Timeline of Electoral Reform, Part 2 1900 to 1919. Chronology of Proportional Representation (STV, List PR, MMP)
- Tom Monto
- Aug 4
- 21 min read
(After 1900, list PR and STV became main PR methods.
Cumulative Voting, Limited Voting and SNTV seldom used after that.
Bucklin method too was found wanting. MMP first appeared in 1940s.)
1900 Japan began to use SNTV.
Lower house (House of Representatives) -
376 members were elected in 51 multi-member constituencies -- 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)
Swiss voters voted not to adopt list PR in national elections.
Direct Legislation Record covers the disappointing national vote. (#524 (p. 12))
says the defeat was caused by "the great influence used by those whose seats in the National Council would be in danger, and also the desire of each locality to retain distinct representation. The defeat was due to the preponderance of the country vote over the city vote - [a majority in] the city and canton of Geneva voted for reform.."
(1910 referendum again saw most votes in favour of maintenance of the non-PR system.
1918 referendum -- majority in favour of change.) (Hoag and Hallett, P.R. (1926), p. 66)
see 1919
====
(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 U.S. 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)
1904 Albert Grey, the 4th Earl Grey), appointed as Canada's Governor General. He served as Canada's Governor General 1904-1911 and likely helped inspire City of Ottawa's push for city-level PR in 1915.) (Humphreys, PR (1911), p. 129-130))
(see 1906 Montopedia "Timeline of Canadian Electoral Reform part 1")
1900s - U.S. - Frank Parsons called for PR in his books of the early 1900s.
His City for the People (1899) mentions PR (p. 12):
"Direct Legislation, or the initiative and referendum, with which we may name civil service reform, proportional representation, preferential voting, the electric ballot, equal suffrage, efficient corrupt practices acts and the popular recall, all of which, are necessary in order that the people may really own and operate the government under conditions most likely to secure wise legislation and honest, intelligent and economical administration."
His Direct Legislation, or the Veto Power in the Hands of the People (Philadelphia, 1900) called for PR and DL (initiative, referendum, recall). (Mann, Yankee Reformers, p. 139, 276)
His 1904 epic tome The Story of New Zealand pointed out the massive waste of votes under FPTP. The section entitled "Proposed Government Changes" (p. 756) presents a sophisticated look at the number of ignored voters and ineffective votes that the country's FPTP elections were producing. (Mann, Yankee Reformers, p. 140)
(NZ finally adopted PR in 1990)
=====
"It was no accident that the earliest moves toward proportional representation (P.R.) came in the ethnically most heterogeneous European countries: Denmark in 1855; the Swiss cantons in 1891; Belgium in 1899; Moravia in 1905; Finland in 1906. In linguistically and religiously divided societies majority elections could clearly threaten the continued existence of the political system. The introduction of some element of minority representation came to be seen as an essential step in a strategy of territorial consolidation." (from S. Rokkan, S. (1970). Citizens, Elections, Parties: Approaches to the Comparative Study of the Processes of Development. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, as quoted in Laura Levick, Recasting Reform: An Analysis of Electoral Reform Initiatives in Fourteen Parliamentary Democracies Queen's University thesis, 2017
https://queensu.scholaris.ca/server/api/core/bitstreams/b311b517-9923-4162-a143-bd222171bc61/content)
1905 - Moravia (Margraviate of Moravia) (a portion of the Austro-Hungarian Empire) -- adopted STV ("Hare") for election of 36 of the 149 members of its provincial Diet. Hare quota used. Three elected in each district. Voter could mark three preferences. But with special minority representation guarantee - if three-quarters of voters gave their preferences to three candidates and the other quarter all gave their three preferences to three others, the larger group elects only two and the smaller group elects one. (Curtis, PR (1908), p. 18) (I have seen no record of the election results under this system, and barely any corroborating evidence that such a system was used. Laura Levick did make slight reference to Moravia's 1905 electoral reform.)
