British electoral reform in 1800s and early 1900s - books by Mackay and Jenifer Hart present the story. (a timeline)

Info in this timeline is from two sources:

Jenifer Hart, Proportional Representation Critics of the British Electoral System 1820-1945. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992. Much on Hare, John Stuart Mill, the activities of the Proportional Representation Society, the fight for the best -preferred replacement for FPTP, the application of PR to elect various government bodies in Britain 1880-1920s.

R.W.G. Mackay. Coupon or Free? A study in electoral reform and representative Government (1943). much on wartime United Kingdom and the upcoming 1944 election and need for PR.

==================================

Jenifer Hart divides her coverage into these divisions:

First critics 1820-1857

-Thomas Hare

-John Stuart Mill

1840 s block voting in three-seat constituencies p. 14

in seven counties with three seats each from 1832-1865, all three seats taken by one party one-third of the time.

[I would've thought that happened two-thirds of the time!]

[BC use of multi-seats produced a one-party sweep three-quarters of the time]

Lord John Russell p. 15

Nassau William Senior (Oxford professor) saw that the number of seats a district had was "one of the most important questions connected with representation" (p. 15)

1851 Spectator saw that the Parliament vote against "papal aggression" was sign that the FPTP/BC mix gave no guarantee for rep. of opinion opposed to the majority. --

Parliament registered only net balance of local majorities [pluralities] and did not try to create an enlightened public opinion. (p. 16)

1852 W.R. Greg saw that the equal sized districts which were being suggested as way to fix that some districts were so small they were pocket boroughs and others still small enough to be rotten boroughs, would not produce fairness -- that one party could still happen and even with equal sized districts, that minorities were represented at all would be due to happy accident.

he saw that majority decision was fine in chamber but the chamber itself should be composed using PR. (p. 16-17)

1853 James Garth Marshall pamphlet -- Minorities and Majorities Their Relative Rights...talked of both rights of majority and rights of minorities.

1853 W.E. Hickson, speaking to Commission of Enquiry into the Corporation of London, spoke for PR and reported that he saw that public mind was not sufficiently awakened to a number of important questions connected with rep. (p. 18)

1854 George Cornewall Lewis reviewed Marshall's 1853 pamphlet, said the BV election system was result of accident not design, and the origin of each voter having as many votes as seats to fill was unknown. (Edinburgh Review, July 1854, pg. 226-35)

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.32106019934311&seq=238

in "American edition" (two-column page so half the number of pages)

online: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=pst.000052247842&seq=448&q1=%22george+cornewall%22 page 116-120

Edinburgh Review, July 1854 carried a different review of Marshall's and Hickson's writings

Author [un-identified but Jenifer Hart says it is George Cornewall Lewis] says it may be thought that Block Voting is natural and "written on the hearts of man."

But actually many think they can cumulate multiple votes on a single candidate under block voting, so Block Voting not so natural after all.

And those who say they despise the attempt to have minority rep. obviously do not see that our system of electing is based on minority rep. - the voters in a district are a minority of the electorate.

When a majority of seats is captured by the majority of votes it not due to votes cast but is a happy accident that the majority of seat concurs with the majority of votes.

Many votes of the most-popular party are not used to elect the winners. in fact perhaps just a minority of votes cast are used to elect the winners, but it just happens that the most-popular party is same as the party that takes most seats. (And even that is not always the case - see 2019 Canadian federal election)

The writer makes point that the FPTP or Block Voting means that minority opinion in each district is suppressed and that leads to misunderstanding the opinions of voters --

- either "minority" (voters belonging to any other than the winning party) simply stay home (and are thus silenced) or

-if they vote, their vote is swamped and common perception is they do not exist anyway.

writer says that choice in 1854 seems to be districts of one or two members each, with each voter having one vote, or larger districts electing several members with each voter having several votes.

Either way result will be large local minorities will go permanently unrepresented, unfair contests and the the reflection of opinions and feelings of the people at large in their representative assembly will be less complete and faithful than it would be under a different system.(p. 120)

He does know of alternatives -- previously he mentioned list PR system used in Marylebone and Farrington Without (pg. 119), which he criticized,

instead pulling for a system where "each voter had just one representative ... each district would have ten elected candidates but each voter would vote just for one candidate.") (implying SNTV) (p. 120)

Footnote says Edinburgh Review had discussed minority rep. earlier --

vol. 95, pg. 270; vol. 98, pg. 620 -- not seen.

