1919 Grain Growers Guide published Charles Bowman's views on PR and the first Sligo city election conducted using STV
- Tom Monto
- Jun 10
- 11 min read
GGG (Dec. 10, 1919) published an article by Charles A. Bowman, the editor of the Ottawa Citizen, on the recent Sligo election, the first STV city election in Great Britain.
it teased the article on page 2:
"Proportional Representation is rapidly coming into its own. East and west it is attracting close attention. Even citizens who used not to give much attention to the actual mechanism of our system of representative government and whose idea of proportional representation (when they thought of it at all) was that it was a theoretical fad, too complicated to be practicable, are now seeing its advantages, and studying its workings.
In this issue of The Guide, Charles A. Bowman, the editor of the Ottawa Citizen, a clear thinker and writer and a true progressive, explains how proportional representation works, making the matter plain with practical examples. This article of Mr. Bowman’s is a valuable addition to his article in the Political Outlook Number of The Guide, which was issued last week."
[page 4]:
How Proportional Representation Works
Selecting the Successful Candidates - The Sligo Election used as an example
By Charles A. Bowman
Calgary has used the proportional representation method successfully in two municipal elections.
The mayor of Calgary, R. 0. Marshall, said after the second election:
‘‘The writer’s opinion is that it has worked out very satisfactorily, giving all classes representation on the council, which tends to give better satisfaction and is, therefore, superior to the old system of majority, where one class in the community has control of other classes."
Wherever proportional representation is in use, the testimony would seem to be that the electorate has no difficulty in voting. In the South African city of Johannesburg, the electorate is so cosmopolitan that it is necessary to print the ballots in three languages: English, Dutch, and Yiddish. When Johannesburg adopted proportional representation, the various nationalities were able to vote quite as intelligently as under the old system; even the Kaffirs apparently found no serious difficulty in grasping what they had to do.
The Sligo Election
Last January, when the municipal elections in the town of Sligo, in Ireland, were first held in accordance with a special act of the British parliament, with proportional representation as the method of voting, the different party organizations took up the education of the they explaining how the elector should vote. Sligo was divided into. three wards, each of the wards electing eight representatives. The Ratepayers’ Association nominated six candidates in each ward: Sinn Fein, Labor, and Independent candidates were also nominated! In the west ward there were 16 candidates nominated for the eight seats.
The following copy of a leaflet distributed by the Ratepayers’ Association is an illustration of the way the electors were advised to vote by the party organizations:—
VOTE FOR THE RATEPAYERS’ ASSOCIATION MEN WHOSE NAMES APPEAR IN HEAVY TYPE
Put figure 1 opposite the name of your Favorite, and don’t forget to put 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 before the names of the other five.
DON’T USE A X, and the paper will be spoiled if the figure 1 is placed before more than one candidate.
WEST WARD:
CONNOLLY, JAMES
DEPEW, HENRY
FEENEY, WILLIAM JOSEPH
FANDE, WILLIAM
FINAN
FLANAGAN
HAMILTON
HANDE
HOWLEY, THOMAS DANIEL
etc.
Instructions to voters were also given as follows:—
Vote by placing the figure 1 opposite the name of the candidate you like best.
You are also invited to place:—
The figure 2 opposite the name of your second choice:
The figure 3 opposite the name of your third choice, and so on, numbering as many candidates as you please in the order of your preference,
Note.—The paper will be valid if only the figure 1 is marked, but voters are advised to number in the order of their preference the names of all candidates who they would desire to see elected. The paper will be spoiled if the figure 1 is placed opposite the name of more than one candidate.
The organizers of the campaign did not urge the voters to give first choice to any particular candidate; they asked support for all their candidates, but threw the responsibility upon the elector of choosing the one referred.
Select your favorite,’’ they said, ‘but do not fail to record a preference for every one of our candidates.’’
All Parties Satisfied
In the west ward, the candidates elected were four Ratepayers, two Sinn Fein, and two Labor. Every party seemed to be satisfied with the fairness of proportional representation. The old system, one party practically monopolized the council; the corporation of Sligo had actually gone bankrupt; for 4 time the streets were neither repaired, swept, nor lighted.
After the proportional representation election the Irish Independent said:
"Proportional representation has given Sligo a model council, There is no reason why it should not be equally successful in Dublin, and other cities and towns in Ireland."
The council elected by PR, including all wards, resulted as follows:—
Ratepayers' 823 votes 8 elected
Sinn Fein 674 votes 7 elected
Labour 432 votes 5 elected
Independents 279 votes 4 elected
The Sligo Champion, whose editor took part in the counting of the ballots, said:
"It was absolutely absolutely successful. it was really a model election. Throughout the whole process of counting and transferring, not one single mistake occurred. This is, of course, a tribute to efficiency of the staff as well as to the manner in which every stage of the count automatically checks itself."
The counting is a simple process of transferring figures from one column to another, in accordance with the expressed preferences of the voters.
The returning officer at Sligo, J. McCarthy, said, after the municipal elections:
"At the count, neither the candidates nor their agents had any trouble in following the various steps, although it was their first. experience of the system. The difficulty of the count appears much more formidable on paper than in actual practice."
