top of page
Search
Tom Monto
Nov 10, 202330 min read

Timeline of Electoral Reform, Part 1. Pre-1971 Chronology of Proportional Representation (List PR, STV, MMP)

Updated: 9 hours ago


Timeline of Electoral Reform, Part 1. Pre-1971

Chronology of Adoption of Proportional Representation

(List PR, STV, MMP)


For events after 1971 see Part 2, 1972-present


(Entries in italics concern places that are not countries and historic events that are not elections.)


1789 - French Revolution, seminal event in drive for democracy (freedom and self-rule). Even reversion to Napoleonic military dictarship did not end democratic advance. Belief in a king's absolutism and support for the old regime had grown faint. After Napoleon met his Waterloo, his successor, Louis XVIII, then ruled alongside a two-chamber parliament, in a society where men of means had the vote, freedom of the press, equal rule of law and other civil liberties. (from Sheri Berman, "Lessons from Europe", Journal of Democracy, Jan. 2007, p. 32)


The use of elections in more and more European countries (where free and open was the aspiration) led to successive proposals and experiences of Proportional Representation, which was seen as the best route to freedom and self-rule, as we see below.


(1821 the principles of PR through STV was suggested by Thomas Wright Hill.) (see "Evolution of STV" in Montopedia blog "Timeline - explanatory notes")


(1839 Pennsylvania Legislature - used strict form of Limited Voting (actually SNTV) to elect administration officials, not members of legislature. in use from 1839 to at least 1926. Each voter had one vote in 2-seat contest. (The DM of just 2 prevented any real PR.) (Hoag & Hallett (1926), p. 182))


(1840 Australia: Adelaide city election -- a form of quota-based single voting. 19 members elected - two by quorum (quorum equalled 1/19th of the electorate); the other 17 elected by the other voters using Block Voting.

Catherine Helen Spence, the daughter of the town clerk, grew up to be one of Australia's leading electoral reformers although as a woman never was able to vote in Australia federal elections.) (see 1861)

(for more information see my blog


(1844/1846 List PR was endorsed by Thomas Gilpin (Philadelphia, 1844) and Victor Considerant (Geneva, 1846). (Enid Lakeman, How Democracies Vote))


1856 Denmark used STV in 1856. Carl Andrae's variant did not include transfer of eliminated candidates. Hare quota. Random transfer of surplus votes. Denmark was divided into 29 electoral districts.

(Denmark soon switched to FPTP, switching to mixed member proportional in 1915.)

STV used in indirect election of Denmark's upper house from 1856 to at least 1926. The use of Andrae's quota (equivalent to the Hare quota) meant that careful consideration was made of how many candidates to run and how votes should be shared out, but that was not difficult with fewer than 400 electors and all of them in one room.) (Hoag and Hallet, PR (1926), p. 75; Newman, Hare-Clark, p. 296; Droop, On Methods of Electing Representatives, p. 33)


(1857 Britain -- Thomas Hare's book The Machinery of Representation was published, to advocate for electoral reform, PR and a form of STV. Another book by him on the same subjects, A Treatise on Election of Representatives, Parliamentary and Municipal, was published in 1859.

In these books, Hare proposed at-large country-wide election for all of the United Kingdom where each voter had one vote (and could mark back-up preferences), Hare quota was the amount that would guarantee election, and surplus votes of successful candidates were to be transferred. (But he did not envision transfers arising from elimination of least-popular candidates). He prescribed a random method to be used for transfer of surplus votes (according to Humphreys, PR (1911), p. 141) (see "Evolution of STV" in Montopedia blog "explanatory notes")

(The use of Hare versus Droop quota (see 1868) was not important -- In Hare's proposal, DM was to be 658 - a quota of 1/658th of votes cast (Hare) is very close to a quota of 1/659th of votes cast plus 1 (Droop). (Droop, On Methods of Electing Representatives, p. 33))


(Later, others advocated various forms of fair voting using multi-member districts instead of the country-wide district proposed by Hare. Lord John Russell (limited voting in 3-seat districts), Catherine Helen Spence (STV in MMDs) (Spence credited Sir John Lubbock for the innovation of multi-member districts), Droop and others also supported use of MMDs. (Farrell and McAllister, The Australian Electoral System, p. 26; Spence, A Plea, p. 23; 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)  (see "Evolution of STV" in Montopedia blog "explanatory notes")


(1861 Australia -- Catherine Helen Spence (see 1840) in a pamphlet A Plea for Pure Democracy put forward a system of STV where votes would be transferred both to address surplus votes held by winners and votes held by un-electable candidates. Multi-member districts, not at-large, was to be the districting. (At the time South Australia, her subject area, was using two-member districts and Spence might have thought it was easier just to go with the existing districting, rather than to try to force a state-wide at-large contest.)

In her notion of STV she pictured votes passing from a candidate in one district to a candidate in another district if that was choice of voter; as well, a district was not guaranteed to have a certain number of members or any members at all. (Such is done in some list PR systems under the name Apparentment.) (see 1896) (see "Evolution of STV" in Montopedia blog "explanatory notes")


(1865 Britain -- Thomas Hare advocated for a form of STV with elimination of candidates with fewest votes as well as transfer of surplus votes from successful candidates) (see "Evolution of STV" in Montopedia blog "explanatory notes")


(1867 Canada - Confederation authorized in British North America Act. BNA Act dictated that Halifax riding was to have two members (Block Voting). Later ten other ridings had two members, each used Block Voting. FPTP otherwise in use. (Since Confederation, every province except Quebec has used one or more multi-member provincial districts at one time or another, or fairly consistently. The last multi-member riding was broken up in 1968; the last multi-member provincial constituency was broken up in 1995.) (see 1886, 1920, 1924)


