PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION APPLIED TO PARTY GOVERNMENT

A NEW ELECTORAL SYSTEM

BY

T.R. ASHWORTH

(President of the Victorian Division, Australian Free Trade and Liberal Association)

AND

H.P.C. ASHWORTH

(Civil Engineer)

LONDON

SWAN SONNENSCHEIN & CO., LIM.

PATERNOSTER SQUARE

1901

CONTENTS.

CHAPTER I—THE TRUE PRINCIPLES OF POLITICAL REPRESENTATION
CHAPTER II—THE SO-CALLED REPRESENTATIVE PRINCIPLE
CHAPTER III—THE PRESENT POSITION or PARTY GOVERNMENT
CHAPTER IV—THE REFORM: TRUE PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION
CHAPTER V—HOW THE EVILS OF THE PRESENT SYSTEM WILL BE REMEDIED
CHAPTER VI—THE HARE SYSTEM OF PROPORTIONAL DELEGATION
CHAPTER VII—THE FREE LIST SYSTEM OF PROPORTIONAL DELEGATION
CHAPTER VIII—PREFERENTIAL VOTING, THE BLOCK VOTE, THE LIMITED VOTE, ETC.
CHAPTER IX—ATTEMPTS TO IMPROVE THE PRESENT SYSTEM
CHAPTER X—APPLICATION OF THE REFORM TO AUSTRALIAN LEGISLATURES
CHAPTER XI—THE CONDITIONS OF SOCIAL PROGRESS

"Majority and minority, in and for themselves, are the first requisite of popular government, and not the development or representation of separate groups."—Bradford's "Lesson of Popular Government," vol. ii., page 179.

PREFACE.

The subject of electoral reform has been brought into prominence inAustralia by a clause in the Commonwealth Bill which provides that theFederal Senate shall consist of six senators from each State, directlychosen by the people, voting as one electorate. The problem thuspresented has been keenly discussed. On the one hand we have theadvocates of the Block Vote asserting that the party in a majority isentitled to return all six senators; and on the other, a small band ofardent reformers pressing the claims of the Hare system, which wouldallow the people in each State to group themselves into six sections,each returning one senator. The claim that every section of the peopleis entitled to representation appears at first sight so just that itseems intolerable that a method should have been used all these yearswhich excludes the minority in each electorate from any share ofrepresentation; and, of course, the injustice becomes more evident whenthe electorate returns several members. But in view of the adage thatit is the excellence of old institutions which preserves them, it issurely a rash conclusion that the present method of election has nocompensating merit. We believe there is such a merit—namely, that thepresent method of election has developed the party system. Once thistruth is grasped, it is quite evident that the Hare system would beabsolutely destructive to party government, since each electorate wouldbe contested, not by two organized parties, but by several groups. Forit is precisely this splitting into groups which is causing such anxietyamong thoughtful observers as to the future of representativeinstitutions; Mr. Lecky has attributed to it, in his "Dem

...