Appendix 1 ANALYSIS OF VOTING IN UNIVERSITY SEATS Though the Speaker's Conference of 1916-17 recommended the use of propor­ tional representation in boroughs of three members the Representation of the People Act 1918 made two separate provisions only one of which was implemen­ ted_ Section 20( 1) provided that where a university constituency had two or more members "any election ___ shall be according to the principle of proportional rep- resentation each elector having one transferable vote ..." Under Section 20(2) Commissioners to prepare a scheme for one hundred members to be elected by proportional representation were never appointed. F rom December 1918 to July 1945 three British university constituencies1 returned two members each and one three members so that in eight general elections nine members for four university constituencies were returnable by the single trans­ ferable vote. Th ree single member constituencies returned one member each making a total of twelve. University representation was abolished by the Representation of the People Act, 1948 which therefore also brought proportional representation to an end in British parliamentary elections. For over thirty years members sat in the House of Commons who had been elected by two different methods, the vast majority by the X-vote and a tiny minority by the single transferable vote. Section 41(6) said "The expression 'transferable vote' means a vote:- (a) capable of being given so as to indicate the voter's preference for the candi­ dates in order; and (b) capable of being transferred to the next choice when the vote is not required to give a prior choice the necessary quota of votes, or when, owing to the def­ iciency in the number of the votes given for a prior choice that choice is elim­ inated from the list of candidates" This definition appears in a number of subsequent Acts, Orders and Bills and, with a very slight change in wording, in the Northern Ireland Assembly Act 1973 Section 2(3). Detailed regulations were made, Statutory Instrument No. 1348 of 1918, which prescribed in legal language the method of voting and the counting and transfer of votes. They have remained the basis of the legal rules for the conduct of single transferable vote elections in the whole of the British Isles2 ever since. Peripheral additions have refined and clarified variou's points without changing the funda­ mental logic of the system. The application of the single transferable vote to four university constituencies demonstrated the mechanics of the system in real situations wh ich are shown in the detailed results on the following pages. Unfortunately because only one constituency had as many as three seats and the other three each had only two, the second object of the system, to provide for the representation of a reasonable spectrum of substantial groups of opinion, could not be attained. The constituencies were too smalt. For example, Professor G ilbert Murray stood five times for Oxford from 1918 to 1929 but never received enough votes from the regular transfer of Lord Hugh Cecil's surpluses to reach the quota of just over one-third of the votes. Three times at the end of the count he had over 30% of the votes, a substantial body of opinion indeed which could not be repres­ ented in a constituency of only two seats. Sir Alan Herbert gives a detailed account of the counting process in the 1935 election3 when he eventually received just over one-third of the votes after the transfer to him of one-fifth of Lord Hugh's surplus and nearly half of Professor Stock's votes. Combined English Universities 1945 illustrates two points. Though Kenneth Lindsay was fourth on first preference votes he was nevertheless elected with Miss 676 ANAL. YSIS OF VOTING IN UNIVERSITY SEATS Eleanor Rathbone after the transfer of her surplus and the votes of eliminated can­ didates. Section 27 of the 1918 Act made an anomalous rule by which a deposit was only returnable in a one or two member constituency if a candidate received more than one-eighth of the first preference votes. While this might have been suit­ able when voting was by one or two X's it was inappropriate in a single transferable vote election. The Irish Free State corrected the anomaly byexpressing the minimum vote required as a proportion of the quota calculated at the point of elimination. A candidate who had more first preferences than Lindsay lost his deposit even though he had half a quota on elimination. The rule was different in a three-member constituency when the return of the deposit required only 1/24 of first preference votes (1/8 of 1/3). Sir John Graham Kerr would have suffered in Combined Scottish 1945 had he not been elected third after starting fifth and last. The multi-member university elections are untypical in that there were