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 const.i.tuencies) 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 a.s.sistants, 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 a.s.sistants, 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 a.s.sistant 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 a.n.a.lysis 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 pa.s.sed 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 const.i.tuency, in the other they might affect the representation of each of the five or more divisions into which the const.i.tuency 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 const.i.tuency 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 const.i.tuencies 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 const.i.tuency. In the latter he must poll just over one-half before he is safe from defeat; in a seven-member const.i.tuency 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 const.i.tuency 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 a.s.sembly 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 a.n.a.logous to those which obtain in a three-cornered fight in a single-member const.i.tuency. 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 "a.s.sume, 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 const.i.tuency 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 ent.i.tled to a member, and the transferring of votes enables the electors to group themselves into quotas of equal size.

In a critical a.n.a.lysis 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 Munic.i.p.al 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 Representation 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 a.s.sembly elected for the province.]

[Footnote 3: The first section of the amendment was as follows: "From and after the pa.s.sing of the present Bill, every local const.i.tuency 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 const.i.tuency 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 const.i.tuency 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 munic.i.p.ality 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 const.i.tuencies 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.]