Report of meeting on "Proportional representation," or effective voting,
held at River House, Chelsea,
on Tuesday, July 10th 1894.
Addressed by Miss Spence, Mr. Balfour, Mr. Courtney, Sir John Lubbock, and Sir John Hall
Catherine Helen Spence:
her speech is from page 6 to page 16
page 12 she credits Sir Jon Lubbock with modifying Thomas Hare's proposed STV so that it included multi-member districts instead of country-wide polling as in Hare's original proposal.
The use of MMDs means a lower District Magnitude (number of seats to be filled) and that raises the effective threshold. With use of MMDs, the quota (the amount of votes certain to fill a seat) is greater than a seventh of votes cast in the district (unless DM is larger than 6) so that prevents what many see as a disadvantage of PR - the election of extremists. Spence wrote that the use of districts would prevent PR from filling the parliament with "faddists."
She goes on to say though that there can never be too much truth, and even if faddists are elected, the effect of practical politics woudl be to rub off their corners and they will learn to accept what they cannot achieve if it is against the will of most of the other elected representatives.
"under STV no vote neutralizes another vote." Any group with quota will take a seat. There is nothing the other voters can do to stop this.
p. 15 it is easier for a good man to get a quota in a large district than to get plurality in a small district.
page 15 (paraphrased) Ability, integrity and experience would have far greater weight when election is by quota than by mere plurality.
p. 14 said how the single-seat districts and FPTP leads to log rolling - expenditure in the district, not for public good
which puts strain on country's finances.
A.J. Balfour page 16-
in Britain good men are elected despite the FPTP system, but under FPTP they do not have independence to do what they know is right.
... our so-called system of representation leaves unrepresented a very large number even of those who have votes.
Mock STV election pg. 18
results announced p. 29
vote count process discussed by Catherine Helen Spence p. 34-36
Sir John Lubbock speech page 19-
...
the effect of the present system is that whether one party or the other is returned to power does not depend on the number of votes that they receive in the country but on the accidental manner in which those votes happen to lie.
[the nice thing about MMDs as copmared ot the use of single-member districts is that they reduce the number of ways in which the votes lie, and therefore, if for no other reason, the results are more scientific than in single-member micro-districts.]
he gives manner in which the Ticino canton in Switzerland obtained PR.
(at time of writing, four cantons in Switzerland had adopted PR, the free list system.)
Spence has said that one objection to PR is that it will elect faddists but I say mere plurality means faddists have leverage.
in parliamentary contests, a candidate hungry for votes will be suceptible to any group that offers votes, such as antivaccinationists [yes he actually used that example!]
... the present system, so far from being opposed to faddists, really gives those who are faddists an immense advantage.
... STV gives you greater freedom in expressing your political wishes and desires and it will secure to the majority what is not secured for them at present - the majority in the House of Commons.
We are governed by a majority of a majority, and the majority of a majority may be and generally is a minority. It is the extremists of the dominant party who rule, although they really represent only a minority.
[paraphrased] I want to make it clear that we don't want a minority to rule.
The majority should elect the majority of representatives, and they should rule.
but the minority should at least have a voice.
[he says it better !]
Mr. Courtney page 23-
mostly introducing next speaker, John Hall of New Zealand, whose government recently debated a bill for PR ...
John Stuart Mill sat for just one term in the Parliament, showed he was of an independent opinion, then was not returned. That is an example of the type of poor results under FPTP.
[Mills only served one term as MP and then found it impossible to get a party to nominate him as their candidate. He was pointed out as an example of the kind of publicly spirited person who cannot even achieve a party nomination under first past the post.]
And Mr. Bradlaugh, an esteemed authority respected by large section of the working class, easily able to take a sixth of the vote across the country, but never able to gain a plurality in any one district.
Mr Gladstone as a young man would have trouble being elected under FPTP.
John Hall (prime minister of New Zealand, 1879-1882) p. 29
recounted how FPTP was negative experience to two imminent NZ politicians - Fox and Sir Robert Stout.
recounted how in 1887, a bill for PR failed.
proposal was to have country divided into two MMDs, each of 20 members.
these districts was considered too big; government anyway was on its last legs; and Opposition was strong.
But he says he has advocated for PR since 1881.
by 1894, NZ had achieved women's suffrage but not yet PR.
... after applauding the adoption of PR, he said
"I do think I see the dawn of better days for those countries that are now governed by parliamentary government and that now suffer from many evils that would be entirely removed by PR."
===================================
Comments