littoral fairness
While n ile Miss Enid Lakeman makes "h_ut a good case for the single "ansferable vote as contrasted with its unadventurous cousin, the alternative °te, I feel that she has not answered scmie of the basic objections to this electoral system. FirstlY, the STV is a limited vote, ng the elector only a single vote in rriulti-membered constituency; this reans that if the voter's second and ifelser Preferences are not redistributed, nas in effect only been allowed to c°11tribute towards the election of one °t'tn of a plurality of representatives. econdly, the system is unfair with Its selective redistribution of second s'nd lesser preferences, which makes °me votes more important than others. JUt the strongest objection is the lt fact that the STV is way beyond. eie comprehension of the average eector. Anyone with practical 2cPerience of elections will know how uard it is to explain to many supPcirters what to do with their ballot: ilc`,10,.,er When electing members to a cOuncil from a fouror six-mem,7red ward. A few years ago, a leading profeSSOr of constitutional law in the Irish Republic admitted that he was itlnable to understand fully all the deails of the system. Many voters would r3t at home rather than be asked to. st thirty names in order of preference. s,,SYrelY, a much more satisfactory • ,sLem of PR is the Cumulative Vote. Thhels. gives the voter as many votes as re are members to be elected from a '-(onstituency returning at least three taa'11:1 in practice, five or six) representives. He may allocate these votes as .Z Chooses — thus, in a three-memfnred district, he may cast three votes trr one candidate, or one vote each for "ree candidates — and so on. This is Rch easier to understand than the `V. It allows a minority to gain. °Presentation by fielding a limited rtl,,,tmlber of candidates under this sys`rn to prevent their vote from being !Alit, there will not be too many names
un el the ballot-paper to confuse the
;ector. To keep things relatively .8,`rnPle, the largest constituencies tild return, say, six members apiece. :Pe cumulative vote has been used to el the lower house of the Illinois setate legislature Since 1870, a record of ontinuity which the STV cannot rat. It shares the STV's great asset a at a Voter may show' his preferences :,_ongst candidates of the same party tisuen that party is putting up more
one candidate in a constituency. • .1
pro feel that the proponents of k Portional representation in Britain • ■ave to broaden their outlooks and Aee„°se propounding the STV and the V as the only alternatives to our 1.'resent electoral system. Let the discl'ssion on PR be broadened to coner such innovations as the cumulasLve vote, the French second ballot reem, the various 'list' systems of Nis.,, tern Europe and all the other 300—" modes of PR that have been sugested at one time or another.
M. Stephen Parry Surrey
71 Berrylands, Surbiton,
Previous page
