Ed Blake's "Aurora Speech" of 1874 -- need for electoral reform and much more

Here is an excerpt from Ed Blake's "Aurora Speech" of 1874, where he talks of need for electoral reform.

Edward Blake (1833-1912) was a prominent Liberal MLA and MP in Ontario in the 1870s. He actually resigned as premier of Ontario in 1872 to run federally.

In this speech he spoke on a proposed Reciprocity treaty with the U.S. (free trade), Senate reform, electoral reform (compulsory voting and wider enfranchisement, and some forms of pro-rep -- Limited voting, Cumulative Voting and STV).

He discussed electoral reform in this excerpt (gentle editing performed; words put in bold for emphasis and text-searching:

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

...

I believe we might effect immense improvements upon the present system of popular representation. For my own part, I have been for some time dissatisfied with our present mode of popular representation, as furnishing no fair indication of the opinions of the country. I do not think a system under which a majority in one constituency elects a member, the minority being hopeless, helpless, without any representation of its own at all, is a good system. I have been collecting some statistics on this subject, and it is extraordinary to what extent the popular voice, as shown in the popular vote, differs from the expression of that voice in the Legislature. In the State of Maryland you can find an election lately in which parties were so divided that two-thirds of the people polled on the one side, and one-third on the other. The result of the election was that the Republicans, who polled two-thirds, elected every member, and the Democrats, who polled one-third, did not elect a single man. That was not a fair or reasonable result. In the State of Maine something of the same kind happened. The Democrats had polled one-third of the votes, but only elected 43 out of 247 members. Coming nearer home - for perhaps our Tory friends [the Conservatives at the time being anti-American compared to the Liberals] will object to my taking illustrations from across the line - in Nova Scotia, in the year 1867, there was a bitterly fought contest on the question of Union or anti-Union [Confederation]. The result was that only Mr. Tupper was returned from the whole Province [which elected 19 MLAs overall], and that by a very narrow majority [in his district], as a representative of the Union sentiment. I have analysed the statistics of that election, and I find that the real strength exhibited at the polls would have given, as nearly as I can estimate, seven to the Union side instead of one, and only twelve to the anti-Unionists instead of 18. Take Nova Scotia again in 1874. The returns gave 19 to the Government, one Independent and one Opposition — Mr. Tupper again. I will give him the Independent man into the bargain, because I think he belongs to that quarter. (Laughter.) The popular vote on that occasion would, as nearly as I can judge, have given 8 out of the 21 to that side instead of 2, and but 13 to the Government instead of 19. Our principle of Government is that the majority must decide. Upon what is it founded? Well, you cannot give a reason except this -- that it is necessary. It is the only way in which Government can be carried on at all. But if the minority must, on this ground of necessity, bow to the voice of the majority, the majority is all the more bound to see that the minority has its fair share of representation, its fair weight in the councils of the country. The majority must recollect that it may become the minority one day, and that then it would like to have its fair share in those councils, and such disparities as these are not likely to induce a feeling of cheerful submission on the part of the minority. In Ontario, in the election of 1867 — I cannot, of course, be precisely accurate in these matters, because there were some acclamation returns, and there are other difficulties in making an exact calculation but there were 82 members to be returned. The whole popular vote would have resulted in a slight majority for the Liberal party over the Government, but discarding fractions, the result would give [41?] members to each. The Government, however, carried 49 seats to 33, and so the Liberal party did not obtain its fair share in the Government of the country. A turn of 408 votes would have taken 17 seats from the Government and given them to the Liberal party. We say we have representation by population, but we have not representation by population unless the population has a representation in the Legislature equivalent to its strength at the polls. In the late election of 1874 the popular voice, although very strongly in favour of the Government, was by no means so decided as the returns showed. And besides this, 178 votes turned the other way would have changed eight seats, making a difference of sixteen on a division. Little more than double that number would have changed sixteen seats, or thirty-two on a division, and this in a Province where over 200,000 votes would, if all the elections were contested, have been polled. My own opinion is that it is not houses, and stocks, and farms that are represented, but human beings, with immortal souls — these are the true subjects of representation, the sharers in, the owners of political power, and I think a scheme ought to be devised, as a scheme has been devised, to give them a fairer representation. In England, in constituencies which return three or four members, a cumbrous mode has been adopted called the “restrictive vote,” [usually called limited vote] which I do not recommend, by which each man votes for one less than the whole number to be elected. That gives some representation to each side. In the School Board elections, which have caused the greatest possible interest and excitement, and have resulted in London in the return of an Educational Parliament which may vie with the Parliament of the Empire in ability in proportion to its numbers, the cumulative [voting] system has been with great advantage adopted. By this, the voter, having as many votes as there are members, may give the whole of his votes to one candidate or divide them as he pleases. That system has been also adopted with the most beneficial results in the State of Illinois, where the returns under the amended constitution of 1870 have been within one of the actual popular voice. I say the system of representation under which we now live is inadequate to the purposes of the age. The complicated interests of society, the various views entertained by various sections of people, the enormous divergencies and the minor shades of divergency which exist, the fact that you cannot accurately or reasonably approximate the real strength of popular opinion as evinced at the polls by the return of members to Parliament — these considerations are sufficient to condemn the existing system and send us on search for a better. That a better one can, I believe, be found, and if it be reserved for this Province or this Dominion to set the example of finding it, a great benefit will have been conferred by us on the cause of freedom throughout the world. I believe Mr. Hare’s system [STV] or some modification of it — a system by which each voter may vote for anyone he pleases, and give his vote, should it not be required for his first choice, to second, third or fourth candidates, in the order of his preference - would result in the return by unanimous constituencies of men having the confidence of those constituencies, and of just so many men on each side as the strength of that side at the polls would justify. What is my position to-day? I have a very large constituency. I represent a constituency in which many more votes were polled against me than sufficed to return Mr. Dymond [Alfred Dymont, Liberal MP York North 1874-1878. elected in York North in 1874 with 1854 votes]. [1991 votes] were polled against me. Can I say I represent those people? I do not. I do not represent their views. They thought I was wrong, they wished to defeat me, they wished to condone the Pacific Scandal and to support the late Government.

