Proportional Representation in Ireland - Proinsias Mac Aonghusa

Cover

2006-08-14T22:53:00.000+01:00

How it all began.

2006-08-13T22:27:00.000+01:00

THOMAS WRIGHT HILL is known to posterity only as the father of Rowland Hill, the man who instituted the penny post. But he has another claim to fame because, in a sense, he started a revolution that has influenced world politics to a considerable extent. The famous Postmaster General has recorded how his father, a schoolteacher, worked out an electoral system based on the single transferable vote and the multimember constituency in 1821.

It happened more or less by accident, when he asked the pupils in his school to elect a boys' advisory committee by standing beside the boy they liked best. At first this produced a number of unequal groups, but soon those in the largest groups realised that not all of them were actually necessary for the election of their favourites and so some of them moved on to help other candidates. On the other hand, the comparatively few supporters of an unpopular boy came to the conclusion that he had no chance of being elected, and they transferred themselves to the candidate they considered the next best. The final result was that a number of candidates equal to the number required for the committee was each surrounded by the same number of supporters, with only three or four boys left over who were completely dissatisfied with all those elected.

Secret Ballot
Thirty-four years after Hill's experiment the Danish statesman, Carl Andrae; invented a system by which the single transferable vote could be adapted to the secret ballot, and two years later Thomas Hare enunciated the idea in Britain. He publicised his electoral system immediately following the 1857 general elections in a pamphlet entitled "The Machinery of Representation," and he later developed his ideas about proportional representation and election by the single transferable vote, the multimember constituency and the quota system in a further publication "The Election of Representatives. Parliamentary and Municipal," printed in 1859. This second booklet aroused great interest, sold very well and went into many editions. Hare's ideas on electoral reform coincided more or less with those of Andrae, although he arrived at them quite independently. The major difference between the Hare proposals and their later development is that Hare visualised the whole of Britain as one large constituency, returning as many members as were necessary for the House of Commons and giving the right to all electors to vote for their favourite candidates no matter where they came from. Britain had an electorate of 1,227,274 in 1857 when Hare broadcast his ideas. Theoretically, this proposal of one large constituency has much to commend it. In practice, however, it would probably lead to tremendous complications and unsurmountable difficulties. As it happened, when elections on the P.R. principle based on the single transferable vote and the quota system were eventually held, the most favoured size of constituency was one which returned between four and seven members to Parliament.

Hope Deceived
John Stuart Mill, the philosopher and economist, warmly commended the Hare system in his "Consideration of Representative Government," published in 1861, and in the 20 years that followed the method won a considerable amount of academic support. Eleven years after Mill's endorsement of the system a Bill advocating the application of P.R. principles in elections in England and Wales was unsuccessfully introduced into the House of Commons by Walter Morrison and Henry Fawcett.

In 1884 the prospect of a Franchise and Redistribution Bill led to the formation of the Proportional Representation Society, of which Sir John Lubbock, afterwards Lord Avebury, was the chief mover and guiding spirit. Mr. Leonard Courtney, at that time Financial Secretary to the Treasury in Gladstone's Government, became convinced of the need for a more just system of voting than the "spot method" then (and now) in use in Britain. He studied various methods of improving the system, and in the end decided that P.R was the answer to the country's electoral problems But Gladstone refused even to consider the proposal and Courtney immediately resigned from the Government.

Shortly afterwards, as a result of an understanding between Gladstone and the Leader of the Opposition, Lord Salisbury, a system of one-member constituencies based on equality of population was established for the first time in Britain. No real change was made in the voting system itself. This dashed the hopes of the 200 Members of Parliament who belonged to the P.R. Society, and the movement became dormant until 1905, when it came to life again in anticipation of a further Franchise and Redistribution Bill. This Bill however, did not come about until 1918, but from its revival to the present day the society has been very much alive, and has helped the cause of electoral reform in many parts of the world.

Irish Interest
Irish interest in electoral reform was first noticed following the publication of a letter from Lord Courtney to Thomas Sexton in the Freeman's Journal on January 14th, 1911. This letter advocated the introduction of the P.R. principle into Irish elections, It suggested that the country be divided into constituencies returning from three to five members each to Parliament and that election be held on the single transferable vote method. Since the spot-voting system had given the country little satisfaction in the preceding years and since it gave no chance whatever to the growing, but still weak, Irish-Ireland and Labour elements, many thinking people realised that a change was necessary.

Courtney's suggestion soon found considerable support and when he came to Dublin on April 20th, 1911, a large audience gathered to hear his speech on P.R. delivered in the Ancient Concert Rooms. After his speech a model election was held and the system was fully explained and illustrated. Five months later, on September 12th, 1911, the Proportional Representation Society of Ireland was formed with the aim of changing the country's election system and introducing the single transferable vote, the quota counting method and the multi-member constituency.

Influential Advocates
The Irish P.R. society was helped by some of the most prominent nationally minded people of the day and their propaganda work had a great deal of influence among thinking sections throughout the country. Arthur Griffith, the Sinn Féin leader, gave it wholehearted support, and Nationalist members at Westminster realised that the system offered a solution to some of Ireland's unique problems. They knew that a method must be found to give the minority, the Unionists and especially those in Leinster and Munster fair representation in the Home Rule Parliament which they believed would be set up within a few years. Under the existing spot vote it would be virtually impossible for these elements to elect any members at all.

Griffith's views on P.R. were expressed in many references which he made to the necessity of having representatives of all sections in the proposed legislature. In an article in Sinn Féin on February 25th, 1911, he declared: "P.R. secures that the majority of the electors shall rule, and that minorities shall be represented in proportion to their strength. It is the one just system of election in democratic government."

Largely as a result of the work done by the Proportional Representation Society of Ireland the system was embodied in the Home Rule scheme of 1912, and subsequently in the ill-fated Home Rule Act of 1914. As we will see, the Irish society kept up pressure, and because of the influential converts it gained for the cause of electoral reform P.R. was introduced to Sligo in 1918 and to the whole of Ireland in all elections, parliamentary and municipal, in the following two years.

