R.W.G. Mackay book Coupon or Free? A Study in Electoral Reform and Representative Government - excerpts for emphasis and understanding

R.W.G. Mackay book Coupon or Free? A Study in Electoral Reform and Representative Government, 1943.

about upcoming 1944 British election and the need to stop using FPTP.

i would recommend it.

available online:

https://archive.org/details/couponorfree0000mack/page/n3/mode/2up

Mackay's book begins with this excerpt from John Stuart Mill's Essays on Representative Government: (Mill was a big supporter of proportional representation)

"A people may prefer a free government,

but if from indolence, or carelessness or cowardice,

or want of public spirit,

they are unequal to the exertions necessary for preserving it,

if they will not fight for it when it is directly attacked,

if they can be deluded by the artifices used to cheat them out of it,

if ... they can be induced to to lay their liberties at the feet even of a great man or trust him with powers that enable him to subvert their institution -

in all these cases they are more or less unfit for liberty,

and though it may be for their good to have had it even for a short time, they are unlikely long to enjoy it."

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

on page 82 he says that simple redrawing of the districts will not produce proper fair representation

"while it may reduce the evils of the present electoral system, it cannot remove them, for in point of fact, redistribution alone on the basis of single-member districts does not tackle the major question at all. Even if the country was divided into 600 districts, all of which had the same number of electors, one party could win all the seats by getting 51 percent of the votes in each district, and the other parties would have no representation at all even though they polled 49 percent of the votes in each district."

[he is generous -- it is actually possible in a three-corner races to win all the seats by getting 34 percent of the votes in each district]

on the Ineffectiveness of Instant-Runoff Voting/Alternative Voting

Further, Mackay on page 66 points to how the winners in six counties in 1935 U.K. general election were elected by just a minority of votes in their district.

."..the introduction of the Alternative Vote [single winner RCV] in those six districts would have made very little difference to the result. So long as the vote to be counted by single-member districts without any grouping of constituencies for counting purposes, and without any provision being made to use the otherwise unused or wasted votes, no accurate representation will be secured."

[Transfers under single-winner RCV make more votes effective but rarely change the result. In most cases the leader in the first round is elected in the end.

With the same winners as FPTP -- obviously the same dis-proportionality as under FPTP.

But make up "grouped constituencies" (say five-seat districts), and give each voter just one vote, and -- poof -- you have balanced and mixed representation in each district.

Perhaps a more difficult reform to achieve but worthwhile.]

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

page 88 he presents how PR would work:

-modify the single-member districts by grouping them together, still keeping the representative nature of the system [or actually make up proper organic districts based on previously-existing boundaries. the MMDs are flexible and allow that kind of thing]

-each elector shall have only one vote, he must be allowed to exercise a preference for all [or many of] the candidates by voting 1,2,3,4 so tht if the person to whom he gives his first vote is not elected, his preference can be used, and his vote will not necessarily be wasted.

-that in any district where there are say four or five members to be elected, the minimum number of votes tht a re necessary for a person to be elected shall be determined so that any person securing that number of votes is elected even though he does not poll a majority of the votes cast.

These three ideas are embodied in an electoral system devised many years ago, which is known as P.R. with the Single Transferable Vote [STV-PR].

STV was described by Winston Churchill in the House of Commons as 'incomparably the fairest, the most scientific , and on the whole the best in the public interest.'

...

"the larger districts created , returning three or four, or even five or six members each...it then become possible to give representation within the district to more than one party and a fairer representation is secured, for as we shall see, a person to ensure election need not poll a majority of votes [not necessary even in FPTP except where only two are running], but only a proportion of the votes cast. ...

unless districts of four or five members [are created], the representation of different political views cannot be adequately secured.

...

A candidate need not poll a majority, but only a certain proportion of the votes cast to be elected, and the representation resulting does reflect the views of the electorate.

...

the old single-member districts can be retained [for sentimental purposes] as long as the ballot paper for the whole MMD contains the names of all the candidates who stand in each of the SMDs.

... Many of the districts in Australia are as large as the county of Somerset, and this is true of some of the districts in U.S.A. and Canada as well.

It is difficult to see how people can seriously argue that the grouping of districts need necessarily lead to members getting out of touch with their electors, or to candidates being unable to state their case." (pg. 93)

page 96-99 he explains the QUOTA in easy language.

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