1906 -- The Proportional Society of Society (UK) conducted model STV elections in 1906, 1908 and 1910. (Humphreys, PR (1911), p. 343 reprints specifics of the STV used in those model elections)
It seems the threat of rebellion drove the change to PR that was achieved in many European countries in the early 1900s. Labor uprisings and strikes "effectively threatened the entire nation" in Belgium (1899), Finland (1906), Sweden (1907), Switzerland (1917), and the Netherlands (1918). The strikers explicitly demanded PR, and electoral reform and the adoption of PR was a direct result of these threats. (Oxford Handbook of Electoral Systems, p. 394)
(see Grofman, Evolution of Electoral Systems in Nordic Countries
1906 Finland - The Diet adopted party-list PR.
No at-large members. All members elected in MMDs. (unicameral). Party lists are restricted to fewer names than number of sets to be filled. Voters marked rankings for candidates. Burnitz method (Borda method] used. No quota. (Curtis, PR (1908), p. 19)
1907 Tasmania again adopted STV -- see 1909 for the first election under the new system. (It had temporarily lost its STV when politicians indirectly abolished it by abolishing the multi-member districts that it required, at the time of the formation of the Australian Commonwealth) [unless I am confusing federal and state affairs].
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). It seems the threat of rebellion drove the change to PR that was achieved in many European countries in the early 1900s. Labor uprisings and strikes "effectively threatened the entire nation" in Sweden (1907). The strikers explicitly demanded PR, and electoral reform and the adoption of PR was a direct result of these threats. (Oxford Handbook of Electoral Systems, p. 394)
(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, beside 82 elected members. Humphreys (1911) remarked that the minority members would not have respect of the elected members. (the use of appointed members was not adopted.) (see 1922)
1907 U.S. -- Oregon is to have legislation guaranteeing Initiative and Referendum and is also going to pass a constitutional amendment that, if passed by the voters, will achieve PR in legislative and municipal elections in that state. (The Gove system is the PR system being proposed for Oregon) Robert Tyson, secretary of the "American" PR Society, reported this in an article in the periodical Government A Popular Monthly Magazine on Economics and Applied Politics.
1908 United Kingdom[?] -- Caxton Hall demonstration STV election conducted by Humphreys. 21,000 participated. Catherine Helen Spence in far-away Australia noted this achievement. (Spence, "Effective Voting," The Register (Adelaide) Dec. 2, 1909)
(1908 -- Western Australia first place in world to use single-winner Instant-Runoff Voting. (likely called Alternative voting) (https://archive.fairvote.org/irv/vt_lite/history.htm)
(Ware had envisioned such elections in 1872)
1908 - New Zealand used the second ballot system, a type of Two-Round System (TRS). Used again in 1911 election. Repealed in 1913. (addressed Frank Parsons' 1904 reveal that massive numbers of votes were wasted under FPTP.) (NZ finally parted with non-PR FPTP in 1990s)
(1908 Roy S. Curtis's book Proportional Representation discussed developments in electoral reform up to that date and used term "Graduated System (Preponderance of Choice)" to mean positional voting systems, such as the Burnitz method and the Cleveland method (AKA the Borda method). Curtis noted that when preferences are scattered (without ticket voting), the results are haphazard and results vary from party proportionality. (p. 14) [likely same criticism can be made against STV]
He said constitution of some states requires multiple voting such as Block Voting when multiple positions up for election; others say that each voter must have just one vote, so preventing Cumulative Voting. Curtis says multiple voting under list PR is not prohibited. Seven states have no constitutional rules that prohibit PR: Delaware, Louisiana, Washington, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Nevada.
Curtis (p. 29) named benefits of PR:
-In districts where one party has had majority again and again, PR will encourage voters of all parties to vote, increasing voter turnout.
-will enable reform of parties without defeat of parties.
-open the way for "representation of interests" [unanimous constituencies] without need for constitutional change
-"secure true and effective representation" of both majority and minorities.
1908 -- Cuba adopted list PR, where each voter had as many votes as seats to fill and could either place them on candidates or on straight party ticket. After seats allocated to whole quotas in a district, Largest Remainder used to allocate seats to parties that had already won at least one seat by having at least one whole quota. (Curtis, PR (1908), p. 19-20)
(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 PR.
Also first use of Gregory method in a government election in the world. (Farrell and McAllister, The Australian Electoral System, p. 27)
DM-6 (six members for each of five electorates). The districts used were the federal electoral districts in Tasmania (Bass, Darwin, Denison, Franklin and Wilmot, each on average having about 21,000 voters and 10,000 votes cast in each district). (Bass was (and is) about 8,000 sq. kilometres in size, about a quarter the size of an average Canadian riding.)
