_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 ent.i.tled. 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 compet.i.tors) 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 -- -- -- -- --