1867-1884 United Kingdom used Limited Voting to elect some MPs -- 13 districts electing 3, each voter casting up to two votes. The City of London riding electing four, each voter could cast up to three votes. (Farrell and McAllister, Australian Election Systems, p. 33; Humphreys, PR (1917), p. 64) (see Montopedia blog "explanatory notes")


(1868 Britain -- H.R. Droop introduced the Droop quota, a smaller proportion of votes cast compared to Hare quota. He published his ideas in the books Methods of Electing Representatives, and PR applied to the election of local governing bodies.  (see "Evolution of STV" in Montopedia blog "explanatory notes")


1870

(1870 U.S. -- W.R. Ware, an M.I.T. professor, took the ranked ballots of STV and put them into a single-winner contest, where all but two are eliminated before the second round. This was known as Instant-Runoff Voting (but now is known as "supplementary voting").

Ware proposed optional-preferential voting. In certain contexts, optional-preference voting in conjunction with STV or PR can devolve into SNTV. But even if that happens, waste of votes is no more than under FPTP and mixed representation is elected under SNTV so still more fair than FPTP.)

Ware's IRV was used in Queensland state elections starting in 1893.)


1870 U.S. -- Illinois adopted Cumulative Voting -- each district elected three, each voter could cast three votes but could place them all on one candidate. in use until 1980.)

(also see my blog on the progress of PR in North America:


(1872 United Kingdom -- Walter Baily, of Leeds, in his 1872 essay PR in Large Constituencies, called for districts with members "not less than five nor more than 15," and of variable DM where districts would cover whole cities. He also called for transfer of surplus votes and elimination of un-electable candidates, echoing Hare's 1865 book. Transfer of surplus votes was to be by the random method. He went on to suggest a form of Indirect STV where transfer lists are drawn up and registered and when a candidate achieves quota, he or she receives no more votes but instead subsequent votes are shifted to other candidates as per the list. (Later proposed forms of indirect STV were simpler - transfers from a successful candidate or eliminated candidate were to be dictated by the candidate involved. But Indirect STV of any sort has never been used in any government election.)

(Baily's book is available online:


(1872 U.S. -- Senator Charles Buckalew called for PR in his 1872 book Proportional representation; or, The representation of successive majorities in federal, state, municipal, corporate and primary elections. He described use of limited voting. mentions Hare but barely mentioned STV. (available on Hathitrust website))


(1873 Argentina -- Province of Buenos Aires adopted constitution prescribing PR “for all public elections”. List PR used until 1926. PR again adopted in 1996. (Hoag & Hallett 1926, footnote p. 65))


(1884 British reformer John Westlake, Q.C. in his 1884 book Proportional Representation A Practical Proposal suggested a form of list PR combined with cumulative voting.) (https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uiuo.ark:/13960/t3bz6j72c&view=1up&seq=13)


(1886, 1890 Canada -- Toronto used Limited Voting to elect its 3 MLAs -- 3-seat district, each voter could cast two votes.)


1887 New Zealand - a legislative PR bill failed to become law. Proposal was to have country divided into two MMDs, each of 20 members and to use STV to elect the members. These districts were considered too big; the government anyway was on its last legs; and Opposition was strong. (see John Hall's speech in Report of meeting on "Proportional representation," or effective voting, held at River House, Chelsea, on Tuesday, July 10th 1894, online hathitrust.) (see 1991)


1891   Japan was the first country to adopt SNTV for election of government members. In 1891 Japan adopted SNTV for provincial politicians (and in 1900 for national politicians - members of House of Representatives), where administrative areas were used as electoral districts, with DM ranging from 1 to 12. Later redistribution was done by adding or subtracting members, not by redrawing boundaries.

Already by 1891 it was noticed that "in certain of the administrative areas a minority of the voters often obtained a majority of the elected members. It was almost impossible for political parties to obtain representation in proportion to the strength of their supporters." A system of single voting based on Marshall's Cumulative Voting was devised by Kametro Hayashida, Secretary of the Japanese House of Representatives. This produced district PR and also allowed Independents to be elected. But the system "lacked the elasticity and adaptability that an election system should have" (Humphreys). Parties needed to regulate the size of their slates.(Humphreys, PR (1911), p. 74, 217, 284; Hoag and Hallet, Proportional Representation (1926), p. 45)

(1891/1892 Switzerland -- First documented public use of party-list PR in Europe, in the canton of Ticino, Switzerland. A revolution broke out and a politician was killed, but the adoption of PR prevented a civil war.

Geneva adopted list PR in 1892. (Switzerland adopted P.R. for national elections in 1918.)

Most Swiss canton councils and local governments were using list PR by 1927. Switzerland adopted list PR because it fit in with previous voting practice -- Swiss voters were used to voting for party under the scrutin de liste system.

Swiss list-PR allowed voters to cast multiple votes.

The system used in the canton of Zug allowed Cumulative Voting.

Adoption of PR came after several cantons adopted Direct Legislation in 1861. The right of Initiative allowed any 2500 citizens of the 20,000 Geneva citizens to introduce a law. (D.R. Record, June 1893 (online p. 74/744); Humphreys, PR (1917), p. 197; Hoag & Hallett 1926, p. 65, 66; Arena, vol. 34, 1904) (see 1900, 1918)


(1892/1893 Sandford Fleming, one of Canada's leading scientists at the time, published two books on electoral reform. One included a PR essay by Catherine Helen Spence who toured Canada at that time.) (Spence, Ever Yours, p. 148)


(1893 North America (U.S. and Canada) -- PR League published the PR Review 1893-1895 1914-1928. https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/serial?id=propreprev)


1893 Chicago - Electoral Reform convention. Catherine Helen Spence spoke there.

see Montopedia blog:


(C.H. Spence author of article "P.R. the only effective moralizer of politics" Arena, 1894 [10/767])



(1896 Australia -- Catherine Helen Spence (see 1840, 1861) in her book What is Effective Voting? again proposed that multi-member districts, not at-large, be the best way for STV to operate. She suggested no less than 6 seats in each district, with 7 or 8 being preferred. (Farrell and McAllister, The Australian Electoral System, p. 26; Newman, Hare-Clark, p. 16))


(1897 Tasmania used STV (a variant called Hare-Clark or Hare-Spence) for election of members of state chamber to represent cities of Hobart and Launceston.