A systematic method eliminates the alleged difficulties.
When the counting begins, the first step is to ascertain the total number of votes cast in the constituency. Each ballot box is opened and the number of ballot papers therein counted. Counting is checked, and the figures are compared with the deputy returning officer’s statement, the importance of carrying out this count with care as it furnishes the returning officer with the means of checking the accuracy of all subsequent operations.
Some Suggestions :
It is suggested by the Proportional Representation Society of Canada that, before the ballot papers are sent to the returning officer, it might be considered desirable to have them first sorted and counted at the several polling places according to the first choices indicated on them. This preliminary counting, which would be checked by the returning officer, would furnish a record of the voting in different parts of the constituency.
After ascertaining the total number of valid ballots, it is possible for the returning officer to tell how many votes are sufficient to assure the election of a candidate. This number is called the "quota" In a constituency with eight candidates to be elected, any candidate securing one-eighth of the total votes would be, obviously, sure of election. But it is not necessary to secure even one-eighth of the total; as long as a candidate gets more than one-ninth of the total votes cast, he is elected, for only eight candidates can secure more than one-ninth of the total. So the least possible number necessary to elect a candidate in an eight-member constituency is one more than one-ninth of the total votes cast in the constituency. The quota, therefore, in this instance, is ascertained by dividing the total number of votes by nine, and taking the next whole number above the quotient.
In the west ward in Sligo, there were 940 ballots with the figure 1 marked on them—for marking the figure 1 on the ballot is the legal act of voting. There were eight candidates to be elected, so the returning officer determined the quotient of 940 divided by 9 is 104 4/9. The next whole number above 104 4/9 is 105; therefore, 105 is the quota.
Eight candidates could poll 105 votes, but no more than eight candidates, in a total of 940 votes cast.
Counting the Ballots
The operation of finding out which of the candidates have secured the quota is simple. The ballot papers are sorted according to the names marked 1. For this purpose in the Sligo elections, sets of pigeon-holes were provided, each with sixteen compartments. These compartments were labelled with the names of candidates in alphabetical order, The sorters were instructed to place on the top of the sorting frames all papers which were invalid, or of doubtful validity.
A paper was valid — if the figure 1 was clearly marked against the name of one candidate only. The invalid and doubtful papers were taken to the returning officer by the supervisor of the counting staff. These papers were examined by the returning officer in the presence of the candidates or their representatives.
According to the account of the election, printed in Proportional Representation Pamphlet No. 8, of the Canadian Proportional Representation Society (Ronald Hooper, hon. secretary, Ottawa), the Ratepayers’ Association, which nominated six candidates for each ward, appointed two representatives to watch the proceedings on behalf of all their 18 candidates. The papers adjudged valid were taken back by the supervisor and placed with the papers already sorted. After the votes were thus sorted, 3 counted, and the counting checked, the supervisor informed the returning officer of the number of votes for each candidate; and as the total agreed with the total number of papers ascertained when the ballot boxes were opened, the supervisor brought the counted papers to the returning officer’s table. The table had already been labelled with the names of the candidates in alphabetical order, If the number had not agreed, the returning officer would have ordered a recount.
The result of the first count in the west ward was as follows:
[940 votes in total
quota was 105.
Perry with 169 votes was only one to achieve quota in first count.]
[continued on page 10]
page 10:
The quota was determined by dividing 940 by 9 and adding one to the quotient: the result, 105, was the quota in this election.
The table given above shows that Perry had obtained more than a quota of votes. He was declared elected on this first count. No other candidate obtained a quota at the first count. The returning officer then proceeded to transfer Perry's surplus. Perry had 169 ballots marked 1, and he required only 105 to elect him. A portion of the ballots marked 1 for Perry, with subsequent choices also marked for other candidates, were available for transfer.
By marking the figure 2 against a second choice, the voter said in effect to the returning officer: ‘‘In the event of Perry receiving more votes than he requires to elect him, or in the possible event of Perry receiving so few votes that he has no chance of election, transfer my vote to the candidate marked second choice by me, as indicated by the figure 2 on the ballot paper."
Transferring the Surplus
For the purpose of transferring Perry’s surplus, the whole of Perry’s papers were re-sorted according to the next choices, in this case the second choices. It was found that 11 of Perry’s papers were marked with the figure 2 against the name of Connolly; Kerr was second choice on 77 of Perry’s papers; Tighe on 31, and so on.
Perry was the strongest of the Ratepayers’ candidates, and the largest number of second choices were for other candidates on the Ratepayers’ ticket.
But the single transferable vote, as proportional representation is sometimes called, does not mean that all the ballots marked second choice must be transferred; a proportion must be kept for the first choice candidate, to make up his quota; the remainder is available for transfer. Perry had 169 votes; he: required only 105 to elect him, therefore he could spare 64 votes to other candidates. Three of Perry’s ballots were marked with the figure 1 only, they were valid votes for Perry and were set aside by the returning officer as part of Perry’s quota. This left 166 ballots from which 64 had to be transferred to second-choice candidates. These had already been sorted according to the names marked 2, and the returning officer’s assistants then calculated by a series of rule-of-three sums, how many votes could be transferred to each of the candidates entitled to benefit.