Five Claims
The advocates of the system in this country made five claims for the P.R. principle, and these claims made sense to an electorate sick and tired of faction fighting on issues which had little to do with the well-being of the constituents, of the control of divisions by gombeen men who, in effect, sent their "own" member to Parliament, of suspected corruption and of despicable methods of electioneering. The P.R. Society declared that an election fought on the single transferable vote with a quota counting system in a multimember constituency would:

1. Reproduce the opinions of the electors in Parliament and other public bodies in their true proportion.
2. Secure that the majority of electors should rule and that all considerable minorities should be heard.
3. Give electors a wider freedom of choice of representatives.
4. Give representatives greater independence from the financial and other pressures of small sections of constituents.
5. Ensure to parties representation by their ablest and most trusted members.

Other election methods were described to the people and their defects pointed out. Among these was the Spot vote, then and now in use in Britain, by which the voter makes an "X" mark in front of his one choice. This method, it was pointed out, was all right where there were only two contestants for a seat, but was quite unsuitable otherwise owing to the fantastic and distorted results it was capable of giving. The Irish electorate, at the time, did not require any over-emphasising of this latter point: they were only too well aware of it.

All in all, the Irish people were in general agreement that the system of the single transferable vote, as we know it to-day, was best suited to the needs of the country, and when it came into use in parliamentary and municipal elections in the early twenties few indeed objected to it.

Why Ireland Chose P.R.

2006-08-12T22:38:00.000+01:00

THE reformed electoral method was first seen in action in Sligo in January, 19l9. Under the Sligo Corporation Act of the previous year, large-scale changes were introduced into the town's government, which had run into considerable difficultie6. As a result of bad administration and indifferent administrators, the conditions under which the majority of the people lived were extremely bad. Houses were falling apart, and many of them had neither windows nor chimneys, the streets were filthy, and what passed for footpaths had not been resurfaced in years. It was generally agreed that the town was unlikely to improve in the fore6eeable future, because, even if the Corporation wished to do its duty towards the citizens, it would have, difficulty in finding all the money needed. Because of the limitations imposed in regard to levying rates in the town by the Sligo Borough Improvement Act of l869, the Council was unable to rai6e sufficient money to make ends meet, and, in fact, the town's debts were increasing by about £700 a year.

In addition, the Unionists, who were the town's largest ratepayers, were not represented on the Council at all, and the administration was wholly in the hands of the Nationalists. This had been the case since the franchise was extended under the Local Government Act of 1898. Before that Act, the Unionists, who formed 25 % of the population, were completely in control of local affairs, and the other 75% of the citizens were virtually unrepresented. Each side realised that there was something radically wrong with the situation, but they knew of no way to improve matters.

Sligo Bill
Eventually things came to a head, and it was agreed that the town's authority for levying rates must be extended at once if Sligo was to survive. It was also agreed that provision must be made for all sections to be represented on the Corporation. Many methods were suggested for getting some Unionists on to the Corporation - appointed members, members picked by lot from a list and others -but all were rejected for one reason or another.

Then a local man, Mr. T. J. Kilgannon, came forward with a suggestion that an election could be held on proportional representation principles and that it would give fair representation to all sections of the community. He explained the system to members of the Corporation and to the Ratepayers' Association. Both bodies accepted it. So did a general meeting of the town's citizens held in the town hall, and then the Sligo Bill, which incorporated the various proposals for the Corporation, was introduced and piloted through the House of Commons by Thomas Scanlan, the local Nationalist M.P.

"A Model"
All sides were satisfied with the results of the election held on January 15th. 1919. Labour, Sinn Fein, Nationalists and Unionists all secured representation according to their strength, and the result was greeted by papers all over Ireland as “a triumph for the principle of proportional representation" and it was claimed that "it has given Sligo a model council."

Because of its excellent showing in Sligo, local bodies, newspapers and prominent citizens of all political views, apart from Ulster Unionists, all over Ireland, acclaimed it and advocated its introduction in all elections held in the country. Sinn Feiners as well as Southern Unionists. Labour men as well as Tory Nationalists spoke and wrote in its favour and when the Irish Local Government Bill was being drafted later that year, the P.R. principle of election was incorporated in it.
The Bill was bitterly opposed in the Commons by the Unionist representatives of Ulster, who saw in it a danger to their own supremacy. They knew that it would give Nationalists some representation on local bodies in areas where Unionists had majorities and where no other interest could secure seats under the relative majority system. On the other hand it was welcomed by Sir Maurice Dockrell, who spoke for the Unionists of the South, and by Joe Devlin who spoke for Northern Nationalists. The great majority of Irish members, of course, were not present at the debate, since they had scorned representation at Westminster and had set up Dáil Éireann in Dublin. However, there is no doubt but that the Sinn Féin T.D.s would have favoured the measure as a democratic one.
During the debate the Ulstermen made it clear that they would abolish P.R. at the earliest opportunity and revert to the British system. In spite of them the Bill was passed, and so the principle of proportional representation was extended to 326 local authorities in Ireland-county councils, town councils, urban district councils, rural councils and Boards of Guardians.

Fair Result
Local elections were held throughout Ireland on January 15th, 192O, under the P.R. voting method. The majority of seats went to Sinn Fein, the most popular and most powerful party, but, at the same time, other interests were not wiped out Apart again from the Northern Tories, all sections of the community were satisfied with the fairness of the result.

The election in Belfast and in Dublin city may be cited as an example of this fairness to all minorities. In 1918, under the British spot voting system, Dublin returned seven Sinn Feiners to Parliament and rejected all others, in spite of the considerable anti-Republican vote On the other hand, Belfast elected eight Unionists and one Nationalist and no other interest won any representation

On the face of it it seems probable that the Unionists would have had an overwhelming victory in Belfast, and that Sinn Feiners alone would have been elected in the Dublin municipal elections, if these were held under the old system. In fact the results achieved through P.R were as follows: Dublin elected 80 members to its Corporation of whom 42 were Sinn Feiners, 15 Labour, 12 Unionists, nine Nationalists and two Independents. Of the 60 seats to be filled in Belfast 35 went to the Unionists; Labour won 12, Sinn Fein and the Nationalists won five apiece and three were secured by Independents. The Republicans in Dublin were quite pleased with the resu1t and said that what they wanted was fair representation for all on elected bodies. The same cannot be said for the dominant party in Belfast, which reiterated its threat to abolish P.R. as soon as it was humanly possible to do so.