First use in the world of STV (with both transfers from eliminated and elected candidates).

10 members elected through district STV; 28 members elected through FPTP.

Hobart elected six members through STV in city-wide district.

Launceston elected four through STV in city-wide district.

Hare quota. Surplus votes held by elected candidates were transferred non-randomly by Inclusive Gregory Method. (All of the candidate's votes were transferred as fractional votes, the transfer value to be derived by ratio of surplus votes to total votes held by the candidate. Such procedure guaranteed proportional transfer as to next usable preference and also as to all back-up preferences marked on the ballot.) [But it seems Hare-Clark used only Gregory method (using just last parcel) and not the Inclusive Gregory method.]

The votes' total was recorded as a whole-vote integer.

Semi-optional preferential voting -- voter had to mark as many preferences as half the number of seats in the district. Hare-Spence used again in 1900 election, then Tasmania went back to using FPTP in single-member districts. then switched to permanent STV -- 1909 used STV (Hare-Clark) to elect all members in Tasmania. in use ever since. (see 1909).

Later three other states and two territories in Australia have also switched to using STV for election of members of their upper house, and two have switched to using STV for election of members of their lower house. -- see "Australia's switch to STV." in Montopedia blog "explanatory notes") (Farrell and McAllister, The Australian Electoral System, p. 27; Newman, Hare-Clark, p. 9, 47-48))

(see Johnston, Observations on the working results of the Hare System... online)


1899 Belgium adopted PR using list PR. Members were elected in multi-member districts, each having 2 to 18 seats. Seats were allocated to parties using the D'Hondt method. (PR already had been used at city level.)

PR addressed Belgium's previous artificially-created regionalism - prior to PR no Catholic was elected in an industrial or French-speaking region; no Socialist or Liberal in a Flemish-speaking or farming region. Peace and unity were seriously menaced. Thanks to PR each party became truly national, and soon knew how to harmonize, and began to seek to harmonize, the ideas and desires, the interests and the needs of all parts of the country. Under a non-PR system, a shift of a few votes changed the entire complexion of the election, while under PR a change could only come through a profound change in public opinion (according to Hoag and Hallet (1926), p. 67).

Unsettled political situation (general strike threatened) -- Belgium held 8 elections by 1915. But in part due to PR, serious violence was prevented. (FVC has country study on Belgium, showing the situation when it adopted PR in 1899.)

(see 1919)

(Belgium provincial councils elected through STV starting in 1921)


1900 Japan began to use SNTV. Lower house (House of Representatives) - 376 members were elected in 51 multi-member constituencies based on prefectures and cities.

(Then or later Japan was bicameral.

Upper house (1947) -- parallel system (voter has two votes):

152 elected by SNTV in 47 districts (DM perhaps 3 to 5);

100 elected country-wide by list PR.

Lower house (House of Representatives) - 376 members were elected in 51 multi-member constituencies based on prefectures and cities. (DM unknown, likely 4 to 9 seats per district.) SNTV

SNTV accused of fostering "money politics" so in 1994 SNTV dropped, replaced by parallel voting.

The House of Representatives (Shugi-in) then had 500 members (later 465):

300 members in single-member constituencies; 200 elected by list PR in 11 MMDs. Voter has two votes. (Another bit of info: Prior to 2019, preferential voting strictly determined the order of candidates on party lists. so ranked voting apparently used as well, some place.) (see 1947)


1900 Switzerland -- List PR in use since 1891 in some cantons. Swiss voters voted not to adopt list PR in national elections. (Same result in 1910. 1918 referendum -- majority in favour of change.) (Hoag and HGallett, PR (1926), p. 66)


(After 1900 list PR and STV became main PR methods. Cumulative Voting, Limited Voting and SNTV seldom used after that. Bucklin method too found wanting. MMP first appeared in 1940s.)


(1901 Australia -- Tasmania used STV to elect six Senators and five Representatives to represent Tasmania in the Australian Parliament. Used state-wide at-large voting. (Hoag and Hallett, PR (1926), p. 259; Humphreys, PR (1911), p. 127; P.R. Review, March 1902)


1902 Australia -- debate on adoption of PR (STV) for election of the Senate as the Australian federation is formed. It was decided that each state would elect their Senators the same way. Catherine Helen Spence proposed multi-member districts (not at-large), the Hare quota (not Droop), and the Gregory method (not the whole-vote "exact method" (see footnote))

Droop, Nansen and other experts each fought for their own variation, each different from Spence's. Partly due to this confusion, Australia adopted FPTP/Block Voting. Thereafter, Tasmania with experience of STV, could not use STV to elect its Senators. (Australia would not adopt STV for election of federal members until 1948.) (Farrell and McAllister, Aus. Electoral Systems, p. 26-36, 42)


(1902 Rhode Island -- Lucius F.C. Garvin elected governor of state of Rhode Island. Member of Am. PRS. As governor, he shepherded bill through Assembly allowing municipalities to adopt single voting without transfer [SNTV]. Bill was blocked by state Senate. (P.R. Record Dec. 1902))


1906 Finland - The Diet adopted party-list PR. No at-large members. All members elected in MMDs. (unicameral)


1907 Sweden - both houses of Riksdag adopted PR. The Swedish constitution required that the 1907 law be reaffirmed after the next national election (held in 1909). P.R. first used in 1911 Swedish election, then again in 1914. King's power was weakened in 1918. Prior to 1907 four reform efforts had failed (in 1866, 1896, 1902, 1906).