==============

First campaign part 1 1859-1883

Hare two articles published

1860 Hare gave evidence to a House of Lords select committee on the Elective Franchise in Counties and Boroughs. (Hart, p. 57)

March 1865 third edition of the Treatise published. (Hart, p. 59)

1865 Hare in an article made the observation tht the poor are more interested in good government than the rich because they have far smaller resources to compensate tor or help themselves against the mischiefs of evil government. so it was necessary to arouse the upper classes from their indifference to political action (Hart, p. 59)

[this does not seem to apply to Canada today - the rich are more politically active]

1866 Hare gave two papers to the Social Science Association

"A grouping of Parliamentary electors that combines a just and equal distribution of seats, and the free expression of both of individual and public opinion, with the smallest degree of disturbance from corrupt influence "

his reforms had just 37 clauses.  (Hart, p. 61)

1858 Hare addressed first conference of the Reform Club  (Hart, p. 62)

Representative Reform Association  (Hart, p. 63)

1868 Hare presented paper "The Means of Manifesting Public Opinion in the Election of Representatives to Parliament"

-Early objections - campaign for PR up against several objections:

First campaign part 2 1884-1885

School boards, local government, Home Rule 1885-1904

application of STV in School boards,

application of STV in local government

Home Rule

Second campaign 1905-1914

Speakers Conference and the Representation of the People, 1916-1918

success and failure, 1919-1929

election of city of Stigo

STV in Ireland and Northern Ireland.

end of STV in Northern Ireland.

Labour Government and the Alternative Vote 1929-1931

Barren years, 1931-1945

[the barren years can be extended to 1990s.

No progress after 1931 until 1990s:

1998 United Kingdom -- Northern Ireland adopted STV to elect members of the new devolved NI Assembly. Six members in each of 18 districts. The 18 districts were the Westminster districts, which each elects just one UK MP. (Simple) Gregory Method used for transfer of surplus votes. (DM dropped to 5 later.)

(see https://cain.ulster.ac.uk/issues/politics/election/electoralsystem.htm)

1999 United Kingdom -- Scotland adopted regionalized version of MMP for members of Scottish Assembly. 73 constituencies being grouped together to make eight regions (of eight to ten constituency members each), each electing seven additional members to make a total of 129.)

1999 United Kingdom -- Wales adopted PR. (regionalized MMP/regonalized AMS. four top-up in eight-seat region (perhaps some variation). Revised 2023 and 2024.)

===============================

1919-1939

Mackay looks at PR used in France and Germany in the inter-war years and finds they were caricatures of real PR and did not use ranked votes. (p. 106-7)

Mackay 1943 (pg. 23-24) wrote :

The essence of a system of representative government is tht the elected chamber should be composed of people who do reflect the views of the electorate... as individuals they should be representative of the people who elect them...the groups into which the House of Commons id divided by party affiliations or political ideas should reflect as nearly as possible the groups into which the country is politically divided.

(p. 116): if the system of government is to be representative, then the members of Parliament should represent the electors. This means that the size of the different parties in Parliament should bear the same proportion to the whole House of Commons as the number of votes cast in favour of each party in the country.

no system of voting that does not provide for this can be considered to implement the principle of representative government. ..

the country could be treated as one constituency, and the member should be elected from a panel of candidates on a system of PR. then the members of the diff. parties would bear the same proportion to the total, as the votes of the diff. parties bore to the total number of votes cast.

But if the area and the numbers are too large for that to be practicable...

the solution is STV.

===========

WWII

During WWII when decision made not to hold UK general election in 1942-1943, but to hold a by-election in Eddisbury despite not having up- to-date voters registration list,

Sir Richard Acland spoke in opposition, saying 

"at the beginning of this war, the major political parties patched up a political truce. ...I thought it a typically silly panicky war-measure taken by people who did not understand that when you are fighting for democracy it is best to give democracy its head, because it pays a dividend in the war effort to do so . 

However in the first two years I had to confess that various by-election results showed that the overwhelming mass of people of this country did not share my view.  it was quite clear when independent candidates of one sort or another presented themselves at by-elections that the people of this country [were contemptuous of them.]

About a year ago people were saying that the war was going badly and that that was the reason for the success of independent candidates. ...the people have rejected the truce ..

I confess that people who agree with me politically are not altogether disinterested in this matter, but I am sure that if members of the government are fair-minded men, they will not desire to preserve an arrangement which does not give the electorate an opportunity of indicating its choice. We are interested [because many are left off the old list and thus dis-enfranchised.]

Do we in this matter consider the rights of individual citizens, or do we regard those citizens as so much vote fodder? 

...You can say 'what does it matter? Some can vote - that is good enough for us.' 

If you look upon this as a matter of individual rights, you must give the people [all the voters in the district] the opportunity to vote. ..

I simply want to know whether the Government are going to treat the matter seriously or not, or whether we are to go on with this farce." (pg. 69-70)

Acland's call for up-to-date voters' list was voted down by the HofC.

and by 1943 Parliament (Elections and Meetings ) Act was passed providing for a continuous register.

(Showing how even a lonely minority position pursued in the HofC can eventually produce positive change, which is among the hoped-for results of PR.)

Mackay recounts various MPs during the war calling for electoral reform, and says Conservatives have said they support that cause but then during early 1940s, when in power, making no progress in that direction - 

perhaps that helped lead to Churchill being turfed in 1944.

1942 Vivian report on electoral reform 

Vivian Committee authorized to consider whether, for effecting the purposes of the present system of electoral registration, improved methods and machinery can be devised ...

redistribution of districts (Mackay, Coupon or free?, p. 79-82