Cumulative Voting was used to elect city boards for Toronto Canada starting in 1903.
The Proportional Representation Review (September 1903) described it like this:
"Cumulative voting as applied to the Board of Control, means that each elector will have four votes but that he need not give each of them to a different candidate. He may do so if he wishes; but he has also the power to give all his four votes to one candidate. This makes "plumping" four times as powerful as it was by the old "block" vote system, when if you "plumped" for one candidate, you threw away three out of your four votes. Now you have the benefit of your full voting power, whether you plump or not. And plumping is the correct thing; in fact proportional representation is simply effective representation with the addition in the best systems of a provision for transfer of votes, so as to prevent wasting too many on one candidate...
Besides permitting an elector to give all four votes to one candidate, the cumulative plan enables him to give two of his votes to one candidate and two to another, or he may give three votes to one candidate and his fourth to another candidate. In fact he may distribute or cumulate his four votes as he pleases....
If one-fourth of the votes give all their votes to one candidate, they can elect him, no matter what the other three-fourths choose to do...." Thus Cumulative Voting if used carefully allowed for minority representation.
(From The Proportional Representation Review (September 1903) (online), p. 1, 2)
However there is simpler and more effective way to achieve the same thing.
Cumulative Voting is where each voter casts multiple votes in a district electing multiple members.
But a more guaranteed system is to restrict each voter just to cast one vote in a district electing multiple members. There is no way under normal circumstances fora single group to take all the seats and it is likely that each small group that has the numbers will to get at least one seat.
This is especially true under STV but also applies in many elections where SNTV is used - each voter casting just one X voting in a district electing multiple members.
================================================================
1903 Toronto Cumulative voting
Starting in 1903 some members of the Toronto Board of Control were being elected through Cumulative Voting. (Proportional Representation Review, Sept. 1903 (available online))
This system was defended by pro-rep publicist Robert Tyson in 1903. He wrote, "Cumulative Voting is proportional representation, not on as good a plan as the Hare-Spence or Gove System but still pro-rep."
Tyson pointed out that by 1903, CV had been in use for 28 years in Illinois (not too distant from Toronto). Illinois's experience had proved that the election of several representatives, instead of only one, in a single district was entirely practicable. Tyson wrote that the problems that were thought to crop up had not presented themselves. Multi-member districts are a part of STV so CV's success led to easier adoption of STV.
Meanwhile CV, although flawed, made for fairer elections in several ways just simply due to its multi-member districts.
Tyson listed the ways CV makes elections more fair:
CV gives minorities greater than a quarter of the electorate the power to elect a representative. And both of the predominant parties [the U.S. being a two-party system] nearly always elect either one or two representatives in each district.
CV gives voters more candidates to select from and therefore a wider range of choice, without wasting their votes, than is possible when a single member only is elected in a district.
It leads people generally to take more interest in public affairs because all can have a representative and thus a part in legislation and the conduct of governments.
By giving a more just representation to parties and people, it allays party bitterness.
It makes candidates more independent of unworthy and corrupt voters
It is said that CV results in the selection of abler men as candidates of the minority parties than are chosen by those who are in a majority in the different districts.
CV has been completely effective in preventing gerrymandering for the reason that it gives representation to both of the predominant parties approximately proportionate to the numbers of their supporters, and therefore there is little or nothing to gain by either party by a gerrymander.
It makes successful revolt against bad nominations easier than it is when single representatives are elected in each district. (Pro-Rep Review, Dec. 1903, cribbed from Matthias N. Forney's book Proportional representation - a means for the improvement of municipal government, with reports on the constitutionality in NY of a system providing for minority representation.)
Tyson emphasized that Cumulative Voting, by giving a more just representation to parties and people, creates a more collegial (collaborative) legislature and more competitive elections.
Writing in 1903, Tyson noted that under FPTP, "reform movements are now blocked and hindered because their advocates cannot get a voice in parliament legislature or municipal council, and a hopeless feeling is engendered. While under CV or other pro-rep, any reform that was supported by a quota of electors in a few districts could be heard, would be treated with consideration and would become a political force if inherently strong and worthy." (Pro-Rep Review, Dec. 1903)
==================================
Even without pro-rep, strong local candidates can be elected under FPTP. But often their voice is submerged as their election is thought to be a freak chance occurrence, which it is - not being based in over all proportionality
But sometimes the prestige of their position in the legislature gives their party a foot in the door, the effectiveness of which was shown repeatedly in Alberta politics.
The election of an UFA candidate in a 1919 provincial by-election and in a 1921 federal by-election gave more visibility to the organized farmer cause and helped cause the UFA victories in late 1921.
The Conservative win in 1971 was also likely eased by the existing presence of party MLAs in the legislature. And so on.
This is especially true if such "lone voices" are elected through PR and their election is a result of wide and deep popular feeling even if of a minority type.
===========================================================
Cumulative Voting in Illinois
CV was used in Illinois with good effect for some time in late 1880s and early 1900s. (although I doubt that it was a better experience than STV would have been).
Here are some links to more info:
Illinois for more than a century showcased this kind of politics when electing its state legislature with a similar proportional system (“cumulative voting”), and accounts of its impact show it promoted better, more inclusive governance.
===============================
Cumulative Voting used elsewhere
I have come across two places where Cumulative Voting did morph into STV or PR.
1874 Chile adopted Cumulative Voting for the election of members of its Congress. (changed to PR in 1925) Scottish school authorities used CV from 1873 to 1918 when switched to STV. Blurring the Boundaries: School Board Women in Scotland, 1873-1919 tells me “The voting system, according to Robert Anderson, was a crude form of proportional representation designed to secure places for religious minorities.” (https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/180919/1/School_Board_Women_in_Scotland%252C_1873-1919.doc) (1918 replaced by STV (Hoag and Hallet PR (1926), p. ))
==================================
Comments