SIR,—Many of us would be grateful if you could please
explain one point in the Cambridge University voting. The table of details in The Times of August xst shows that on the first count Dr. Pickthorn had a surplus of 2,838 votes over and above the quota necessary for his election ; and these were then distributed in accordance with the second preferences shown on these votes. 1,135 were allotted to you, Sir, 854 to Dr. Hill, 762 to Commodore Howard-Williams, and 87 to Mr. Priestley. But surely the point is "How was it decided which 2,838 of Dr. Pickthom's votes were the surplus votes to be distributed?" . Presumably, had an entirely different lot of 2,838 votes of his been chosen as the surplus votes, then the second preferences might well have been entirely different?
[The proportion which Dr. Pickthom's surplus of 2,838 bore to his total of 10,202 was calculated. Then the whole of his votes were re- examined and all credited to the various candidates indicated by the
second preference markings. Each candidate's allocation was then adjusted by applying to it the fraction 2,838
10,202.—En., The Spectator.]
Previous page