(Provincial councils and local governments also began to use PR in 1907).

Sweden uses open-list PR and appartement (multi-party lists or pooling of votes).


1907 Ireland/UK -- Mr. Birrell, Chief Secretary for Ireland, proposed 24 appointed members that would represent minorities to observe beside 82 elected members. Humphrey (1911) remarked that the minority members would not have respect of the elected members. (see 1922)


(1909 Australia -- all members in Tasmania House of Assembly elected through STV.

the first election in the British Empire where all the members were elected through P.R.

Also first use of Gregory method in a government election.

DM-6 (six members for each of five electorates). The districts used were federal electoral districts of Bass, Darwin, Denison, Franklin and Wilmot. Optional-preferential voting.

Hare-Clark version of STV used -- Surplus votes are transferred according to the Gregory method using only the last parcel of transfers; whole votes are recorded, not fractional votes. (In 1959 the number of members per district was increased to seven. In 1998 it was reduced to five; 2024 DM put back up to seven in each district. For PR purposes, an odd-numbered DM is recommended.)


(1909 South Africa -- use of STV at both state and city level. in each of these the size of electorate was small and voters have "special qualifications" (for one thing, not being black). (Humphreys, 131)

(National Convention formed of both Boer and British delegates - this fairness helped selt federation of South Africa. original draft constitution signed at Cape Town envisioned STV for election of House of Assembly but then it was decided to use FPTP instead. Charges of gerrymandering. Lack of safeguards for minority representation impeded the "consolidation and unification of South Africa."

Delimitation Committe (tasked with drawing districts for Assemby and Prov. Councils) was discomfited by the lack of P.R. (MMDs) job of framing districts to make representatives who are "a true mirror of the various sections of the people" made doubly difficult by use of SMDs according to Committee secretary.

Pretoria and Johannesburg adopted STV in city elections. at-large. "complete success".

Jo'burg -- candidates: 10 business (six elected), three Labour (two elected), ten Ind. (two elected). 12,000 votes cast. STV used in Pretoria and Johannesburg still in 1919.)

 STV used to elect executive committees of provincial councils in all four provinces.

STV was used to elect members of Senate of the Cape Colony. Blomenfontein Post: "the system proved in practice as simple and accurate as it was scrupulously fair." Each party achieved the same representation that the party had in the provincial councils.

(Humphreys, p. 31, 56, 122, 131, 268))

("Growing Demand for Electoral Reform" (PR League, 1927) (Equity (magazine) 1919, p. 78))


1910 -- Uruguay adopted a form of minority representation. (Humphreys, P.R. (1911), p. 124)


1911 - Lisbon and Oporto began to use P.R. to choose representatives under the electoral scheme of the Portuguese government. (Humphreys, P.R. (1911), p. 124)


(1911 John H. Humphreys in his book simply titled Proportional Representation gives a "state of the world of PR" round-up.

At that time he listed these PR systems being in use (or having been in use):

list PR used in Belgium, Sweden, Finland, Bale (canton in Switzerland);

STV as already used in Denmark, South Africa (Johannesburg city and Cape Colony Senate), and Tasmania;

"single voting" (SNTV) in Japan.)


1913 Costa Rica adopted PR.


1915

1915 Denmark - Landsting (upper house) and Folketing (lower house) elecgted through PR.

Folketing members elected through Flexible District PR ("Rural-Urban PR") (mixture of single-member districts (FPTP)/MMD (list PR) with nation-wide top-up (list PR). This system used just in 1918. (see 1856 above) (adopted full PR prior to 1920 election) -- mixed member proportional, with some elected in multl-member districts, some by overall top-up, using best-losers in local contests, allocated regionally.

(1915 U.S. -- Ashtabula (Ohio) first city in U.S. to adopt PR (STV).

Droop quota. Used random method to transfer surplus votes (but equal number of votes transferred from each voting precinct). (Hoag and Hallett, PR (1926), p. 346)

23 other U.S. municipalities later adopted STV - see 1917, 1918, 1937, 1940, 2022)

(for more information, see Montopedia blog https://montopedia.wixsite.com/montopedia/post/24-u-s-cities-have-used-stv-with-more-to-come)

see Barber's book P.R. and Election Reform in Ohio

(for first Canadian city to use STV, see 1917; for first city in U.K., see 1919)


(1915 Ottawa - referendum on adoption of STV. Majority voted in favour. Ontario government forbade the city from adopting STV.)


1916 United Kingdom -- The PR Society submitted evidence to the Speaker’s Conference. Two of the 32 members of the conference were already committed to PR (Earl Grey and Aneurin Williams). The Conference unanimously recommended the application of STV to London, to boroughs with three or more members (UK was using many multi-member districts and block voting), to groups of contiguous boroughs returning together three to five members, and to two three-member university constituencies. The Representation of the People Act (1918) called for steps to be taken toward the election of 100 MPs in districts having between three and seven members each through "proportional representation, each elector having one transferable vote." (The HofC had 707 members at that time.) (None of these PR schemes were established by law except the university seats.) (see 1918)


1917

1917 Netherlands adopted PR. At-large (country-wide district). List PR. 100 members. DM-100. Low electoral threshold of just 0.5 percent. 1.3M votes cast in first PR election (1918). The smallest party won a seat with just 0.509 percent of the vote. Only two percent of the vote was not used to elect someone. First woman was elected (even though women were not yet allowed to cast votes. In 1922, Netherlands again used PR. By then women had got the vote, and this time, seven women were elected.)

