"P.R." IN PRACTICE

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 219, 10 June 1919, Page 6

"P.R." IN PRACTICE

PROPORTIONAL VOTING IN ENGLAND (By a Correspondent of the "Manchester (Guardian.") The elections in ■university constituencies returning two or more members have at least removed one objection \ raised against proportional representation—that it is unworkable. The'counting has been carried out promptly and .without difficulty. These elections havo not, however, gone far to secure the representation of various bodies of opinion among the electorate, and this for two reasons. Two-member constituencies allow at best of' the representation of two points of view, and four out of the five P.R. university constituencies return two members each, the Scottish universities alone returning three. Moreover, experience shows that a university electorate is, and remains on the; whole, a Conservative electorate; other minority parties havo generally been too small to secure repre. eentation. Oxford. This is especially striking In the case of Oxford. Here 5564 valid votes wero cast, and the quota was 1855. One-third of 5564 is 1854 2-3, and clearly, if two candidates polled 1855, only 1854 would remain for any other candidate or candidates, who would thus 6tand lower on the poll than the two who polled 1855, Evory elector waa instructed to place the fijjuro 1 opposite the name of tho candidate whom he most wished to see elected. Ho was asked to place the figures 2, 3, etc., opposite to some or all of the remaining candidates in the order of his preference. At the first count each paper waa allotted to tie candidate vrhose name was marked 1 upon it.

Lord Hugh Cecil obtained 2771 votes, that is, 916 more than he needed to secure election. Mr. Prothoro obtained 1716, Professor Gilbert Murray 742, and Mr. Sanderson IHirniss 335. Lord Hugh Cecil was declared elected. All bis papers were re-examined and sorted according to the second preference recorded. Lord Hugh Cecil required 1855 of these papers to secure his own eleotion, and from each heap a proportion was retained by him and a proportion transferred ta the candidate marked as second preference. By Te-examining all. Lord' Cecil's papers and transferring to each oandidate a number proportionate to tho number on which he was marked as second preference the returning officer ensured strict justice to all and reduced the element of chance' to a negligible quantity. By this transfir Mr. Prothero's total -was brought above the quota, and he was declared elected.

, It will be seen that the' Oxford election resulted in the retilrn of two Unionists, while Liberalism and Labour remained unrepresented. But fewer-than one-fifth of • the electors stood for Liberalism or Labour, tho remaining four-fifths being solidly Unionist. So small a section as one-fifth could not with justice claim half the representation. Two-member constituencies do not allow of P.E. in its fullest sense. '

Tho Cambridge minority were very muoh nearer to securing representation. Tho total number/of valid votes cast was 5785, the quota 1929. On the first count Mr. Rawlinson (Coalition Unionist) was elected, having a surplus of 105. Tho other candidates polled as follows.—Sir Joseph Larmor (Coalition Unionist), 1891; Mr. Squire (Labour), .640; Mr. Dampior Whetham (Independent), 220. Of Mr.- Eawlinson's surplus votes 95 wore transferred to Sir Joseph Larmor, thus securing his election, while only nine were transferred to Mr. Whetham. If Mr.-Whetham had secured 69 of these transferred votes and Sir Joseph Larmor only 35 no candidate would have attained tho quota, and. a third transfer would havo been necessary. Mr. Squire would then have been 1 declared defeated and all his papers transferred, If Mr. Whetham had been second preference on all these he would actually have been elected and Sir Joseph larmor defeated.

At Cambridge, however, there was a solid Unionist block of just over twothirds of the . electors. Independents and Labour together formed less than a third of the electorate, and in a two-tnember constituency could thus secure no representation, •

The Combined Universities, The combined English Universities gavo perhaps the most, interesting illustration of P.R; Tho candidates wero Mr. Fisher (Coalition Liberal), Sir Martin Conway (Coalition Unionist), Mr. J. A. Hobson (Independent Democrat), and Mr. Williams (Unionist). total of valid votes cast was 1994 and tlic quota Gtio. On the first count Mr. Fisher was elected with a surplus of 29. r i, Mr. Hobson and Mr. Williams each polled 366, and Sir Martin Conway 803. Conway was thus lowest on tlio poll, , It was clear that Fisher's surplus was not large enough to liri.ig any now candidate up to tho quota. It was also clear that tho combined Unionist support of Conway and Williams exceeded the independent voto for ITobbon, and that one of these former would bo elcched. Tho transfer of Fisher's surplus, placed Conway at tho head of he noil with 465 votes, Hobson with 451, and Williams lowest; with 410. Williams was thereforo declarod defoated. Naturally, his supporters had for the most part given next preference to his fellow-Union-ist Conwnv, and at the third count Conway w.is elected with 177 votes. Hobson only rcnohing a total of 181, On 71 papers no further available preference was expressed

The rrsult clearly represents tho wishes of Hie elei-ior,; as fully as is possible in n two-mombe.r constituency. Mr. Hobson's supporters were fewer than one-fifth of ihe uU-etorai?. whilst Mr. Fisher's were nearly half, and tho joint Unionist vote ovr n tliirn'. Under these circumstances Coalition Liberals and Unionists were tho two groups uiost entitled lo representation. Mr. Fisher's surplus vote ensured tho election of tho Unionist recognised by tho Coalition, although ho had fewer fir<t prefnronco votes than any other candidate. The fact, gratifying in itself, to Mr. Hobson'e supporters, that ho was Inst to bo defeated* deprived them of tho power of influencing eleotioh of tho eecond candidate Dy therr Brefarancfe.