is the so-called ‘limited vote,’ according to which each voter in an electoral area is allowed to vote for a certain number of the candidates, usually one less than the number to be elected, so that if three members are to be elected from the district the minority is reasonably sure of electing one member. This method may be employed only in elections in which three or more representatives are to be chosen from the district. The chief objection to this method is that it does not allow the minority party proportional representation, but only limited representation. Moreover, it allows representation only to a very large minority and makes no provision for third parties and independent movements. Another method is the so-called ‘cumulative vote,’ which allows the elector as many votes as there are representatives to be chosen from the district, and which permits him to distribute them among the different candidates as he pleases, or cumulate them on one or more candidates. The advantage of this method over the first mentioned is that it enables a small minority to elect at least one member by cumulating their votes. Since 1870 it has been employed in Illinois for the election of representatives in the Legislature. The chief objection to this method is that it frequently involves a waste of votes, since a popular candidate may receive many more votes than actually necessary to elect him. As a result of this it may happen that the minority party actually succeeds in electing two representatives out of three.
What is known as the Hare or Andræ system, so called because proposed by an Englishman named Hare, and introduced into Denmark by Andræ, provides for the election of representatives by general ticket, and allows each elector to vote for one candidate or for a limited number, but permits him to indicate his second and third choices, etc. The total number of votes cast is divided by the number of representatives to be chosen, and the quotient is taken as the amount necessary to elect any candidate. In counting the ballots only the first choices are counted, and as soon as a candidate has received a number of votes equal to the electoral quotient he is declared elected, and no more votes are counted for him. The remaining ballots which designate him as first choice are then counted for the candidate having second choice, and so on down the list until the necessary number of persons have been declared elected. Under this system the waste of votes is insignificant, but its complexity is an objection, and the element of chance enters into the scheme. Finally there is the ‘free list’ system, according to which a certain number of voters may nominate a number of candidates not exceeding the number of places to be filled. Each voter casts as many votes as there are representatives to be chosen, distributing them at will, but not cumulating them on any one candidate. The number of votes necessary to elect is determined by dividing the total vote cast by the number of places to be filled. The total vote cast by each party is then divided by the electoral quotient and the result is the number of representatives to which each party is entitled. Any deficiency is supplied from those parties having the largest fractional quotas. This plan possesses the advantage of economy and secures proportional representation.
REPRESENTATION. In law, a statement or assertion as to some matter of fact. Representations have significance in a legal sense when they are acted upon. Such representations may be made as the basis of numerous legal transactions. See Deceit; Fraud; Caveat Emptor; Condition; Sale; Warranty, etc.
In the law of inheritance the term representation is also used to denote the principle upon which the issue of a deceased person take or inherit the share of an estate which their immediate ancestor would have inherited had he been living. Thus if one dies leaving two children and the children of a deceased child surviving him, the children will each inherit one-third of the real estate of the deceased and the other third will go to the children of the deceased child who are said to take by representation. See Administration (in Law).
REPRESENTATIVES, House of. The Lower House of the Congress of the United States. See United States; Congress; Committees.
REPRIEVE (doublet of reprove, from OF. reprover, reprouver, Fr. réprouver, to reprove, reject, from Lat. reprobare, to condemn, reject, from re-, back again, anew + probare, to test, prove, from probus, good). The temporary suspension of a sentence for a crime, granted by the pardoning power, which is usually the chief magistrate of a State or nation. The term is most commonly employed to denote a stay of execution of a person convicted of a capital crime. Reprieves are usually granted in order to allow an investigation into the legality of the conviction, or into alleged ‘newly discovered evidence’ in favor of the condemned person. They are also granted in case of pregnancy of a woman condemned to death, in cases of alleged insanity after condemnation to death, and often pending an investigation of facts urged in an application for a pardon. See Pardon.
REPRISAL (OF. represaille, Fr. représaille, from reprise, prize, a taking, from repris, p.p. of reprendre, to retake, from Lat. reprehendere, reprendere, to recover back, blame, from re-, back again, anew + prehendere, prendere, to take). In international law, a means of securing redress without resort to war, but at the same time with the use of force. It consists in forcibly seizing from an offending nation property or its equivalent belonging to the aggrieved nation, or in detaining the property of an adversary with the intention of compelling it to afford the necessary redress. Reprisal is resorted to when a specific wrong has been committed and the seizure is by way of compensation in value for the wrong. The things seized are held subject to the termination of the controversy and are restored if the controversy is amicably settled. Reprisal is an act of retaliation and consists in applying to the subjects of an offending State treatment analogous to that which the subjects of the offended State have received. A reprisal, though an act of war in fact, is not such in intent, and, indeed, is resorted to as a means of avoiding war by securing redress without resort to the graver alternative, although it may constitute a sufficient cause of war. The forms of reprisal most commonly employed in recent times consist in placing an embargo on such ships of the offending State as may be lying in the harbors of the aggrieved State, or in the seizure of its ships