(Netherlands and Israel are only two countries in world to use PR at-large country-wide.)

(https://atria.nl/nieuws-publicaties/vrouwen-in-de-politiek/de-eerste-zeven-vrouwen-tweede-kamerlid/)


(1917 Calgary was first Canadian city to adopt STV. STV in use until 1960, and in 1971.

Annual elections, so any casual vacancies filled in next election. Two-year terms, staggered terms, half of councillors up for election each year (except 1961 and 1971 when all the seats filled).

Gregory Method (version unknown) was used for transfers of surplus votes.

at first elections were held at-large, city-wide

DM varied from five to nine, variance due to casual vacancies.

1960 adopted two-seat wards - 1961 both seats filled at same time.

Through 1960s most seats elected singly in alternating years, through IRV.

1971 both seats in each ward filled by STV.

1917 9 elected -- 6 to 2-year terms, three to one-year terms

from 1918 to 1960, DM ranged from 6 to 8. (5 to 9?)

1961, 1971 two-seat wards.

three times in 1960s -- both seats in a ward were filled at the same time, due to casual vacancy (so STV was used.)

Calgary's adoption of STV in 1917 was copied by 19 other municipalities within the next 11 years. All except Calgary, Winnipeg and some Winnipeg area suburbs dropped STV by 1930, Saskatoon was only one (so far) to put STV into use again later.) (see 1920, 1923, Saskatoon 1939)

Calgary had population of about 66,000 in 1917. (1917 Henderson's Directory, p. 39)



1917

1917 USA - Boulder, Colorado second city in U.S. to get PR (STV). Hare quota. "Exact method" used to transfer surplus votes of members elected in first count, if any. (Hoag and Hallett, PR (1926), p. 201, 392; League of Woman Voters of Boulder County "Making Democracy Work" online))


(1917 Puerto Rico - Senate had 5 members elected at-large through SNTV. Three parties represented among the five winners. Some time later, House of Representatives and Senate each got 11 members elected at-large through SNTV. To avoid vote splitting, the two major parties will typically nominate only 6 members and smaller parties typically only nominate one. Parties may choose the ballot order of its candidates in different districts, in an attempt to signal to voters the preferred method of voting. However, each voter is free to choose any candidate.)



From 1918 to 1922, "Proportional Representation -- "P.R.", as it is called for short -- is spreading over the world rapidly." ("Hare system remedy for boss rule" (1922))

Twelve European nations adopted list PR in those four years.

Two adopted STV in those years.


1918

1918 Germany - National Constituent Assembly - adopted PR in 1918. Used a form of apparentment -- In the election of the Assembly in the 1920s, an unused vote could be used outside the original district to help a party get an additional seat (Hoag and Hallett, PR (1926), p. 427). Reichstag adopted list PR in 1919. (State legislatures and local governments also used PR starting in 1919)

(PR suspended in 1930s. PR reborn in 1949)


1918 Austria adopted PR (PR used for both houses in 1920) (Provincial councils and local governments also used PR) (elections suspended in 1930, 1945 PR reborn)


1918 Switzerland -- country's third referendum on PR, 67 percent voted in favour of PR, 33 percent against. PR adopted to elect members of Conseil National (lower house). (PR at canton level had been in use since 1891) (see 1919)


1918 Latvia adopted PR


1918 Czechoslovakia adopted PR (PR reborn in 1993)


1918 United Kingdom -- STV was adopted for MPs representing the university constituencies of Cambridge, Oxford, Combined English Universities, Combined Scottish Universities and Dublin University. Seven university constituencies elected a total of 14 MPs. Five of these constituencies (Combined English Universities, Combined Scottish Universities, Dublin University, Oxford University, and Cambridge University) were multi-member seats, electing two or three MPs, the other two had a single seat each. "The Representation of the People Act" stipulated that university elections were to be held by STV. STV then used for Westminster elections, to elect no fewer than 34 MPs (including former Labour Prime Minister James Ramsay MacDonald), across eight general elections (IRV used for 15 by-elections).

These constituencies (made up of graduates of the respective institutions) continued to use STV until their abolition in 1950 (1922 in the case of Dublin University). (rare case of non-geographic constituencies used in the British Commonwealth, or anywhere)


(1918  Australia -- New South Wales lower house elected through STV.

24 districts -- 15 had 3 members; nine had five members.

Unlike previous election, where "majority runoff" (contingent voting?) was used, two additional parties got representation in this election - Progressives and Socialist Labor.

In 1922 election, Democrat and Ind. Coalitionist were new arrivals.

In 1925, Protestant Labor and Ind. Nationalist members were new arrivals.

STV dropped in 1926, replaced by IRV. Later (1992) NSW adopted STV for its upper house.)


(1918 Scottish school boards (educational authorities of counties and large cities) used STV. 37 separate bodies. Used STV until 1929.)


(1918  USA - Kalamazoo (Michigan) adopted PR in 1918. Used in 1918, 1919, 1920 elections. 1919 referendum - majority voted to continue STV. System eventually ruled out of order by courts in 1920 or 1921. (Hoag and Hallett, PR (1926), p. 202, 392))


1919

1919 Norway adopted PR for Parliament. (Local government elections used STV by law.)


1919 Italy adopted PR


1919 Switzerland adopted list PR. The system included apparentment. Apparentment means a vote is first applied to fill a district seat, then used as per a group list, or joined with votes cast outside the original district to elect an additional member.