North Reverted
Because of its popularity with the Irish electorate and because the British Government wished to safeguard minorities both in the North and in the South, it was stipulated in the 1920 Government of Ireland Act that elections in both parts of the country should in future be on P.R. principles. However, since the Ulstermen had previously declared their intention of reverting to spot voting if they got a chance, a provision was included in the Act which prevented either State from changing the system for a period of three years after the Act came into force. The Northern Government went back to the old way in time for the local elections of June, 1924, and in time for the general elections of 1929.

It is interesting to note that in the Northern Ireland general elections held on May 24th, 1921, on P.R. principles, not one candidate was returned unopposed. In 1925, again with P.R., only eight seats were gained without a fight. But in the 1929 elections, fought under the British system. 22 seats were uncontested, and in the general elections held four years later no fewer than 33 members out of a total of 52 were returned to Parliament without any opportunity being given to the electors to pass Judgment upon them. It is a notorious fact that the same pattern has continued up to the present day.

Preferential Voting
The method of proportional representation introduced into all elections in all parts of Ireland in the 'twenties was the same as that still in use in general and local elections in the Republic, apart from some whittling down of its proportional effect brought about by the 1935 and the 1947 Electoral Acts. It embraces three methods, each one of which depends upon the other to give the proportional principle its proper effect. These are the single transferable vote, the multi-member constituency, and the quota method of counting.

'Preferential voting" is another term sometimes used to describe the single transferable vote, and it means just that. It allows the elector not alone to pick out and indicate his first choice, but also to state whom he favours as second choice, third choice, and so on. Not alone does it give the elector the opportunity of choosing between different parties, but it also allows him to pick his favourite candidates in order from the list supplied by the party of his choice. Generally speaking, if the elector favours one of the three larger parties, he will find more than one representative of that party standing in his constituency, so that. even if he regards one of them as a rogue or a fraud, he can still help his party without voting against his conscience. This is in direct contrast to the position under the British system, where the voter has to stand by his own party's candidate, no matter how rotten he may be, or else vote for a party in whose policy he has no belief.

Throughout the years the Irish elector has been given a fairly wide choice of candidates in each constituency. At the last general election in March, 1957, this choice varied from four in South Kerry, a three-seat constituency, to twelve in Dublin North-East, a five-seat division. The average choice was slightly over seven. Forty constituencies returned 147 deputies to the House, nine electing five deputies each, another nine sending four members apiece to the Dáil and 22 returning three each. The third principle involved in the Irish P.R. system is "quota counting." For some reason, this is the part of the proportional representation method which people find hardest to understand. In fact, it is an extraordinarily simple principle. The "quota" is that proportion of the votes which is certain to secure the election of a candidate. If there is only one candidate to be elected, it is evident that half of the' total vote plus one is the quota: the candidate who obtains 51 out of 100 votes in a single-member constituency is sure of election. Similarly, in a two-member constituency, the quota is a third of the votes plus one. Any candidate who receives more than one-third of the votes must be elected. If there are 100 votes, only two candidates can poll as many as 34 each. Together they will have 68 votes, leaving only 32 votes for all other competitors. Similarly in a three-member constituency, the candidate who obtains more than one-fourth, 26 out of 100, is sure of election; in a four member constituency one more than a fifth is sufficient and so on. In general terms, the quota is found by dividing the total number of votes polled by the number of seats increased by one, and adding one to the result so obtained.

It will be seen from the way in which the quota system works that a minority candidate is likely to have a far better chance in a larger constituency than in a small, say three-seat, division. Since 1947 the largest constituency in the country returns but five members and the great majority only three each. Later we will see how this came about. At present it will suffice to point out that between 1923 and 1935 there was one constituency returning nine members to the Dáil; three returned eight. five returned seven. nine returned five, four returned four, and only eight out of the total of 30 elected three T.D.'s. It is interesting to note that the number of deputies belonging to minority religions in the Dáil at that period was about three times the size of the present representation.

Fair Shares for All

2006-08-11T22:50:00.000+01:00

FOURTEEN general elections have been fought on P.R. principles in the Twenty-six Counties. The election to the first Dáil in 1918 was held under the British system and, although the general election of May, 1921, was in theory held under P.R. principles, it cannot be counted, since not even one seat was fought for. One hundred and twenty-four Sinn Feiners and four Unionists from Dublin University were returned unopposed in that election.

In all, each election has given a fair result, and the will of the people can be seen mirrored in the representation. However, as we will see later, the proportional effect was lessened by the two Electoral Acts introduced by Fianna Fáil, one in 1935 and the other in 1947. These Acts increased to an even greater extent than before that "bonus" which the Irish P.R. system gives to larger parties. Even so, of course, they had not the effect of giving the winning party the fantastically high "bonus" which it often receive, under the British system.

The so-called Pact election was fought in June, 1922. Thirty-four Panel candidates and four Unionists were returned unopposed in seven ordinary constituencies and in Trinity College. In spite of intimidation, candidates who disliked the idea of Collins and de Valera sharing out the country between them stood in the other constituencies, and so elections of a sort were held throughout the greater part of the country. Representatives of Labour, of the Farmers and Independents were nominated in 20 areas, and because of P.R. succeeded in forcing contests in most counties. For example, one Labour candidate nominated in Co. Galway forced an election on the whole county, whereas otherwise the electorate would not have had any chance to voice an opinion.

Minorities Had a Voice
It matters very little now that the election, as far as full freedom of choice went, was practically a farce. What matters is that, because of P.R. minorities who had something more to think about than the niceties of a Republic, a Document Number-2 State or a Free State could and did elect representatives to voice their opinions in Parliament. Because of the proportional system, 274,226 supporters of the Farmers' Union, the Labour Party and Independents found a voice. They all supported the Treaty to a greater or lesser extent. but had no great love for the actual Treaty party. Together, however, with those who voted for Collins' party, they showed that the majority of the people accepted the Articles of Agreement and wanted peace.

On the other hand, those who remained loyal to the Republican ideal were not wiped out, as they would have been under the old system. Nineteen of their 41 candidates were elected and, together with the 17 anti-Treatyites returned unopposed, they made up a formidable party. The Treaty party nominated 48 candidates in the contested constituencies and 41 of these secured election. In proportion to the votes received, they were entitled to 35 seats only, so that, in fact, they received a bonus of six seats. The 19 seats gained by the Republicans were in actual proportion to the votes cast for them Labour won two seats less than they were entitled to proportionally, and, theoretically, Independents elected four fewer deputies than their votes should have brought them.