I am bound to consider their individual wants, but I cannot say I represent their views. How are they represented? Some may say that people a long way off [who were] elected, say, Mr. Cameron, of Cardwell, or Mr. Farrow, of North Huron, represent them. That is a very peculiar mode of representation, by which the unrepresented minorities of adverse views in different constituencies are in effect told that they are to be content because there are others in like evil plight. Look at home. Turn to this Metropolitan district. Take, if you please, the old County of York, including Toronto, Ontario and Peel. You have there nine districts, and you have nine members all on one side, and not a single one on the other. The return at the polls gave five to four. The popular vote gave you five and your adversaries four, and upon a proper system of representation that would have been the proportion of the members. We shall have to settle before long the question of the Parliamentary system of the future. As the late Prince Consort [Prince Albert] said some years ago, Parliamentary systems are on their trial. When we provide a plan by which every man shall be represented, by which each side of opinion shall be represented in proportion to its strength, we shall have avoided the difficulties which result from the artificial divisions which we make, and which render the expression of opinion by the returns so essentially different from that shown at the polls. There is not time now to give you even a fair summary of the reasons for this reform. I must bring my speech to a close. I know, Sir, that I have made a rather disturbing speech, but I am not afraid of that. As far as I can judge, not much good can be one without disturbing something or somebody, and if that is the only objection to be made to the sentiments I have uttered, I am quite ready to meet: it. I may be said also to have made an imprudent speech — at least it might be said if I were one of those who aspire to lead their fellow countrymen as Ministers. It is the function of Ministers — we know it, and I do not quarrel with it — to say nothing that can be caught hold of — (Laughter) — nothing in advance of the popular opinion of the day, to watch the current of that opinion, and when it has gathered strength, to crystallize it into Acts of Parliament. That is the function of a Liberal Minister. The function of a Tory Minister is to wait till he is absolutely forced to swallow his own opinions. (Laughter.) ... I am sure that whatever may be your disposition as to the opinions I have advanced, and however disinclined you may be to accept my proposals, you will receive them with toleration and liberality. I believe that feeling that is strongly existent in the ranks of our opponents, of intolerance of any difference of opinion, that determination without argument to write and speak down the man who advances anything new as revolutionary and unsafe, is not shared by the Liberal party. I believe you realize the value in the interests of true liberty of a free utterance before his fellow countrymen, of the distinctive opinions held by a public man. (Cheers.) ... [Earlier in the speech he had touched on other needed reforms: - need for compulsory voting [as is enforced in Australia today] [someone in old text pointed out that compulsory voting may actually make things worse. Without compulsory voting , sthose who don't care stay home. But with compulsory voting, those without fixed minds and easily diverted poltical beliefs would cast many votes.]

- need for as wide enfranchisement as desirable for the times. People were sometimes dis-enfranchised when their property was under-assessed to deny them the right to vote, back when people had to own so much property to vote. He encouraged householders (adult males in the family home where only the father had the vote) to be given the vote and adult children still residing on their fathers farm, and he spoke against the education test - where voters have to pass a test [famously finagled in recent history (and even today?) in the U.S. to deny blacks the right to vote]. On this, he said. "You have established free schools, and you have resolved to tax everyone to maintain them. We are all interested then in this matter, and it is to the general and wide diffusion of instruction and education that we must largely look for the great future that we expect. But, sir, with such a hope for the future before us, I believe we might effect immense improvements upon the present system of popular representation. For my own part I have been for some time dissatisfied with our present mode of popular representation, as furnishing no fair indication of the opinions of the country.

I do not think a system under which a majority in one constituency elects a member, the minority being hopeless, helpless, without any representation of its own at all, is a good system. ... [And that leads into the excerpt shown above.] ========================== Full speech available at: https://electriccanadian.com/history/articles/aurora.htm =======================