1919 Belgium added apparentment to its list PR system. in Belgium a vote was allowed to float outside the district to aid the election of a candidate in another district in the same province. (see 1899)


1919 France adopted PR. list PR in use 1919-1927, 1945-1958 and 1986.

For some reason, PR created instability in France. In the 12 years from 1946 to 1958, the Fourth Republic had 24 Présidents du Conseil (equivalent of PM) who formed 22 governments; 9 governments lasted less than 41 days; and from May 1957 to 1958, 5 governments held power, each lasting an average of less than 59 days. Only two governments lasted more than a year (Henri Queuille 13 months; Guy Mollet 16 months) (from https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-French-democracy-not-using-proportional-representation-for-election-of-the-assembly.) (See 1951)

(France dropped PR in 1927. France again used PR 1945-1958 and in 1986.

1986 list PR department-wide MMDs.

1927-WWII, 1958-1986 and 1986-present - France used majoritarian Two-Round System.


1919 Luxembourg adopted PR. (Local governments used PR, optional in areas with less than 8000 inhabitants.)


1919 Poland adopted PR


(1919/1920 United Kingdom/Ireland -- 1919 Sligo city election used STV. first borough in UK to use STV. Three 8-seat wards.

Whole-vote "exact method" used for transfer of surplus votes (see footnote).

Protestant-Catholic troubles, labour tension, borough in deep financial straits. Members of three parties (Ratepayers, Sinn Fein, Labour) plus Independents elected. 80 percent vote turnout. newspaper hailed election as "absolutely fair."

(Sligo election was so successful that STV was prescribed for all cities and towns in Ireland. On Jan. 15, 1920, 126 government bodies in Ireland were elected by STV. (likely the "Exact method" was used to transfer surplus votes.) (Hoag and Hallet, PR (1926), p. 237)

1920

1920 Iceland adopted partial PR in both houses, list PR. (PR partially used as of 1915)

Lower house - In Reykjavik district, four members elected by D'Hondt, others by FPTP or BV in 1 or 2-member districts.

Upper house (14 members in total) - six members elected by d'Hondt nationwide.

(revised in 1934 -- Reykjavik district given 6 seats. 22 district seats, 11 country-wide compensatory seats.)


Iceland's later use of PR:

1942, use of PR in lower house extended. Reykjavik district given 8 seats. PR maintained in Reykjavik. PR extended to two new six-member constituencies (Southern and ?). 35 members in lower house: ? district seats, ? country-wide compensatory seats.

1959, PR extended all across country, list PR in MMDs of 8 to 13 seats each. Reykjavik district given 12 seats. ? district seats, ? country-wide compensatory seats.

1987 Reykjavik district given 13 seats (soon increased to 15 seats). ? district seats, ? country-wide compensatory seats.

switched to STV At-large STV-25 district used in 2010)


1920 Denmark adopted mixed member proportional with multi-member districts. (Unlike previous system no single-member districts were used.)

135 district seats allocated to districts based on population, voters on list and area. District seats filled by list PR.

40 top-up seats.

2 percent electoral threshold (or winning at least one district seat or an equivalent portion of vote in two of the three electoral provinces). Seats allocated to parties that have qualified for participation in this allocation in strict proportionality to the number of votes obtained by these parties. The calculation is done on the basis of the so-called pure Hare quota; seats not allocated by the full quota are allocated on the basis of largest remainders. This is said to give the closest possible approximation to full proportionality. The party seat counts are then compared to district seats already won and top-up seats are allocated as necessary to bring party's seats count up to the calculated amount, as possible.

2007 -- district DM ranged from 10 to 21, plus Bornholm with 2 members. (see 1915) (https://elections.im.dk/media/15737/parliamentary-system-dk.pdf)


1920 Jugo-Slavia - National Constituent Assembly adopted PR. (National Assembly (unicameral) adopted PR in 1921)


1920 Estonia - National Assembly (unicameral) adopted PR in 1920 (Local government elections also used PR)


1920 India -- STV was used on experimental basis to elect three members of the Legislative Assembly of India for the European constituency of Bengal. As well, STV was used to elect four members of the Council of State for non-Mohammedan constituency of Madras, and four members of he Legislative Council of Bengal for the European constituency of Bengal. (Gandhi announced that he favoured the use of PR for election of delegates to the All-India Congress.) (Hoag and Hallett (1926), p. 258)


(1920 Manitoba -- adoption of STV in Winnipeg city elections. in use at city level until 1970. DM-3 -- 6 members in each district. half of members elected each election (staggered terms). Casual vacancies filled by byelection (held at time of next election). The whole-vote "exact method" used for transfer of surplus votes. (see footnote))

(Winnipeg had 179,000 residents at this point in time.)


(1920 Manitoba -- adoption of STV to elect Winnipeg MLAs.

STV used at provincial level to 1954, with two different districting schemes:

-- 1920 to 1949 -- DM-10 in Winnipeg city-wide district. (largest DM used to elect legislators using STV in the world up to that time). Optional-preferential voting. Whole-vote "exact method" used for transfers of surplus votes (see footnote).

-- 1949, 1953 -- Winnipeg used three districts DM 4.

1954 end of provincial PR in Manitoba -- seats in Winnipeg area increased by four, system changed to single-member districts and FPTP. (AV used in rural districts 1923-1954)


(1920, 1922, 1925 Australia -- New South Wales used STV to elect Legislative Assembly. DM ranged from 3 to 5. 24 districts, 15 having 3 members and nine having five members. (In 1927 STV replaced with IRV; MMDs with SMDs.)


1921

1921 Malta adopted STV. all districts elected five members. Optional-preferential voting. Whole-vote "exact method" used for transfers of surplus votes (see footnote). STV has been used there ever since.


(1921 Britain -- Northern Ireland adopted STV-PR by order of the British government. it was used in 1921 (the first election to the Parliament of Northern Ireland) and for the 1925 election -- Ten districts each electing between 4 and 8 members. Droop quota.