Bonus
What this means, in fact, is that larger parties win seats for far fewer votes than do their smaller rivals in the ordinary way. This pattern has continued throughout the years, and it will be found that, in general, from 1923 onwards the Republicans (later Fianna Fail) and the Free staters (later Cumann na nGaedheal and Fine Gael) were given a slight, but significant bonus at each election at the expense of the Labour Party and of the Farmers. In 1923 this gave the de Valera group three extra seats; in June, 1927, four extra; six extra in 1932; nine extra in 1943; six extra in 1948 and seven extra in 1957. Similarly, the Treaty party was given a bonus of five in 1923, of four in June, 1927; of three in 1933, of two in 1944, of three in 1954, and of one in 1957.

The third national party, Labour, however, generally won fewer seats than their votes theoretical1y entitled them to. It won four less in 1927, four less in 1932, five less in 1938, five less in 1943, and two less in 1957. Smaller organisations of a more ephemeral nature did even worse. Of these the classic case is possibly that of Clann na Poblachta, which received 174,823 votes in 1948, but which gained only 10 seats. Had seats been dealt out in strict proportion to the votes cast it would have had 19 members in the Thirteenth Dáil.

This "bonus" system is, nevertheless a tribute to the Irish system of proportional representation, since it means that the will of the majority will prevail at all times and that parties supported by very large sections of the electorate will have sufficient strength to carry out the wishes of those - who elected them, and, if entrusted with Government, will have reasonable majorities to help put their policies into effect. It ensures that the main opposition party at all times is strong enough to correct, advise and oppose the Government, and that there is no danger of having a Government controlling 90% of the deputies and the Opposition having the support of a mere 10%.

Small Parties
In addition. however, minority groups supported by fairly considerable sections of the community are reasonably sure of winning some representation. For example, in June, 1927, Captain W. A. Redmond's National League nominated candidates for the first time, gained 83,969 votes, won eight seats and for the next four months put forward the point of view of the odd coalition of electors which supported it. The party fulfilled its destiny within a very short time, and eventually its rump amalgamated with Cumann na nGaedheal. It is difficult nowadays to see what possible use the National League was; but, at the same time, it obviously gave an outlet to a certain fairly substantial minority who might otherwise have expressed themselves in a less democratic fashion. The same is true of Mr. Frank MacDermot's National Centre Party, which with 126,771 votes gained 11 seats in 1933.

Indeed, the feeling of "belonging" and being part of the State that P,R. has given to various sections of the people at various times since the Free State was set up is possibly one of its greatest achievements. All too many people at present do not realise the extent of the hatred, the bitterness and the loathing that followed the civil war. Yet within five years the State was functioning fairly well and all parties with reasonable followings were represented in its Parliament. Abstentionists became convinced of their folly when they saw a recognised Government doing its business normally and a critical opposition, Labour, doing the work which they themselves should be doing. They knew that a few more years outside Leinster House could kill their movement and switch anti-Government support to Labour. Their entry into the Dáil was helped by a Government move to stop abstentionists from even standing for Parliament. They came in with a party of 44 deputies, became a constitutional opposition, and five years later took over the Government.

What Might Have Been
Were it not for the proportional representation system it is very doubtful if such a peaceful state of affairs could have been brought about so soon. Certainly, it seems most unlikely that. under the British system, the Republican Abstentionists would have managed to elect as many as 44 deputies in 1923 and again in 1927, and Labour would have found it very hard indeed to get 22 members into Parliament without P.R. It appears probable that under the old method the Treaty Party would have had an overwhelming majority of seats for many years, and the likelihood of their being ousted by the erstwhile revolutionaries of Fianna Fail as early as 1932 would have been remote in the extreme. Since Labour's representation would have been tiny there would have been no effective opposition in the House. Out of such a situation more bitterness and hatred would have been hound to come.

Fortunately. thanks to a system that gave fair shares to all a certain unity came about, hatreds cooled and all settled down in Parliament to work in accord for the good of the country. The feeling of most democratically-minded people on the subject was put into words in 1938 by Dr. A. A. Luce, Berkeley Professor of Metaphysics at T.C.D. in his famous letter to this newspaper. "P.R. has been a healing force in our midst. Old political feuds are dying; public spirit is replacing faction. Our elections are well conducted. The voice of reason is heard and the gun is silent. P.R. deserves much of the credit; for P.R. produces contented and loyal minorities, whereas the other system breeds muzzled, sullen. discontented minorities, predisposed to doctrines of violence," he wrote.

Before P.R.
Dr. Luce may have recalled some of the events of the three elections which preceded P.R.'s introduction into Ireland. Shootings, threats, beatings, personation and theft of ballot-boxes were not at all uncommon before the introduction of P.R. They were the stock-in-trade of the old Irish Party and were inherited by Sinn Fein in 1918. Out of all these abuses came the uncontested seat-the seat that went without a fight to a given party, because its opponents were afraid to nominate a candidate. Since P.R. was introduced this evil has disappeared, and hardly any candidate has been elected to Dáil Éireann without a fight.

This makes an interesting contrast to the position in Northern Ireland. It also contrasts with the position in the whole of Ireland before P.R. An election was held in Ireland in January, 1906, at which 103 seats were to be filled. Only 21 contests took place on election day; 82 members had been returned unopposed. Five years later, in December, 1910, 56 M.P.s out of a total of 103 went to Parliament without any election, and in 1918 25 Sinn Féiners, almost all of them unknown to their constituents, were elected unopposed. In all these cases the battle was not so much of the ballot as of the bullet, the blackthorn-stick and the fist.

Minorities

2006-08-10T22:51:00.000+01:00

One of the most persistent arguments used by its detractors against proportional representation is that it gives rise to a multiplicity of small parties. Their argument is that the two party system, that which they claim is in force in the United Kingdom and in the United States, is by far the best, and that the further an electoral method is from that desirable system, the worse the method is. It is very doubtful if the so-called two-party system is the best for any country; it is probable that it would lead to disaster in Ireland, with her unsettled history, her unsolved national problems, and her population of individualists. Apart from that altogether, however, the argument that the Twenty-six Counties has been at the mercy of "splinter" parties since P.R. was introduced is worth examining.

