Part 17 (1/2)
The first list contains the ”electoral quotient” twice, the second twice, and the third once, and the five seats are allotted accordingly.
Each party obtains one representative for every quota of voters which it can rally to its support, all fractions of ”quotas” being disregarded.
The method of determining the electoral quotient may appear at first sight rather empirical, but the rule is merely the arithmetical expression, in a form convenient for returning officers, of the following train of reasoning. The three lists with 8000, 7500, and 4500 supporters are competing for seats. The first seat has to be allotted; to which list is it to go? Plainly to the list with 8000 supporters.
Then the second seat has to be disposed of; to which list is it to go?
If it is given to the first list, then the supporters of the first list will have two members in all, or one member for each 4000 votes. This would be unfair while 7500 supporters of the second list are unrepresented, therefore the second seat is allotted to the list with 7500 supporters. Similar reasoning will give the third seat to the list with 4500 supporters, the fourth to the list with 8000 supporters, which now will rightly have one representative for each 4000, and the fifth to the list with 7500. The question in each case is to what list must the seat be allotted in such a way that no one group of unrepresented electors is larger than a represented group. The separate allotment of seats one by one in accordance with the foregoing reasoning may be shown thus:--
8,000 (List No. 1) 7,500 ( ” No. 2) 4,500 ( ” No. 3) 4,000 ( ” No. 1) 3,750 ( ” No. 2)
This result of course agrees with that obtained by the official process of dividing the total of each list by the electoral quotient.
_The selection of successful candidates._
The seats having been apportioned to the respective lists it becomes necessary to ascertain which of the candidates on the respective lists are to be declared elected. In this second process it will be seen now great an advantage is obtained by the candidates at the top of each list.[2] A11 the votes marked in the s.p.a.ce at the top of a list, _i.e.,_ list votes, form a pool from which the candidates of the list draw in succession as many votes as are necessary to make their individual total equal to the electoral quotient, the process continuing until the pool is exhausted. In the example already given, a.s.sume that List No. 1 consists of three candidates, A, B, and C, arranged in the order named, and that the 8000 supporters of the list have given their votes as follows:--
Votes at the head of the List 4,000 Preferential votes for A 600 ” ” B 500 ” ” C 3,000 ----- Total 8,000
Candidate A, being the first in order on the list, has the first claim on the votes recorded for the list. The electoral quotient is 3750, and A's total 500 is raised to this number by the addition of 3250 votes taken from those recorded for the list. This secures his election, and there remain 750 list votes which are attributed to candidate B, this candidate being the second in order on the list. B, however, also had 500 votes recorded against his name, and his total poll therefore amounts to 1250. But candidate C has obtained 3000 votes, all recorded for himself personally, and as this total exceeds B's total of 1250, C would be declared elected. The two candidates chosen from List No. 1 would, in this case, be A and C. The successful supplementary candidates are ascertained in the same way.
_A Belgian election. Ghent, 1908: the poll._
In a Belgian election the polling proceeds very smoothly and quietly.
This is largely due to the fact that the law for compulsory voting has relieved the party organizations of the necessity of whipping up their supporters to the poll. At the election of Ghent, which the author was privileged to witness, the candidates for the Chamber of Representatives were as given in the ballot paper on page 177. It will be seen that six lists of candidates were presented, but in the election of Senators only the three chief organizations took part. There were eleven members of the House of Representatives and five Senators to be elected.
The const.i.tuency was divided into 350 polling districts, the maximum number of electors for a district being 500. To each district was a.s.signed a polling place in charge of a presiding officer, appointed by the returning officer of the district; the presiding officer was a.s.sisted by four citizens, each of whom was required to be in possession of the maximum number of votes, and to be at least forty years of age.
In addition, the party organizations sent duly accredited witnesses to watch against possible fraud, and to a.s.sure themselves of the absolute regularity of the proceedings. The poll opened at 8 A.M. Each elector had to present his official ”summons” to vote, and received from the presiding officer one, two, or three ballot papers according to the number of votes to which he was ent.i.tled. The elector took the papers to a private compartment, as in an English election, marked them, placed them in the ballot box and received back his official letter, now stamped--evidence, if need be, that he had carried out the obligation imposed upon him by law. At 1 P.M. the poll was closed; the ballot boxes were opened and the ballot papers counted in the presence of the a.s.sessors and party witnesses for the purpose of ascertaining that all papers in the possession of the presiding officer at the opening of the poll had been duly accounted for.
