Thomas Hare "Father of Proportional Representation" in Britain and the British Empire
1871 Thomas Hare on types of PR
computer p. 195/485 Hare Minority Representation in Europe [1871?]
Hare mentions
List PR Limited Voting Cumulative Voting, STV (preferential voting or contingent voting)
List PR
Limited Voting -- "by thorough electioneering discipline, a party far less than two thirds of the constituency can elect the three members under the limited vote."
84 voters (two thirds is 56)
51 may obtain the entire rep. by dividing themselves into three sections of 17 each, voting A and B, B and C and A and C.
the other 33 voters would be out-voted by the 34 votes cast for each of the three.
Cumulative Voting
allows a quarter to take a third of seats
example: three seats to fill --120 votes cast 31 by accumulating their votes, may elect one out of three members, for they may give him 93 votes whereas the remaining 89 voters could not give to three candidates 90 votes apiece, and could therefore elect no more than two.
and if one party puts forward too many candidates, they may be wholly shut out from representation by their better disciplined adversaries."
============================
[anything more than a quarter would get at least one seat if all votes go to one cand.
anything more than 3/4ths would get all seats (three-person slate)
anything between 1/4th and 3/4th would get 1, 2, or 3 seats depending on how many votes other party has, on how many candidates each party runs and how vote is split among those candidates.
A2 B2 either one may take two, the other taking just one.
more popular party is A:
result A2 B1 if A gets 102 or more to B's 100 votes and each party shares votes evenly.
result A1 B2 if two A candidates get less than 50 and B candidates get 50 each (B gets 100)
result A2 B1 if one B cand gets more votes than other, and A gets same or more than B.
party with votes equally split more successful than if one candidate gets more than slate-mate unless party has less than half of the votes of the other party, in which case one cand. getting lion's share is better policy
A3 B2 (A gets more votes)
result: A2 B1 if A gets 102 to 152 to B's 100 votes or two A candidates each take more than half of B's votes or more than the least popular B cand.
result: A3 B0 if A gets 153 or more to B's 100 votes and three A candidates each take more than any B cand.
153 to 100: 51/51/51 to 50/50
180 to 100: 60/60/60 to 59/41
200 to 100: 80/65/55 to 54/46
where candidates get 3 - 2 -1 parts of party vote three candidates or 2 - 1 parts of party vote (two candidates)
153 to 100: 76/51/26 to 66/34 A 2 B1 order ABABA
180 to 100: 90/60/30 to 66/34 A2 B1 order ABABA
200 to 100: 100/67/33 to 66/34 A2 B1 order AABBA
210 to 100: 105/70/35 to 66/34 A2 B1 order AAABB
A3 B2 (A gets more votes) A1 B2 if A gets 101-149 to B's 100 votes
A3 B2 (B gets more votes) A1 B2 if A gets 34-99 to B's 100 votes
A2 B3 (A gets more votes) A2 B1 if A gets 101 or more to B's 100 votes
A3 B3 (A gets more votes)
result A2 B1 if A gets 153 or more to B's 100 votes
result A2 B1 if two A cand. get 102 or more to B's 100 votes
result A1 B2 if two A cand. get less than 50 (each B cand gets 50 - B gets 100 votes)
==========================
"the question is between a system giving perfect freedom to individual opinion and judgement and systems that render every one who would vote with any effect more or less a machine in the hands of the party leaders."
preferential or contingent voting (it is not clear what he means by this I think it is possible he just means ranked voting where back-up preferences are just used in case of contingency - so STV)
=this link not working
============================
1868 Representative Reform Association. This was a group of Hare's allies, set up with support from M.P. Walter Morrison. George Howell was its secretary from 1868 to 1874.
Comments