The present Dáil is the 16th national assembly since 1918, but it is only the 14th of the post British era. Only two parties have taken part in the work of every Dáil since the State was founded. They are Cumann na nGaedheal, which later became Fine Gael, and the Labour Party, which, incidentally, is the oldest political party in the State. As well as these two organised parties, Independents, varying in numbers from five to 17, also took part in every Dáil.

The Oath
Republicans were elected to the third Dáil in June, 1922, and to the fourth Dáil, in August, 1923, but they refused to take the Oath of Allegiance to the King and so they could not legally take their seats. In March, 1926, the Republican movement split, one section, led by Mary MacSwiney, declaring that no Republican could take a seat in the Leinster House assembly under any circumstances, and the other, led by Eamon de Valera, stating that provided the Oath was removed it would be quite proper for Republicans to enter the Free State Dáil. Mr. de Valera founded Fianna Fail in May of that year. The new party fought the June, 1927, elections; won 44 seats, and entered the Dáil on August 12th.

Fianna Fáil's entry into the Dáil brought the number of parties represented in the House up to five. These were Cumann na nGaedheal, Farmers, Labour, National League and Fianna Fail. Five Sinn Fein deputies who were also elected abstained. As a matter of interest these were the last Sinn Féiners to be elected until March, 1957-nearly 30 years later.

The National League lost most of its members in the second 1927 election and it eventually joined with Cumann na nGaedheal.

Three Effective
Five parties were represented in the sixth Dáil, but the Farmers and the National League deputies put together numbered only eight. In practice, there were only three effective parties, Cumann na nGaedheal, Fianna Fail and Labour. By 1932 the Farmers were reduced to three members, the National League had completely disappeared and only the three large parties remained. Fianna Fail by then commanded 72 seats, Cumann na nGaedheal had 56 deputies and Labour had nine. Labour and Fianna Fail were in alliance and the Opposition consisted of Cumann na nGaedheal and nine Independents

A new party, the National Centre Party, won II seats in 1933 but by then the Farmers' Party had been swallowed by Cumann na nGaedheal so that the number of parties remained at four. Three parties only, Fianna Fail, Fine Gael and Labour, secured representation in the ninth Dáil, and the number of parties remained the same for the tenth Dáil elected in June. 1938.

The Farmers re-emerged under the title Clann na Talmhan in June, 1943, and did extraordinarily well, winning 14 seats. This brought the number of parties again up to four. It remained the same in the twelfth Dáil. In 1948, however, with the arrival of Clann na Poblachta. the number increased to five and it remained at that figure until 1957. In that year a new abstentionist party, calling itself Sinn Fein and claiming succession from the old movement, fought 19 seats and won four. On the other hand Clann na Poblachta virtually, disappeared at that election, only one of its 12 candidates securing election, and only three Clann na Talmhan deputies were returned. These Clann na Talmhan members have since been more or less repudiated by their own executive and act in the Dáil more as Independent members than as a political party. This means that in fact, if not in theory, there are three proper political parties and 13 Independent members in the sixteenth Dáil

Ad Hoc Parties
All this amounts to one fact. That is that since the State was founded there have been three national parties in existence, Fianna Fail (anti-Treaty). Fine Gael (Treaty), and Labour. Others have arisen at various times to forward certain ideas or to do certain things and, their work done, they have disappeared. Proportional representation saw to it that when these organisations gained a certain following they were reasonably sure of securing some representation in the House. Under the British system, as has been pointed out before, there would have been a distinct danger that some of these minorities, having a considerable following but being denied parliamentary seats, would have chosen more dangerous and less democratic methods to forward their viewpoints.

In all it can be seen that since the State was founded an average of four groups has secured representation in each Dáil. On occasion the fourth group consisted of Republicans on other occasions it represented conservative interests. and sometimes it stood for small farmers. Throughout the years, of course numerous other small groups, parties and organisations such as Ailtirí na h-Aiséirí. Clann Éireann. National Action, Cine Gael, Young Ireland, Córas na Poblachta, Tenants' Association and the Irish Workers' League nominated candidates, but they received very little support and won no seats. Needless to say, these groups could nominate candidates under any other system; their lack of success with P.R. indicates what their fate would be with other electoral methods.

Outlet Provided
Taking all elections since 1923 it will be seen that four-fifths of the seats in Dáil Éireann have normally been shared between the two large parties and that only one-fifth is left for the others. The third national party, Labour, generally wins somewhat less than one-tenth of the seats, and the small parties that come and go, together with the Independents, collect a little more than 10% in the ordinary way.

It will be gathered from this that proportional representation as such does not give rise to large numbers of parties but that it helps substantial minorities to voice their opinion in the legislature. It will also be seen from the facts and figures quoted above that the well organised parties always get control of the Dáil and the minorities in the House are a direct reflection of the minorities in the country.

As well as making sure that substantial numbers of people do not turn bitterly and sullenly against the State itself, the P.R. system which allows them representation also makes sure that independent thought and minority opinion find an outlet and are not stifled by the hard-faced managers of the large parties whose only ambition is to keep their party in power and to smother any discontent and deny wavering from the party line which might endanger electoral chances

Protestants
The position of the religious minority in the State in regard to elections provides a great deal of food for thought. The average number of Protestants in the House since 1922 has been about 6% of the total membership. This seems extraordinarily fair when one thinks of their numbers in the country - 7 % of the total population in 1926, 6% in 1936 and 5.6% in 1946 and of the fact that they are now in a minority in every constituency. On the other hand when the figures are examined it will be seen that there has been a steady decline in Protestant representation over the years and especial1y since Fianna Fail came into power in 1932. No one, of course, claims that this decline has come about as a result of deliberate Government policy; many say, however, that the decline has been accentuated by the two Fianna Fail Electoral Acts of 1935 and 1947

Nine Protestants were elected to the Third Dáil; with the extension of the proportional representation principle under the 1923 Electoral Act, 14 Protestants secured representation in the fourth Dáil. The number remained at 14 for the fifth Dáil dropped to 13 in the sixth, to 12 in the seventh and to nine in the eighth Dáil.

