a
party" for the purpose of contrasting its strength with that of another
party.[19] Even such cases, supposing them at all probable in practice,
could be provided against, as has been suggested by Mr. Rooke Corbett of
the Manchester Statistical Society, by determining a new quota whenever
any votes have to be set aside as exhausted. But the elections in which
the system has been tried show how little these cases accord with the
facts. The large number of exhausted papers which occur in the model
election described in this chapter, which was organized through the
press, perhaps accounts for much of this criticism. In real elections
the percentage of exhausted papers is much less. Thus in Johannesburg,
where one rigidly organized party, another party more loosely organized,
and ten independent candidates took the field, the electors made good
use of their privilege of marking preferences. Some 11,788 votes were
polled. At the conclusion of the tenth transfer only 104 votes had been
treated as exhausted. In Pretoria, where there were 2814 votes, the
total number of exhausted votes at the end of the election was only 63.
This happened on the occasion of the first trial of the system in
Johannesburg and Pretoria, and further experience will lead to an even
fuller exercise of the privilege of marking preferences. There is no
case for a criticism based on such a hypothetical example as that hinted
at by the Commission.
_Quota Representation on the basis of the system._
Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, in criticizing this method of voting, complains
that its advocates "assume, quite erroneously, that a second preference
should carry the same political value as a first preference." But it
would be obviously unfair to penalize an elector by depriving him of any
part of the value of his vote because he failed to secure his first
choice as his representative. In making this criticism Mr. Macdonald has
lost sight of the reason for which the vote is made transferable. Every
elector has but one vote, and unless this vote retains its full value
when transferred, the proportionate representation of the electors
cannot be achieved. Thus it is conceivable that in a constituency
returning several members Mr. Macdonald might poll two quotas of Labour
votes, and if his excess votes were not transferred to the second
preferences of his supporters at their full value, the representation of
the party would suffer. Each quota of electors is entitled to a member,
and the transferring of votes enables the electors to group themselves
into quotas of equal size.
In a critical analysis of the regulations adopted in the Transvaal, Mr.
Howard Pim, President of the Statistical Society, South Africa, stated
that: "However defective these regulations may be, the system of
election introduced by this Act is a great advance upon any previously
in existence in this Colony, for by it a minority which can command a
number of votes equal to or exceeding a number equal to the quota can
elect its candidate. This advantage far outweighs any defects that exist
in the regulations, and I trust that this principle of the quota will
never be surrendered, even if the Second Schedule of the Act be
modified."[20] Representation by quota has always been recognized by
advocates of the single transferable vote as being the great reform
accomplished by the new method of voting. The Government Statistician of
Tasmania, Mr. R. M. Johnston, declared that "those who ignore this
keystone, or foundation of the Hare system, and restrict their attention
entirely to peddling or unimportant details--such as the element of
chance involved in quota-excess-transfer-votes--fail altogether to
comprehend the grandeur and perfection of the cardinal features of the
system, which secures just and equitable representation of all forces,
whether of majorities or minorities." In attempting to give effect to
this great principle it is unnecessary to impose more work upon the
returning officers than is absolutely essential for the purpose, and
such experience as is available shows that the rules contained in the
Municipal Representation Bill[21] accomplish this end.
[Footnote 1: Denmark was thus the first country to make use of a system
of proportional representation. An excellent account of its introduction
is given in _La 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.]