STV dropped around 1927, replaced by single-member districts and FPTP.

The university constituency of Queen's University Belfast continued to use STV to return four candidates until 1969.) (The 26-member NI upper house (Senate) consisted of 24 members elected by STV by members of the NI House of Commons along with two ex-officio members, the Mayor of Londonderry Corporation and the Lord Mayor of Belfast.)

(PR adopted widely again for election of the Assembly in Northern Ireland in 1998.)

(see Pringle "A Case Study of Northern Ireland in the 1920s" online)


(1921 U.S. -- Cleveland, a city of 800,000, adopted STV to elect city councillors.

25 members were elected in four districts - two had seven, one six, one five members.

Districts had different number of members as they were unequal in population - the prime objective in laying out the districts was to have districts of social and economic homogeneity, not equality of population. (Maxey, "Cleveland Election and the New Charter," American Pol. Science Review, Feb 1922. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1943890?seq=2)

Cleveland was first large city in North America to use STV.

see Barber's book P.R. and Election Reform in Ohio


1922 Ireland adopted PR (STV) for election of members both in the lower house and upper house.

Lower house - DM ranged from 3 to 9. Whole-vote "exact method" used for transfers of surplus votes. Optional-preferential voting.

(In 1923, Ireland's 28 electoral districts had DM ranging from three to nine. In 1935, its 34 electoral districts had DM ranging from three to seven. Since 1947, during which time the number of electoral districts has increased from 40 to 42, DMs have narrowed further, ranging from three to five. Since 1997, legislation has mandated DM of 3, 4, or 5.)

Upper house (Senate) election used STV in 1925. see 1925. (see


1922 Latvia - National Assembly (unicameral ) elected through PR


1922 Lithuania - National Assembly (unicameral ) elected through PR


(1923 Edmonton adopted STV for city elections. STV in use until 1927. City-wide at-large. Annual elections, so any casual vacancies filled in next election. Two-year terms, staggered terms, half of councillors up for election each year. DM varied from five to seven. Whole-vote "exact method" used for transfer of surplus votes.)


(1924 Alberta -- adoption of STV to elect provincial members in Edmonton, Calgary and Medicine Hat. city-wide districts - Edmonton and Calgary each with 5 members, M.H. 2 members. (These MMDs were in existence prior to STV being adopted.) Optional-preferential voting. Droop quota. Whole-vote "exact method" used for transfers of surplus votes (see footnote).

(before the next election in 1930, M.H. divided into two single-member districts.

Later Edmonton and Calgary DM increased to 6 seats, back to 5, up to 6 again, then Edmonton up to 7. (STV dropped in 1956, replaced by single-member districts and FPTP.)

In almost all the STV elections in Edmonton and Calgary, 3 or 4 parties were represented among each city's MLAs.

1926 Edmonton: four parties represented among the city's MLAs.

Winning candidates received 15,000 votes, 82 percent of the 18,000 valid votes.

Overall, 8501, 57 percent of the winning candidates' vote totals, were made up of first preferences.

Overall, at least 11,200, at least 75 percent of the winning candidates' vote totals, were made up of first and second preferences.


1925

1925 Chile -- PR adopted because unlike previous Cumulative Voting, list system introduced incentives for candidates of the same party to work together, and by seeking their own benefit, the candidates benefited the party. Claro Solar said that a PR system à la d’Hondt would permit the most “exact representation … of all the opinions dividing the electoral body strongly enough to be taken into account and contribute to the progression of the State”. DM ranged from 2 to 18.

open-list PR at district level -- Each list might contain as many candidates as there were seats to fill. The system used cédula particular, there being no ballot containing all the candidates, so that each candidate, party, or electoral pact prepared his, her, or its own ballots. If no candidate marked, then vote taken as vote for the list. Votes for candidates of each party were totalled and divided by 1, 2, 3, etc. to get number of seats for each party in district.

(previously DM varied from 1 to 13, mostly 2 or 3. Voting was by Cumulative Voting. The Chilean Cumulative Voting system worked as follows: each voter had as many votes as there were seats to be filled in the district. Voter could give all the votes to a single candidate or distribute them differently. (Article 77, Law 2.883).

Candidates with the most individual votes were elected --in a 3-seat district, the three with the largest number of votes were elected.)

PR In use until 1973 military coup. (see 2015) (see Gamboa and Morales, "Deciding on an Electoral System", online Cambridge Univ. Press)

1925 Ireland -- Senate used STV to elect 19 members, the largest DM used with STV until 1991 (NSW). Droop quota. Optional-preferential voting. 315,000 valid votes. About 260,000 of the 305,000 votes cast were used in the end to elect the 19 winners, an 85 percent rate of effective votes. Only 12 percent of valid votes were found to be exhausted. Thirteen were elected at the end, when the field of candidates had been thinned to the number of remaining open seats in the 65th Count.


(1925 U.S. -- Cincinnati used STV for city election. Would use it to 1955 (16 elections).

(formerly Cincinnati had had 32 councillors, 26 elected in SMDs, 6 elected at-large through block voting).

STV system - 9 councillors elected at-large.

Surplus votes transferred by the "Cincinnati" method - votes held by a winning candidate were numbered sequentially, and multiples of digit transferred, based on the mathematical relationship between the surplus and the total votes.

Cincinnati voters voted to retain STV in 1936, 1939, 1947 and 1954.