From 1923 until 1935 the average number of deputies returned by a constituency was 5.1. Eight, constituencies elected three deputies only, one elected nine deputies; three returned eight; five returned seven deputies; nine returned five and four areas elected four members each.

All Changed
This gave an excellent chance to members of minority religions, who, even when they belonged to the large parties, found additional difficulties In their path to Dad Éireann. Fianna Fail changed all this in 1935, brought the average number of deputies returned by each constituency down to 4.06, abolished the eight and nine-seat constituencies and increased the number of three-seat constituencies to 15.

The change greatly lessened the chances of Protestants securing election and it was bitterly attacked in the Dáil by Opposition members who described it is a form of ~gerrymandering. Defending the Government against the various charges. Mr. Sean Lemass said (Dáil Debates Vol. 51. Col. 1,288): "It is not, possible to gerrymander in this country. One reason is because proportional representation operates, and if proportional representation operates there you have the certainty that as a result of the election the representation of the different interests in the Dáil is going to be in almost exact proportion to the votes cast for each party. It has always worked out that way and it will work out that way in the future."

No Gerrymandering
In spite of what opposition said there is no proof that any gerrymandering took place under the 1935 Act. Even so, the Protestant representation in the House fell from nine in 1933 to four in 1944. In 1947 Fianna Fail introduced another Electoral Act and this time the average number of deputies per constituency was reduced to 3.68. Seven-seat constituencies were abolished, the number of three seaters increased to 22, nine five seaters were created and nine four seaters.

The Opposition claimed that the Government favoured three-seaters for party reasons, and that the move was likely to hurt Fianna Fail's opponents considerably. Whatever the cause, Protestant representation was again reduced in the next election. Three Protestants were returned to the Dáil in 1948; four Protestants sit in the present House. In short, Protestant representation has fallen from 14 in 1923 to four in 1959. Part of the reason for the fall is the drop in the Protestant population, but a more serious part is the effect of the whittling down of the proportional system in 1935 and in 1947.

It appears likely that Protestant representation would disappear altogether in this country under the British system. In view of the contribution made by Protestants to this State since its foundation and to the country as a whole for the past 350 years, it seems a great pity that this should happen.

The other minorities who have already been mentioned would suffer likewise under the British system of election. As has been stated they come, make their point. put forward their policy and then disappear naturally, having completed their business in public life. Without P.R., however, they could never send deputies to Parliament, never make themselves heard, and they would live on as angry and frustrated groups kept out of public life by an outmoded election system and plotting and planning against the State.

The situation was summed up well by the Rev. Dr A. A. Luce when he wrote (Irish Times, 23-6
1938): "P.R. has been a unifying force, and unity is strength.

"The old system antagonises majority and minority, accentuates the differences between them. and, therefore, weakens both. How then can some say that P.R. fails to give strong governance? A contented minority is a strength to the majority, while a discontented minority and a bullying majority are a weakness to the whole body politic. Surely those who accuse P.R. of making for weak Governments are confusing the strength of authority, based on political consent, with the brute strength of force majeure."

Elections and Governments

2006-08-09T22:52:00.000+01:00

Proportional representation's alleged inability to give strong and stable government to the country over the past 40 years or so has been used as an argument against the Irish voting system. It has been stated that the system was responsible for a large number of elections, and that on a number of occasions, because of the indecisive results obtained, Governments had to call further elections to get a positive result. Leaving aside for the moment the fact that in nearly 40 years there have been only three Prime Ministers in the State, that the present Government has the largest majority in the House that any party has had since the days when Mr. de Valera and his followers were abstentionists, and that to have frequent elections is not necessarily a bad thing, the charge against the system is worth examining.

No fewer than 14 general elections have been held in the State since 1922, and, of course. each one of them was held on P.R. principles. The claim is that the electoral System was responsible for the frequency of elections, that under the British system our Government" would have had longer lives, and that it would not have been necessary to appeal to the electorate at such relatively short intervals. In fact, during that same period there were 10 general elections in the United Kingdom. Moreover, no election at all took place there between 1935 and 1945, because of the war, and it is not unreasonable to assume that were it not for this long interval, two, or possibly three, more elections would have been held. Thus, there has been very little difference between the frequency of elections under the relative majority system and under proportional representation principles
At the same time many elections did take place in this country, and it is necessary to study them and to state why the various Governments decided to dissolve the Dáil at various times.

The Pact Election of June. 1922, has already been mentioned in a previous article in this series. This election was held under the provisions of the Irish Free State (Agreement) Act of 1922. So as to avoid a split which might have serious repercussions throughout the country, Collins and de Valera came to an agreement by which a national coalition of candidates, both pro- and anti-Treaty men would stand for election, and try to keep the proportion of followers of Collins and of de Valera the same in the Third Dáil as it had been in the second. Collins repudiated the Pact before Election Day, other candidates apart from the Panel ones sought election, and the election itself was punctuated with incidents which brought no credit to the country. Personation was carried to fantastic lengths and intimidation was the order of the day. In spite of the fact that the anti-Treatyites were foremost in the field of intimidation and threats they lost the election badly, and Collins' party took over the Government. The defeated Republican party refused to co-operate with the Government, declined to take its seats in Parliament and began a five-year period of abstention.

Ten Months
This Government lasted about 10 months. It had a sufficient majority to carry on with, but it felt that it needed a mandate from the people to carry out its future policy and also needed the people's verdict on its actions in the civil war. Cumann na nGaedheal, as the Government party had begun to call itself, emerged as the largest party following the election of August, 1923, and, since the Republicans still refused to enter Parliament, had a large overall majority in the House. The Fourth Dáil lasted three years and eight months, four years being its legal life, and elections were held in June 1927.

The Government’s position was considerably weakened at this election. For various reasons it had lost support to Labour, to the newly formed National League and to Fianna Fail, and it found itself in a very difficult position. Only 47 deputies out of a total of 153 were members of Cumann na nGaedheal but it was helped by the Farmers and by some Independents and so it was able to form a Government. It had lost more than 175,000 votes since the previous election, largely because of its dictatorial methods, the arrogance of its Ministers and its failure to bring about the Utopia which all too many imagined would come with independence.

