LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
HOW P.R. WORKS
Snt;—I am enclosing an extract from to-day's Times headed "How P.R. Works!' It deals with the details of the polling for two members for ' Cambridge University, showing on the "first count" the following votes cast for the five candidates:—
Votes.
K. W. M. Pickthorn 10,202 J. B. Priestley 5,041 H. Wilson Harris 3,594 C. Hill 2,238 E. L. Howard-Williams 1,036
We are informed in the Times extract that the " quota " number of votes sufficient to secure the election of a candidate is 7,364, and that after the "fourth count" under the P.R. system, the position of the candidates was as follows:—
1- Elected
As set out in the Times, the P.R. figures have been arrived at by a com- plicated process suitable as a task for Senior Wranglers. Could the Spectator, therefore, enlighten its readers how P.R. works, and also how the "quota" figure of 7,364 is arrived at in this case?—Yours, &c.,
Votes.
K. W. M. Pickthorn 7,364 H. Wilson Harris 6,556 J. B. Priestley 5,745 C. Hill Nil E. L. Howard-Williams Nil Not-transferable 2,426
[The process is undoubtedly complicated, but the procedure Can be broadly indicated. As there are two members to be elected each voter indicates by the figures x and 2 (instead of the crosses customary in a 2-member borough constituency) the two candidates he desires to see elected, in order of preference ; he can if he likes put the figures 3, 4, etc., against as many other candidates as there are. In a 2-member con- stituency any candidate securing one-third of the total number of votes plus one must necessarily be elected (because since less than two-thirds of the total votes remain it. is impossible for two other candidates to beat him). This two-thirds + i is known as "the quota." At Cambridge it worked out at 7,364. Dr. Pickthorn got 10,202 votes, which was 2,838 more than he needed to secure election. The 2,838 were therefore divided up among the other candidates, in accordance with the second preferences marked on the Pickthorn papers, 1,135 going to Harris, 354 to Hill, 762 to Howard- Williams and 87 to Priestley. Since even with these additions no candidate except Pickthorn reached the "quota," the lowest candidate was eliminated and his votes distributed as indicated by his second preferences, 503 of them going to Hill, 476 to Harris and x to to Priestley. Finally Hill was eliminated, and his votes distributed in the same way, 1,371 of them going to Harris and 507 to Priestley. It will be seen that the "first count" figures are fallacious. C may, as in this case, have an initial lead over B, but B may more than neutralise it by his second preferences. In other words, more voters wanted C to have the first seat than B, but many more voters wanted B to have a seat than C. Many more wanted A and B than A and C; many more wanted D and B than D and C; many more wanted E and B than E and C. As a consequence B was elected with a comfortable margin. This, it should be made clear, is rough explanation of the working of the system, not a defence of it (E and 0 E).—En., The Spectator.]
Previous page