Optional-preferential voting, but voters had to express a minimum set number of preferences.
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 Denison: 16 candidates. elimination of ten candidates and transfer of two small surpluses. 11 hours to do vote count
In Franklin: 12 candidates. elimination of six and one surplus transfer. Nine hours to do vote count.
Overall: "Not a hitch." Two parties - Labour with 39 percent of votes elected 12 men (40 percent of seats); Anti-Socialists with 61 percent elected 17 (57 percent of seats); one Liberal Democrat was elected.
About 2 percent spoiled votes -- about same as under old system. (Catherine Helen Spence, "Effective Voting in Municipal Elections," The Register (Adelaide) Dec. 2, 1909) https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/57879383
(The number of members per district was increased to seven in 1959.
(see George Howatt, "The need for seven-member constituencies," (1958)
DM was reduced to five in 1998.
DM put back up to seven in each district in 2024.
For PR purposes, an odd-numbered DM is recommended, as Howatt indicated in his 1958 pamphlet).
(1909 South Africa -- use of STV at both state and city level. in each of these the size of electorate was small and voters had to have "special qualifications" (for one thing, likely not being black). (Humphreys, p. 131)
(National Convention formed of both Boer and British delegates - this fairness helped achieve the federation of South Africa. Original draft constitution signed at Cape Town envisioned STV for all elections, including election of House of Assembly, but strong opposition of the Cape Colony Parliament struck it out for the House of Assembly (it was decided to use FPTP instead), leaving STV in place for the Senate and city elections).
Delimitation Committee (tasked with drawing districts for Assembly (and Prov. Councils) was discomfited by the lack of PR (MMDs). According to Committee secretary, the job of framing districts to make representatives who are "a true mirror of the various sections of the people" was made doubly difficult by use of single-member districts. Charges of gerrymandering. Lack of safeguards for minority representation impeded the "consolidation and unification of South Africa."
(STV used to elect South African Senate through indirect election. DM 8.
The First Senate included eight senators from each province. They were elected for a ten-year term, by the members serving during the final session of the legislatures of each of the four colonies that merged to form the Union of South Africa. The election was by STV. (see wiki "Senate of South Africa")
Pretoria and Johannesburg adopted STV in city elections. at-large. "complete success".
Jo'burg 160,000 (or 100,000?) population in 1909
Oct. 28, 1909 election of ten members --
Humphreys (Honorary secretary of the PR Society (UK)), who had just pulled off the Caxton Hall demo election (see 1908), went there to help organize the elections.
12,000 votes cast. Only 43 percent voter turnout, same as last election. 367 spoiled votes.
23 candidates:
10 business candidates in total in 1st round took 75 percent of the votes and elected 6.
three Labour candidates in total in 1st round took not quite two quotas but received enough votes from defeated candidate that two were elected,
ten Ind. cand. in total in 1st round took about two quotas, received few transfers. Two elected.
Women ratepayers voted in larger numbers despite disagreeable day -- wind and dust.
The three Jo'burg daily newspapers all agreed - elected representation was fair to all parties; the filling up of the ballot papers was simple for the voter (half of the spoiled votes were spoiled on purpose); the whole proceedings were orderly and educative.
Experienced councillors were re-elected. They noted under STV no good man could be defeated by a local clique or for a locally-unpopular act, whereas under ward system he runs great risks. (Catherine Helen Spence, "Effective Voting in Municipal Elections," The Register (Adelaide) Dec. 2, 1909) https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/57879383
STV was used in Pretoria and Johannesburg at least to 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))
(Humphreys, PR (1911), p. 343 reprints specifics of the STV used in South African cities.)
("Growing Demand for Electoral Reform" (PR League, 1927) (Equity (magazine) 1919, p. 78))
=====
1909 U.S. - Grand Junction, Colorado city elections began to use Bucklin method. Grand Junction resident and state legislator James W. Bucklin invented an election system that used ranked but non-transferable votes. Used in three Grand Junction town elections before it was abandoned in 1921.
Cleveland, Denver and San Francisco adopted the Bucklin or a similar system. It is said 60 U.S. cities adopted such systems [but I doubt that many].