Enter F.F.
This semi-coalition Government lasted two months. At the best of times it was a very shaky administration, but two important events brought about its inevitable collapse even sooner than was expected. A month after the election the Vice President, Kevin O'Higgins, was assassinated by unknown gunmen. As a result of the assassination, President Cosgrave introduced an Electoral Amendment Bill, to compel all candidates to swear an affidavit that if elected to the Dáil they would take the Oath of Allegiance. Because of this move the abstentionist Fianna Fail deputies took the oath (which they said they regarded as "an empty formula") on August 12th. Immediately they came into the House the Labour leader, Mr. Thomas Johnston, moved a vote of no confidence in the Government, and on a division the Government was saved from defeat only by the casting vote of the Speaker, Mr. Michael Hayes.

In a bitter election fought the following month, the Government party was returned with an increased number of seats, and again with the help of the Farmers and some Independents, formed an administration. This Government lasted four years and three months. It was replaced in February, 1932, by a Fianna Fail Cabinet which secured office with the help of Labour. It could have lasted the whole five-year period, but it was decided that, in view of the forthcoming Eucharistic Congress and the Imperial Economic Conference, it would be better to get the elections over, and have a new Government installed in office in plenty of time.

New Constitution
The Fianna Fail Government did not suffer any defeat in the Dáil, but, eager for more power and for a majority without the help of Labour, it dissolved the Dáil in mid-winter, 1933, and held an election on January 24th. The Government had lasted a mere 10 months. It received an over-all majority in the 1933 election, and the new administration lasted four years and four months'. Once again there was little reason for the Dáil to be dissolved before the end of the five-year period, but, since a new Constitution had been prepared and accepted by the Dáil and needed the assent of the electorate to make it law and to abolish the original Constitution, the Government decided to hold a general election on the same day as the referendum.

This tended to confuse electors, and it is interesting to note that the percentage of spoiled votes (2.1 %) at this election was double that at the previous contest. The new Constitution was narrowly accepted by the people, and the Fianna Fail Party went back to the House with 69 deputies-exactly 50% of the total membership of the Dáil. Labour again helped F.F., but was forced to withdraw its help because of the Government's attitude to Civil Service arbitration in May, 1938. The Dáil was dissolved, the Government having lasted 10 months, and elections were called for June. It is not unreasonable to believe that, had Fianna Fail kept to its election programme and had not gone out of its way to antagonise its Labour supporters, it could have ruled without difficulty for the full legal period. However, it was again unsatisfied with dependence on Labour, and in the election of 1938 it sought and received an over-all majority. The new administration lasted a full five years. In spite of the fact that the Opposition was willing to forgo an election in 1943 because of the war, the Dáil was dissolved and an election was held in June.

Fianna Fail lost 10 seats at this election, and it was returned to the House with 67 deputies as against 71 for the combined opposition. But the opposition failed to unite and Mr. de Valera once more became Taoiseach. Having been defeated on the controversial Transport Bill in 1944, 11 months after the 1943 election, Fianna Fail once again called a new election. This time it won an overall majority and received a mandate to rule until 1949. An election was called, however, on February l8th, 1948, 18 months before it was due, in spite of the fact that the Government had a fine majority in the House. Fianna Fail had been defeated in two by-elections by the newly founded Clann na Poblachta some months before, and it appears that the Government was anxious to challenge the new party before it had time to form itself into a proper fighting machine.

The Government Party lost eight seats and the combined opposition was returned with 79 deputies as opposed to Fianna Fáil’s 68.

Coalition
An Inter-party Government was formed which lasted three years and two months. It came to an end following differences between the Minister for Agriculture and some farming deputies, and also as a result of trouble between the Minister for Health and his colleagues and the Catholic Hierarchy concerning the introduction of a no-means-test Mother and Child scheme.

Fianna Fail was returned to power in the election of May 1951 and remained in office for three years when, in spite of the fact that it had suffered no defeat in the House and that its Independent supporters were still loyal, it dissolved the Dáil and called an election. This election resulted in another defeat for Mr. de Valera and a Coalition Government comprising Fine Gael, Labour and Clann na Talmhan Ministers was set up.

Owing to the withdrawal of support from the Government by Mr. Sean Mac Bride’s Republican party, as a result of the administration's attitude to the I.R.A., Mr. Costello went to the country on March 6th, 1957, and made a half-hearted attempt to secure a further mandate for his Government. In fact, Mr. de Valera's group was returned with the best majority it had ever received, and it became the "strongest" Government ever seen in the State.

Greed for Power
In all, it will be seen from the facts stated above that a number of elections need not have taken place at all, and that, at the most, only two elections-August 1927, and May, 1944-were held as a direct result of indecisive verdicts given by the electorate at the preceding contests. Greed for extra power seems to have been the usual motive, and the record does not show that the extra majorities gained at any second elections resulted in increased activity on behalf of the country by the Government. In anything the opposite was the case. Those who care to examine the claims made on behalf of the British system as a means of obtaining decisive results at all times will find that the United Kingdom had elections in 1922, 1923, 1924, 1929, 1931, 1935, 1945, 1950, 1951 and 1955.

The only conclusion to be drawn from these facts and figures is that the method of election has little or nothing to do with the frequency of elections or with the decisiveness of the people's verdict on polling day. In common with most arguments against proportional representation, the accusation that it tends to bring about weak and unstable government proves false.

Indeed, in a sense, the surprising thing is that in a country which has gained its freedom only in the past 40 years, and whose history since then has been punctuated with shootings, murders, assassinations, internment camps, hunger strikes and hangings, elections have been so infrequent and Governments so strong. In spite of all that, comparative peace now reigns in the country. The credit for much of this tranquillity must go to proportional representation, since, as Dr. Luce said in his famous letter, "P.R. has been a healing force in our midst."

Division or Unity

2006-08-08T22:53:00.000+01:00

It is now over 40 years since P.R. was first seen in action in Ireland. In those years the electors have become used to it and today there is not a person in the country under the age of 63 who has voted here in the British "X" manner. Preferential voting is liked and understood by the great majority of the people, and the percentage of spoiled ballots is tiny. It is of interest to note that throughout the years the percentage of spoiled votes has steadily decreased; it was 3,66% in 1923. 1.6% in 1932, 1.2% in 1938, 1.04% in 1944 and 0.98% in 1948.

