The Dominion. FRIDAY, MAY 17, 1912. PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1442, 17 May 1912, Page 6

The Dominion. FRIDAY, MAY 17, 1912. PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION.

The recent Tasmanian elections wore of special interest to the students of proportional representation. Most people-on the. whole rightly, but not altogether rightly— feel that the ordinary system of voting at elections (the system that was in vogue here until it was superseded by the second ballot scheme) ought to give way to some better means of securing that the ■ composition of Parliament shall mirror as nearly as possible the composition of public opinion. Several methods of "scientific voting have been devised; the Tasmanian method is a form of the Hare system. The country is divided into five constituencies, each returning six members, and the elector votes for candidates in an order of preference. At the first count only first preferences are considered, and every member is elected forthwith who obtains the "quota" which is the total number of valid votes divided by seven. The surplus votes of those who pass tho quota are distributed amongst th"e other candidates, and a process of sifting goes on until six candidates have secured the neccssarv number of votes. It can be a lengthy business, obviously; in one of the electorates it was only on the 28th count that the sixth man was elected. The merit of the system is that it certainly does secure that the distribution of parties in the Parliament corresponds to the distribution of the parties in the country. At the Tasmanian election in 1909 the Liberals, polled 28,893 votes and the Labour candidates 19,067. On this basis the Liberals were entitled to 18.3 seats and the Labour party to 11.7. Actually the Liberals obtained 18 seats and the Labour party 11, a strikingly close correspondence of figures. At the election this year the Liberals polled 39,790 votes against Labour's 33,361. The seats should have been divided thus: Liberal 16, Labour 14; and that actually was the result. In all the countries in which the ordinary simple single vote system is in practice, the Parliament can easily tie quite unrepresentative of the state of public opinion in the country. It is particularly destructive of the minority parties outside the two main divisions. Sometimes, however, it can wipe out the effectiveness of half the votes cast. For instance, in the contest for tho 18 seats vacant in the Federal Senate in 1910 there were just over 4,000,000 votes cast. The Labour votes numbered 2,021,090 and the non-Labour votes 1,997,029. Under perfect proportional representation the seats would have beeu evenly shared, but in the actual result Labour secured all eighteen of the seats. This is, of course, a perfect example of the extreme of unfairness that is possible under the system of a simple single non-transferable vote, but inequalities and abnormalities in a lesser degree are the usual thing. One of the few ca.ses in which the ordinary system produced a fairly good rcllection in Parliament of the feeling of'the country was I he case of our own elections. Taking into account all those seats in whicn "Liberal" and Reform candidates met—excluding those in which one or otbor party w«« imrßprehented--the votes cast roughly reflected tho

actual relation of 38 Reform members to H'l regular "Liberals." This great virtue of an electoral system based on scientific principles is, not so much that it is certain to secure the direct Parliamentary representation of minorities—although that has its advantages—as that it secures that no minority voter can smart under the injustice of a virtual disfranchisement. It gives the greatest possible effect to the individual voter's opinion: if his man does not win, his vote is not dead and void, for it can operate to the advantage of his second or third choice, or, which is just as useful to him, against any man whom he con-' siders specially undesirable. That is the real merit of preferential voting. Strictly, there is nothing like a certainty, but only a large probability, that preferential voting will secure something like proportional representation. It is quite possible, although not very probable, that the. Tasmania", system might produce results as odd and unfair as can result from any other_ system, But in large constituencies, returning several members each, there is a chance for everybody. One interesting result of this electoral system has been noted by the Melbourne Argus in its comment on the very slender majority with which the. Lewis Ministry will have to carry on. "Though," it pointed out, "it would appear as if the Labour party has improved its position, yet sufficient votes have been cast against it to have almost obliterated it had the Tasmanian election been conducted on the same basis as the [Federal! Senate election. The assurance giyen to a Ministry elected under the proportional system, that it lias a certain definite majority of the people behind it, and that its position does not depend on a few chance votes in various electorates, makes a majority of four or five under the proportional system equal to a majority of fifteen or twenty under the ordinary system." A political "landslide" under the ordinary system can result from a handful of small "turnovers" as easily as from a general turnover throughout the country. A system of scientific voting will make a landslide of the first kind very rare and always highly | improbable.