_The counting of the votes_.]
In order to maintain as far as possible, not only the secrecy of the individual vote, but the secrecy of the vote of any locality, the votes of three polling places were counted together, the grouping of polling places for this purpose having been previously determined by lot. Thus the votes counted at the town hall (polling district No. 1) were those recorded in the districts Nos. 1, 112, and 94. The proceedings were directed by the presiding officer of the first polling place, a.s.sisted by the presiding officers of the other two. The only other persons present were witnesses representing the three chief parties. The counting commenced soon after 3 P.M., and was completed, both for the Senate and Chamber, by 7 P.M. The papers were sorted according to the votes given for each list, subsidiary heaps being made for those candidates who had received individual votes of preference. A separate heap was made of spoiled and blank voting papers, but it was evident from the very commencement of the proceedings that the method of voting had presented no difficulty to the elector. Of the 1370 votes recorded in this division for candidates for the Chamber there were but twenty-six spoiled papers; of these thirteen were blank, indicating that the voters, although attending the poll, did not wish to record any opinion. The thirteen other papers showed in nearly every case some confusion in the mind of the elector with the elections for the communal councils, when the elector can give several votes of preference. The official returns, after endors.e.m.e.nt, were forwarded by post to the returning officer, whose duty it was to prepare the returns for the whole const.i.tuency. The figures for each district were given to the press at the close of the count, and special editions of the journals, containing the probable result of the election, were issued the same evening.
_The final process._
The compilation of the returns for the whole const.i.tuency took place on the following day. The returning officer presided, and was a.s.sisted by four a.s.sessors, a secretary and three witnesses, who attended on behalf of the chief parties. In addition there were two professional calculators, who were responsible for the accuracy of the arithmetical processes. The proceedings, in brief, consisted in extracting the details of the returns furnished by the 120 counting places. The final sheet for each list showed not only the total number of votes obtained by the party, but the number of votes of preference recorded for each candidate. The votes for each list were as follows:--
List No.1. List No.2. List No.3. List No.4. List No.5. List No.6.
78,868 39,788 913 1,094 23,118 271
The process of allotting the seats to the respective parties then commenced. The totals for each list were divided by the numbers 1, 2, 3, and so on, and arranged thus:--
List List List List List List No. 1. No. 2. No. 3. No. 4. No. 5. No. 6 78,865 39,788 913 1,094 23,118 271 39,432 19,894 11,559 26,288 13,262 19,716 9,947 15,773 13,144 11,266
The eleven highest figures thus obtained were then arranged in order of magnitude, and the seats allotted accordingly:--
1st Seat 78,865 (List No. 1--Catholic) 2nd ” 39,783 ( ” No. 2--Liberal) 3rd ” 39,432 ( ” No. 1--Catholic) 4th ” 26,288 ( ” No. 1--Catholic) 5th ” 23,118 ( ” No. 5--Socialist) 6th ” 19,894 ( ” No. 2--Liberal) 7th ” 19,716 ( ” No. 1--Catholic) 8th ” 15,773 ( ” No. 1--Catholic) 9th ” 13,262 ( ” No. 2--Liberal) 10th ” 13,144 ( ” No. 1--Catholic) 11th ” 11,559 ( ” No. 5--Socialist)
Thus the Catholics, Liberals, and Socialists obtained six, three, and ten seats respectively. It will be noticed that the eleventh figure, 11,559, which is the ”common divisor,” or ”electoral quotient,” is contained six times in the Catholic total, with a remainder of 9511; three times in the Liberal total, with a remainder of 5000; and twice in the Socialist total.
The highest number of preferences recorded for any individual candidate (although placards had been posted inviting votes of preference for M.
Buysse, the candidate fourth on the Liberal list, and for M. Cambier, the candidate third on the Socialist list) were 1914 and 1635, much too small to effect any change in the order of the candidates as arranged by the a.s.sociations. It remains to add that the task was accomplished with perfect regularity and despatch; the figures were checked at each stage, but as the number of votes polled in the double election (for the Senate and for the Chamber) amounted to no less than 270,892, it is not surprising that the compilation of the final figures was not completed until midnight.
_Public opinion favorable to the system._