Page:Thomas Hare - The Election of Representatives, parliamentary and municipal.djvu/372

sion. He thought it was a popular belief in the widest sense, though not in the superficial sense of being approved of by the people, because they had given no opinion upon it. But it was popular as being thoroughly democratoc in its theory, and would prove democratic in its practice. It seemed to be the idea of population carried out in principle; the principle of proportion applied to numbers. In brief, he might say that at its roots were the axiom that equal numbers should have equal representation. [Mr. Harpur: Not as embodied in the Bill.] He admitted that the details were imperfect; he was speaking of the principles of the system. So far as equality could be attained, the system proposed that each equal portion of electors should have an equal representation; and could the equity of the system be better shown? How was it possible to find fault with a system that told off the community into different sections, giving each a representative in proportion to its numbers? [Mr. Harpur: Stereotyping faction.] This remark contained no argument. Anything might be termed faction. Majorities in the House, and even the Govemment themselves, had been termed a faction, until people were tired of hearing it. This system was a mere mechanical provision, if anything like faction could be involved in that. He believed he had been able to understand the system, after giving it a considerable amount of attention, and he would endeavour to explain to the House some of the features he had remarked in it, and which he thought were in its favour. One objection he had heard against the system would show the manner in which it was treated by honourable members. It was said, suppose a case in which 20,000 electors were to return ten members, and supposing there were forty candidates, each having an equal number of votes—why, such a thing was simply impossible; or if possible it was provided for by this system. The easiest way of putting the question was, by supposing a case of one electorate where there was but one returning officer. Supposing there were 10,000 votes to be given and ten members to be returned. The quota was arrived at by a simple sum in division, the number of electors being divided by the number of persons to be elected. Thereby was obtained what was called a quota. It was not arbitrary, but a definite proportion of the electors to the elected. [A voice: How if less than the quota voted?] And here he took exception to the phraseology of the Bill—the expressions “primary” and “contingent” not being at all connected with the Hare system of voting. Strictly speaking, there was but one vote. He was supposing a case where the electorate was sufficiently limited to admit of one returning officer officiating. Say there is a certain number of candidates to be elected—ten, for instance—and there are 10,000 electors. In such case the quota will be 1000 votes. Well, the returning officer receives votes up to 1000 for A and B. After that, if any electors wish to vote for A and B, they are told the votes are not required, and they then vote for C and D, or, if these candidates have also obtained the quota, they are carried to E and F, or any others that the electors approve of. [Mr. Harpur: But the votes are given on paper.] It