The Bucklin system was a misbegotten form of IRV -- "By adding second- and third-choice votes to the first-round tally, rather than transferring each ballot’s vote, it arguably violated the one-person, one-vote principle, which several state courts cited as a reason to declare the method unconstitutional." At the same time, the system contained a glaring problem: "It incentivized voters to “bullet vote” for a single candidate and decline to rank any others..." Any marked secondary preferences might be used against their first preference in subsequent rounds. (Chase Woodruff, "Ranked choice voting movement has Grand Junction roots",
James W. Bucklin, one of Grand Junction's early residents, had taken up Henry George's Single Tax cause and established one of first political groups in that cause. Bucklin went on to be an elected state politician. An attempt to bring in "single tax" policy in Colorado ended in 1904, in what was called the Pueblo fiasco. (J.R. Hermann, "A Remembrance of James W. Bucklin" [Reprinted from the ''Single Tax Review'', Vol. XIX, No.2, March-April 1919] https://cooperative-individualism.org/hermann-j-r_a-remembrance-of-james-bucklin-1919-mar-apr.htm)
first Grand Junction election to use the Bucklin system (November 3, 1909) saw the election of a Socialist Party mayor who appointed a socialist police chief and founded a municipally owned wood lot where unemployed could work for a meal. He also worked to establish city-owned businesses, an icehouse, a coal mine and an electric utility, but was unsuccessful in these efforts. (Woodruff, "Ranked choice voting movement has Grand Junction roots")
1910 Report of Royal Commission on Electoral Reform (UK) released. Referred to by John H. Humphrey as "a very considerable advance in the history of the movement in the UK" (PR (1911), p. 122) The Royal Commission led to passage of the 1910 Municipal Representation Bill, which called for STV and the use of the Exact Method to transfer surplus votes (instead of the more exact Gregory Method being used in Tasmania elections). (Humphreys, PR (1911), p. 143, 343) Humphreys, PR (1911), p. 343 reprints specifics of the STV authorized in the Municipal Representation Bill (on voluntary basis?). See 1916.
First UK city to use STV was Sligo -- see 1919.
1910 - Uruguay adopted a form of minority representation. (Humphreys, P.R. (1911), p. 124)
1911 Portugual - Lisbon and Oporto began to use PR 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.)
1911 - The president of the PR Society (now the ER Society), Leonard Courtney of Penwith, visited Ireland in 1911 and recommended STV "as a way to reassure the Protestant minority in the event of Home Rule. The recommendation made its way into the 1922 constitution of the Irish Free State without controversy." (from Oxford Handbook of Electoral Systems, p. 630) Leonard Courtney of Penwith was chair of the Society's executive committee from 1905 to his death in 1918.
1913 Costa Rica adopted PR.
(1913 - U.S. -- Cleveland city elections adopted Bucklin method. (see 1909) Switched to STV in 1923. Dropped STV in 1934. (Barber, PR and Election Reform in Ohio, p. 120)
(1913 - U.S. -- Denver city elections adopted Bucklin method. (see 1909, 2024)
Dropped it in 1935. (online: Woodruff, "Ranked choice voting movement has Grand Junction roots")
(1914 North America (U.S. and Canada) -- after almost 20 years, PR League started again to publish the PR Review. published 1914-1928.
1915
1915 Denmark - Landsting (upper house) and Folketing (lower house) elected 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 multi-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).
Ashtabula used STV until 1929.
see https://montopedia.wixsite.com/montopedia/post/ashtabula-ohio-first-city-in-u-s-canada-to-use-stv
23 other U.S. municipalities also 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 prov. 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)
1916 - C.J. Yorath, Saskatoon City commissioner, called for STV to be used in Saskatoon city elections. He cited the usage PR was getting in the wider world at that time:
"STV or some similar system of proportional representation has been adopted in Belgium, Sweden, South Africa, Tasmania, Switzerland and is likely to be adopted for Ireland. Proportional Representation was one of the chief political issues in France prior to the outbreak of war, and a bill providing for its application to French politics has already passed the Chamber of Deputies." (Yorath, Civic Government (1916) (City of Saskatoon Archives, 1069-1030-004) (see Montopedia blog "Saskatoon... for more info.)
1917
1917 Netherlands adopted PR. At-large (country-wide district). List PR. 100 members. DM-100 (see footnote). Low electoral threshold of just 0.5 percent.