1957 they voted to drop STV. (STV replaced by at-large block voting). (see 1988)

see Barber's book P.R. and Election Reform in Ohio

(This Timeline lists adoption of STV in New York City and Cambridge (Mass.). Otherwise for info on adoption of city-level STV in the U.S., refer to Montopedia blog "U.S. cities ... )


1926 Greece -- Chamber of Deputies elected through PR


1926 South-West Africa - STV used for members of executive committee of the Legislative Assembly. ("Growing Demand for Electoral Reform" (PR League, 1927))


(1927 Round-up of PR at the time reported in 1927 publication "Growing Demand for Electoral Reform" (PR League, 1927). See Montopedia blog "Old Books on PR and STV")


(1933 Australia -- New South Wales Legislative Council is elected by members of the Legislative Assembly and of the Legislative Council, using STV. Such indirect election method used until 1978. In 1978, change made to directly elect the Leg. Council using STV in a state-wide district, one third of the seats being up for election each three years)


(1937 U.S. -- New York City adopted STV in city elections. PR in use until 1945, total of five elections. Uniform quota used for quota and also to allocate seats per district (borough). Each borough was entitled to one member of the council for each 75,000 votes cast, and an additional member if remainder was greater than 50,000. Overall council size and borough representation varied according to voter turnout -- in 1937, Brooklyn was given nine seats, Manhattan six, Queens and The Bronx five each, and Richmond one.)

With population of 4.5M, NYC was the largest place to have STV at the time.)


(1939 Canada -- Saskatoon -- Alone of Canadian cities that used STV, Saskatoon adopted STV a second time. Kept it to 1942. )

(1940 U.S. -- Cambridge Mass. adopted STV for city elections. Still in use today.

Uses random method for transfer of surplus votes (the Cincinnati method).

9 elected. Droop quota.

2023 election results:


1942 Iceland -- use of PR in Iceland's lower house extended. (see 1920)


after WWII -- countries reborn after German occupation often adopted PR -

Austria -- 1945 PR re-adopted (see 1918)

Denmark -- (elections never stopped under Nazi occupation)

Norway -- open-list PR in MMDs. 1945 150 members, DM ranged from 3 to 8.

2021 169 members in total. 19 MMDs (counties) DM ranged from 4 to 19.

One member in each district is levelling seat, allocated to parties in compensatory

method.

France, Belgium, Netherlands, Poland and many more

(Yugoslavia adopted PR in 1992)


1948 Australia adopted STV for election of members of the federal Senate, first used in 1949 election. Seven were elected to each state. (later DM became 2 or 6 to 12.)

(multi-member districts (states and territories used as districts), Gregory method of surplus transfers. Droop quota. Casual vacancies filled by state parliament selecting someone from same party. (1989 Ticket Voting added to ballots.)

For a valid below-the-line vote, the Senate PR-STV system - without any good public interest reason - required nearly all preferences to be marked, prior to 2016.

In the 2013 election of six Senators for New South Wales, a record 110 candidates stood, requiring - quite unreasonably - a below-the-line voter to correctly mark 99 preferences for his or her ballot to be valid. (Farrell and McAllister, p. 42, 60)

Australia's Senate is said to be the largest-scale use of STV in the world. In 2022 15M votes were cast, electing 40 Senators. DM ranges from 6 to 12, except ACT and Northern Territory, which have 2 seats each).


1948 Israel adopted PR shortly after founding of country. List PR, at-large (country-wide district) but with electoral threshold.

(only Netherlands, Israel and Paraguay use at-large districting.)



Italy, West Germany, Japan adopted democratic PR after WWII 1946 Italy adopted MMP. 31 districts, most electing between 4 and 34, one 1-seat district. Open-list list PR in districts. 476 elected in districts, 80 elected as levelling seats. (First national election in Italy where women could vote - and run for office - Lina Merlin was elected.) Italy's PR had a very low barrier to entry – low electoral threshold; any party with 300,000 votes nationwide was entitled to seats. Parties with even fewer votes could get seats if their support was regionally concentrated.


1947 Japan adopted SNTV (semi-proportional) and then partial-PR parallel system in 1996.


1949 Germany MMP (1949) (revised in 2023 to prevent overhang) (For more info, see


1951 France added apparentment to its PR system, whereby parties could join their votes together to take additional seats.


(1955/1956

Manitoba and Alberta dropped their partial use of PR at provincial level. Reverted to FPTP in single-member districts.)


1959 Iceland's use of PR extended all across country, (see 1920, 1942)


(1960 Cork Corporation election, 29 June, elected all 21 seats on City Council. One of largest DM used with STV. 22,000 valid votes. 72 candidates. The count began on 30 June and concluded in the early hours of 3 July after 63 counts. Initially-lower-placing candidate in 38th place moved up to take a seat. (This was the last time the entire Cork County Borough was a district. 1967 replaced by six districts, DM being 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 6.)

see Wiki: 1960 Cork Corporation Election and



1960s -- Third World -- Some countries adopted PR when getting Independence in 1960s

Africa, Latin America and Asia.

(parallel voting systems and exotic varieties of PR sometimes adopted)


As Pilon has pointed out, newly-independent countries, if they are able to get clean start at time of founding of the new country, do not adopt FPTP.

Instead, for purposes of stability (and fairness), they go with PR.


Parallel systems (FPTP with list PR):

Africa

date ? Guinea

Senegal

Tanzania


(1970 U.S. -- New York community school boards adopted STV. STV used until 2000. (Pilon, Politics of Voting, p. 130))


1971 Canada -- Calgary held its last city election where STV was used.

This was last time STV was used in Canada to elect government members.


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

Timeline of electoral reform part 2 has events that occurred after 1971


footnote:

1919 item: "Hare system remedy for boss rule" (1922)


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

See Montopedia 3-part blog on "Canadian electoral reform".

This has information on progress toward P.R. in the U.S. and Canada.

======


61 views

Recent Posts

See All

Comments

bottom of page