John H. Humphreys -- the British Proportionalist and his books on PR and STV
Updated: Oct 26
John H. Humphreys
1911 Proportional Representation
1923 Practical Aspects of electoral reform a general study of 1922 election
chosen excerpts:
The result of a general election depends not only upon the mind and will of the citizens at the time when it is held, but also, to an extent which is not sufficiently realized, upon the method by which that mind and will is interpreted and transmuted into the working forces of Parliament. The interpretation varies, within very wide limits, according to the machinery of election used, and the method of voting itself becomes, therefore, a factor of importance in the making of history.
==============================================================
CHAPTER I
HISTORY IN THE MAKING
A general election of the House of Commons should be the most dignified act of a nation's life."
To the ordinary citizen, man and woman, a general election is the symbol of self-government ; it is that part of the organization of self-government in which he or she can wield a personal and perceptible influence. This chief and greatest opportunity for the exercise of the franchise occurs but rarely — on an average once in four or five years. But if the occasions are rare, the powers that reside in these occasions are tremendous. For general elections are one of the most important of the factors which go to the making of modern history. They create parliaments ; they establish governments ; they determine the character of legislation ; they leave their imprint upon constitutions. Nor are their effects confined to the country in which the election takes place ; the nations are now so interdependent that an election in one country may powerfully influence the history of other countries.
The result of a general election depends not only upon the mind and will of the citizens at the time when it is held, but also, to an extent which is not sufficiently realized, upon the method by which that mind and will is interpreted and transmuted into the working forces of Parliament. The interpretation varies, within very wide limits, according to the machinery of election used, and the method of voting itself becomes, therefore, a factor of importance in the making of history.
It is almost certain that the whole course of events in the Near East, and thereby the character of international relations in a large part of Europe, was profoundly affected by the nature of the electoral system used in the Greek general election of 1920. The Press of this country reported merely that M. Venizelos had been defeated and his party completely crushed. The cabled facts were accepted, with the usual reference to the fickleness of the Greeks, as the inevitable and unavoidable result of a general election. Few troubled to inquire deeper.
In an article entitled "The Truth about the Greek Elections," which appeared immediately after the election in V Europe nouvelle, the results were subjected to a close analysis.
The method of voting was similar to that used in the election of the London borough councils. Each constituency returned several members. Attica and Bceotia, where M. Venizelos was a candidate, returned jointly twenty-two members. Each elector could give one vote, and one only, to each of twenty-two candidates. [Block Voting]
The twenty-two candidates on the list opposing M. Venizelos received the support of some 48,000 electors. The list of M. Venizelos received the support of about 39,000. The 48,000 anti-Venizelist electors, giving one vote to each of their twenty-two candidates, put them all at the head of the poll, leaving M. Venizelos and his colleagues all defeated with about 39,000 votes apiece.
The method of election thus gave twenty-two members of Parliament to 48,000 electors, whilst 39,000 had none. In Patras the two competing lists received the support of some 23,000 and 19,000 voters respectively, and the former, again the anti-Venizelist, returned sixteen members, the latter none.
Of the results as a whole, M. Venizelos, in an interview which appeared in the Observer on February 6, 192 1, said :
" If the votes actually cast were computed on a proportional representation basis, the result would be that nearly one-half of the deputies would belong to the Venizelist party, and the rest to all the other parties put together — those of Rhallis, Gounaris, Stratos, and Constantine respectively."
[But instead Venizelos was not elected.
If he had been given proper share of the seats, the Greek-Turkish friction of the early 1920s might have been quelled by outside influence.
Venizelos likely would have accepted] "the intervention of the allies, an intervention which might have prevented the march on Angora, with its consequences devastating to the Greeks, and to Great Britain embarrassing and even dangerous."
"Thus a crude electoral machinery would seem to have left a deep mark on the history of Greece, and, in these days of world-wide international relations, its reactions upon other nations have also been serious.
[British] history has been intertwined during the last eight years with that of France, and it is of vital importance, if misunderstandings are to be avoided, that the parliaments of the two countries, on which their governments depend, should accurately reflect the national will and mind. But the indications are that the method of election used in France has rendered more difficult the attainment of agreement.
The Paris correspondent of the Westminster Gazette, writing on November 22, 1919, immediately after the French general election, said: "A parliament which does not adequately reflect the feeling of a country is a peril; and more than one Conservative politician has expressed to me deep regret that the Conservative victory is so great."
Comments