[rule of three is an old math system often referred to in old texts, but I don't know how it works]
The following is the result as shown on Perry’s transfer sheet:
[fraction of surplus] proportion of surplus to be transferred: 32/83
[examples]
Connolly 11 ballots marked with second choice 7 transferred 4 retained by Perry
Depew 4 ballots marked with second choice 2 transferred 2 retained by Perry
[largest remainder system used to allocate last few votes to be transferred]
The calculation was made by multiplying each of the numbers in column 1 by the fraction 64/166, or 32/83, that being the fraction which represented the proportion of votes to be transferred. The resulting numbers are given in column 2, the largest fractions being treated as whole numbers. The calculations were checked. As the table shows, 64 papers in all were transferred, and 105 papers, including the three marked with the figure 1 only, were retained for Perry’s quota. Kerr received 30 votes as his share of Perry’s quota, and as he already had 82 votes, his total was now 112. This was seven votes more than the quota, and he was declared elected, Kerr’s surplus of seven, called a secondary surplus, had next to be distributed.
In dealing with any secondary surplus, that is, a surplus which is caused by votes being transferred from another candidate’s papers, only the papers which give rise to the surplus are examined for subsequent preferences. So in dealing with Kerr’s surplus of seven votes, the 30 papers received from Perry were sorted according to the next choices thereon, in this case the third choice, and the surplus was apportioned among the candidates entitled to benefit in accordance with the: procedure already described. Tighe received 5, Hamilton 1, and Finan 1, the remaining 23 completed Kerr’s quota.
Thus at the end of the third count two candidates had been elected.
[no more surplus votes to transfer]
Elimination of Candidates
There were 14 candidates remaining in the running for the other six places, none of whom had obtained a quota.
The next step was to transfer the papers of the candidates at the bottom of the poll. The returning officer — accordingly declared defeated the candidate lowest on the poll, Thompson, with 15 votes. Thompson’s papers were sorted according to the next available preferences.
The whole 15 votes were transferred as follows:—
Depew (Labor) 4
Lambert (Labor) 4
Howley (Labor) 2
Hamilton (Ratepayer) 2
Hande (Labor), 1
Tarrant (Sinn Fein) 1
Tighe (Ratepayers) 1
Total 15
On certain ballots marked first choice, Thompson; second choice, Kerr; third choice Perry; the votes went to candidates marked fourth choice on Thompson’s ballots; Perry and Kerr were already elected, so the fourth choice in such cases became the next available preference.
The elimination of candidates at the bottom of the poll proceeded, with the transfer of Howley’s, Lambert’s, and Finan’s votes. The votes were transferred to next available preferences, preferences for elected or eliminated candidates being ignored.
At the seventh count Tighe was elected with five surplus votes. These were transferred in accordance with the procedure already described. Connolly and Depew | were elected at the same count with 106 votes. The surplus of one vote was not transferred because it was too small to effect the relative position of the candidates at the bottom of the poll.
The final result and the order of election was as follows:—
1. Perry (Ratepayers) Alderman 105
2. Kerr (Ratepayers) Alderman 105
3. Tighe (Ratepayers) Councillor 105
4. Depew (Labor) . Councillor 106
5. Connolly (Ratepayers) Councillor 106
6. Flanagan (Sinn Fein) Councillor 105
7. Hande (Labor) Councillor 95
8. Feeney (Sinn Fein) councillor 91
*Not elected: Hamilton (Ratepayers) 89
Not-transferable papers [exhausted].................... 88
Total :
In Pamphlet No. 8, issued by the Proportional Representation Society of Canada, the details of every transfer are given, and seeming difficulties are made clear. The returning officer testified that the count is not perceptibly longer than the old method in point of time when 16 candidates are contesting eight seats.
The newly-elected mayor, Alderman Hanley, said:
‘‘The election recently conducted here under proportional representation has given entire satisfaction to the people of Sligo, and under no circumstances would they be agreeable to go back to the old system.’’
In the event of the city of Winnipeg being divided into two large constituencies for provincial election purposes, each electing seven or eight members, the way will be open for all parties to secure representation in the Manitoba legislature by their best and most trusted leaders.
In a constituency where the total vote polled amounted to
[page 12] 27,000, where eight are to be elected, any candidate who secured 3001 would be assured of election.
STV assures that while the majority will rule, all considerable minorities will be heard. The legislature becomes the true mirror of public opinion.
=======================================
Bowman was prescient about how Winnipeg would adopt STV.
Before the next year was out, Winnipeg did adopt STV for election of its MLAs.
Their number was set at 10, and with confidence obtained from who knows where, Winnipeg was made into a city-wide district, electing all ten in one contest.
As Bowman had expected, 47,000 valid votes were cast across the city.
quota was set at 4312 (about same as Bowman had expected with Winnipeg divided into two districts).
The election went just fine.
for info, see Montopedia blog
========================================
Comentarios