It seems the threat of rebellion drove the change to PR that was achieved in many European countries in the early 1900s. Labor uprisings and strikes "effectively threatened the entire nation" in Belgium (1899), Finland (1906), Sweden (1907), Switzerland (1917), and the Netherlands (1918). The strikers explicitly demanded PR, and electoral reform and the adoption of PR was a direct result of these threats. (Oxford Handbook of Electoral Systems, p. 394)
1.3M votes cast in Netherland's first PR election (1918). The smallest party won a seat with just 0.51 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/)
(Netherlands has kept PR since 1917. It did not hold elections from 1937 to 1946 (exclusive) due to threat of war and German military occupation.)
(see Lakeman and Lambert, Voting in Democracies (1959), p. 177-181)
(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) so not until Cleveland adopted STV in 1924 did the first large N. Am. city adopt STV.
see Montopedia blog https://montopedia.wixsite.com/montopedia/post/1917-calgary-first-city-in-canada-to-adopt-stv-calgary-also-last-canadian-city-to-use-stv-in-1971
(Thus Canada leapfrogged over the U.S.'s unfortunate experience with Bucklin voting (in Cleveland and Denver) and went straight to IRV (Lethbridge 1913) and STV (Calgary 1917).)
1917 - United Kingdom - adopted STV for election of nine University MPs. (Lakeman and Lambert, Voting in Democracies, p. 293)
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.
University graduates had two votes, one in the district; one for the University seat.
"The Representation of the People Act" stipulated that university elections were to be held by STV. STV was 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 was used for 15 Univ. seat by-elections).
These constituencies (made up of graduates of the respective institutions) continued to use STV until their abolition in 1950 (Dublin University was abolished in 1922). (rare case of non-geographic constituencies used in the British Commonwealth or anywhere)
Failure to achieve PR in 1918 shows inability to shift politicians in a large assembly but a backroom deal done by the front benches of the main parties, then brought forward with support of leadership of the main parties, and a confirming referendum by the public [yech!], could make PR happen, according to Matthew Roberts.
====
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. (thereafter random method used?) (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.)
(1917 New Zealand -- STV was used for elections to the Christchurch City Council in 1917 and for the Woolston Borough Council in 1917 and 1919.
Christchurch dropped STV after 1917 but STV came back a decade later, 1929, 1931 and 1933.) (https://localgovernmentmag.co.nz/the-fpp-or-stv-question-rolls-around-again/)
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). It seems the threat of rebellion drove the change to PR that was achieved in many European countries in the early 1900s. Labor uprisings and strikes "effectively threatened the entire nation" in Belgium (1899), Finland (1906), Sweden (1907), the Netherlands (1918), and Switzerland (1918). The strikers explicitly demanded PR, and electoral reform and the adoption of PR was a direct result of these threats. (Oxford Handbook of Electoral Systems, p. 394)
(PR at canton level had been in use in Switzerland since 1891) (see 1919)
1918 Latvia adopted PR
1918 Czechoslovakia adopted PR (PR reborn in 1993)
(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.)
(see news article Jan. 29, 1919 https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/60535526)
(1918 Australia -- Parliament lower house began to be elected through Instant-Runoff Voting.
Generally in IRV contests, each party runs just one candidate with transfers by definition then occurring across party lines. But in some instances a party has run two candidate in the single-winner contest, trusting in vote transfers to prevent the party from hurting its chances. The Country Party in Australia was for years prone to running two candidates in single-winner IRV contests. The Riverina district in 1943 saw an instance of this double candidacy.) (Albinski, Canadian and Australian Politics in Comparative Perspective, p. 271)
(1918 Scottish school boards (educational authorities of counties and large cities) adopted STV. 37 separate bodies. Used STV until 1929. (Lakeman and Lambert, Voting in Democracies, p. 293))
(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. As well, plural voting was finally stamped out. (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 voter 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)
(subsequently, no elections held until 1926 (1925?) due to the Troubles.)
==============================
1919 -- Canada -- An occupation-based form of PR was put forward by Canadian agrarian leader Henry Wise Wood starting in 1919. The "group government" concept was defended in Alberta political activist William Irvine's 1920 book The Farmers in Politics. It echoes some visions of syndicalist government.
(The Farmers in Politics available online at https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc2.ark:/13960/t23b5zr1j&seq=7)
============================
Comments