several instances where the required number of candidates each received a quota of first preference votes. The voters formed themselves into constituencies of opinion without the assistance of the Returning Officer in Combined Scottish 1918 and 1935, Cambridge 1922,1924 and 1935, Combined English 1923, and Oxford 1945. There were also six uncontested elections. Even if the comparative harshness of the deposit rule in two-member constituencies discouraged candidates, this did not apply to Combined Scottish. Tacit understanding between parties and candidates and a hangover from pre-first world war customs may be a possible explanation. This is the only trial which has been made so far (April 1977) of proportional representation by the single transferable vote in British parliamentary history. It was of limited nature as a test. JAMES KNIGHT The University of Dublin elected two members in 1918. 2 Le. including the Republic of I reland (I rish F ree State to 1948) 3 A.P. Herber!, The Ayes Have It, pp. 16-31 (Landon, 1937) 677 ANAL YSIS OF VOTING IN UNIVERSITY SEATS CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY (Two Seats) 1918 Electors: 9,282 Turnout: 62.3 Quota: 1 ,929 Stage I Stage 11 Candidate Party Rawlinson's Surplus Result Rawlinson CoC 2,034 -105 1,929 First Larmor Co C 1,891 95 1,986 Second Whetham Ind 1,220 9 1,229 Runner Up Squire Lab 640* 641 Unsuccessful Non-transferab le Total 5,785 5,785 1923 Electors: 14,974 Turnout: 68.8 Quota: 3,434 Stage I Stage 11 Candidate Party Rawlinson's Surplus Result Rawlinson C 4,207 -773 3,434 First Butler 100 L 3,248 35 3,283 Runner Up Butler C 2,844 716 3,560 Second Non-transferable 22 22 Total 10,299 10,299 1929 Electors: 23,978 Turnout: 66.7 Quota: 5,330 Stage I Stage 11 Candidate Party Withers' Surplus Result Withers C 6,356 -1,026 5,330 First Wilson C 5,069 977 6,046 Second Henderson l 3,099 32 3,131 Runner Up Wood Lab 1,463* 17 1,480 Unsuccessful Non-transferable Total 15,987 15,987 678 ANAL YSIS OF VOTING IN UNIVERSITY SEATS CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY (Cont.) 1945 Electors: 42,012 Turnout: 52.6 Quota: 7,364 Stage I Stage 11 Stage 111 Stage IV Candidate Party Pickthorn's Williams' Hill's Result Surplus Votes Votes Pickthorn C 10,202 - 2,838 7,364 7,364 7,364 First Priestley Ind Prog 5,041 87 5,128 110 5,238 507 5,745 Runner Up Harris Ind 3,574 1,135 4,709 476 5,185 1,371 6,556 Second Hili Ind 2,238* 854 3,092 503 3,595 - 3,595 Eliminated Williams Nat Ind 1,036* 762 1,798 - 1,798 Eliminated Non-transferable 709 709 1,717 2,426 Total 22,091 22,091 22,091 22,091 679 ANAL YSIS OF VOTING IN UNIVERSITY SEATS COMBINED ENGLISH UNIVERSITIES (Two Seats) 1918 Electors: 2,357 Turnout: 84.6 Quota: 665 Stage I Stage 11 Stage 111 Candidate Party Fisher's Surplus Williams' Votes Result Fisher Co L 959 -294 665 665 First Hobson Lab 366 88 454 27 481 Runner Up Williams C 366 44 410 -410 Eliminated Conway CoC 303 162 465 312 777 Second Non-transferable 71 71 Total 1,994 1,994 1,994 1922 Electors: 3,967 Turnout: 74.3 Quota: 983 Stage I Stage 11 Stage 111 Stage IV Stage V Candidate Party Lawrence's Faraday's Conway's Woolf's Result Votes Votes Surplus Votes Conway C 968 14 982 111 1,093 -110 983 983 First Fisher NL 815 6 821 28 849 34 883 126 1,009 Second Streng Ind 571 4 575 20 595 16 611 202 813 Runner Up Woolf Lab 361* 361 4 365 366 -366 Eliminated Faraday Ind C 141 * 65 206 -206 Eliminated Lawrence I nd C 90* -90 Eliminated Non-transferable 43 44 59 103 38 141 Total 2,946 2,946 2,946 2,946 2,946 1924 Electors: 5,655 Turnout: 78.2 Quota: 1,476 Stage I Stage 11 Candidate Party Conway's Surplus Result Conway C 2,231 -755 1,476 First Fisher L 1,333 731 2,064 Second Findlay Lab 861 24 885 Runner Up Non-transferable Total 4,425 4,425 680 ANAL YSIS OF VOTING IN UNIVERSITY SEATS COMBINED ENGLISH UNIVERSITIES (Cant.) 1929 Electors: 13,775 Turnout: 72.6 Quota: 3,335 Stage I Stage 11 Candidate Party Selby.ßigge's Votes Result Rathbone Ind 3,331 63 3,394 First Conway C 2,679 1,642 4,321 Second Conway L 2,231 50 2,281 Runner Up Selby-Bigge C 1,762 -1,762 Eliminated Non-transferable 7 7 Total 10,003 10,003 1931 Electors: 19,109 Turnout: 71.7 Quota: 4,567 Stage I Stage II Stage 111 Stage IV Candidate Party Rathbone's Surplus Nicholson's Votes Williams' Votes Rasult Rathbone Ind 5,096 -529 4,567 4,567 4,567 First Craddock C 3,633 52 3,685 69 3,754 1,104 4,858 Second Jowitt N Lab 2,759 244 3,003 204 3,207 425 3,632 Runner Up Williams C 1,748 71 1,819 103 1,922 -1,922 Eliminated Nicolson NP 461* 162 623 -623 Eliminated Non-transferable 247 247 393 640 Total 13,697 13,697 13,697 13,697 1945 Electors: 41,976 Turnout: 50.0 Quota: 6,992 Stage I Stage II Stage 111 Stage IV Stll!!eV Candidate Party Rathbone's FoxaU's R ichardson's Ardan's Result Surplus Votes Votes Votes Rathbone Ind 11,176 -4,184 6,992