In one year only, as we have recorded previously, do we find that pattern broken. This was in 1937 when the referendum on the Constitution was held on the same day as the general election and the percentage of spoiled votes rose to 2.1 %. On the whole this compares very favourably with the situation in Britain, where the procedure is less complicated and the voter merely has to make the illiterate's mark in front of one name.

For Not Against
Those who vote in a P.R. election vote for candidates in the order of their choice, and not against them as with the other system. They indicate their preferences among the various candidates, so that if their first choice is not elected their vote is not wasted but can be handed on to their next choice. and so on. Alternatively, if their first choice has sufficient votes to get elected without their help, their votes are changed over to their second choice. In the ordinary way each elector will find that he has played a part in electing at least one candidate to Parliament-that one of "his" candidates has got in.

This situation contrasts vividly with that in large areas in the United Kingdom. In large areas in southern England a Labour man has not the slightest chance of securing election. Still very many thousands vote for Labour in these areas. All their votes are wasted, and none of them is ever likely to contribute to the election of a member. The Tories face a similar situation in many large industrial regions. Although they have thousands of active supporters in these areas they are always beaten by the overwhelming Socialist vote. Under proportional representation the proportion of Tories and Socialists elected might not differ greatly; but the M.P.s of both parties would he spread more evenly throughout the country.

In the 1923 election the Republicans received 288,307 votes, as against 847,247 for their rivals. Under the British system the de Valera party would have been wiped out electorally, and it is possible that many of its more militant members would have favoured a resumption of hostilities against the State. But, because of P.R., the party secured 44 seats and the others won 109 seats. This was a fair enough distribution, and it ensured that the Republicans would have some encouragement to try other means apart from the rifle and the bomb to achieve their aims.

Personal Choice
After a time people got the habit of voting, not merely for their own party candidates. but also for those who opposed their party but who, they thought, would make good members if their favourites did not succeed. This led to a breaking-down of the barriers of bitterness both inside and outside the Dáil, and brought about a feeling of understanding and sympathy for the other person's point of view. It cannot be too strongly emphasised that this feeling of respect for an opposite opinion to one's own is a fairly new thing in Irish political life and that it was missing for many years after the civil war. In all, Ireland's history for the past 35 years would have been far different, far more bitter and far more bloody, were it not for our unifying election system. In fact, proportional representation has brought us, political peace - a blessing which we may not appreciate as much as we should.

Nobody can state for certain what the representation of the three parties in Parliament will be if the people are persuaded to abolish our present system and revert to the British method. It might be that Fianna Fail would win 120 seats or more, leaving the opposition with a mere 20. Or it could happen that, by making a clever enough election pact, the present opposition parties could secure an overwhelming majority of seats, leaving a well-supported Fianna Fail party with a tiny minority of representatives. Whichever way it works out, one can be sure of one thing: that justice will not be done, that the result will not tally with the general verdict of the voters, that large sections of the community will be virtually disfranchised and that bitterness will ensue.

Uncontested Seats
It is unlikely that at the first contest under the British System there would be any uncontested seats. In spite of the fact that the party machines are usually able to find out what support they have in each street, in every village, and in every parish, all will wish to find out exactly how they stand in all divisions. In those constituencies where the result is a narrow victory for one group or another, or where a candidate gets in on a minority vote (say F.F. 6,134; F.G. 5,754; Labour 5,123) contests will, of course, again be held in the next general election. But what will happen in those areas where one party gains an overwhelming majority of the votes at the first election? Will all others lose heart and let the constituency go without a fight the next time? Will the position be the same as it is now in Northern Ireland, and as it was in the whole country before P.R. was introduced?

Party Rule
Apart from the evil of the uncontested seat, which the British system would tend to bring about in this country, the greatest defect it has is the fantastic power which it gives to party machines. Under it the party bosses can make or break members, can rule constituencies more or less directly and can have anyone they like elected in divisions under their control. This latter point was well put by Sir Leigh Mac Lachlan, a former Chief Agent of the Conservative Party, when he wrote: "It's the machine that puts them in; the party machine can win any election if it is good enough. It can even put in a beer glass." (Sunday Dispatch. Dec. 12th 1950.) This was confirmed for me by an official of the Ulster Unionist Party recently, who said that no matter whom the Unionists picked for certain constituencies he would get in, that his personality mattered not at all and that his personal record was rarely examined by the voters. The recent cases of Mr. Nigel Nicolson in Bournemouth and of Mr. Montgomery Hyde in Belfast show how the party organisation can break even a popular member.

The reason, of course, for this terrific power of the machine under the British system is that the party supporters must vote for any candidate the party chooses. The only alternative is to vote for his rival. who stands for a policy in which they do not believe. Their choice, then. is (a) to vote for their party's man, whom they do not want as their member; (b) to vote for his rival who preaches a doctrine repugnant to them; or (c) to abstain and allow themselves to he disfranchised. In the ordinary way the voter will vote for his party's choice, on the grounds that even if the candidate is poor, his party is good. The party machine wins again, and one more feeble member gets into Parliament. Moreover, the machine prefers the mediocre man to the intelligent and independent-minded member, for the former can easily be controlled whereas the latter will think for himself and may make decisions which conflict with the party line.

Trust in the Voter
The opposite to this is the situation brought about by P.R. No other system puts so little power in the hands of the machine and puts so much trust in the elector. As we know, with P.R. as with the other system, the party caucuses and the National Executives of the parties pick the candidates for the various constituencies. But with P.R. operating in constituencies returning from three to five members, the competing parties generally pick more than one candidate; Fianna Fail sometimes have as many candidates as there are vacancies. Two choices are given to the electors - one between the opposing parties and the other between the different candidates standing for the policy which the elector thinks is best. Commenting on this choice, which is unavailable under the British system, Dr. J. F. S. Ross, the well known authority on electoral methods, declares: " Obviously, therefore, it is better suited for use by a nation that has, so to speak, 'grown up' politically, that has developed a keen interest in and understanding of public affairs, than it is for a nation still in its political childhood." One wonders into which category this State is likely to fall.

In these articles we have covered the various aspects of proportional representation as they have operated in this country since 1919, and the effects which they have had on our people and on our politics. Taken as a whole they mean that the basis of our democracy is our fair voting system, which gives effect to the wishes of the people, guards against tyranny, gives us a representative Parliament and brings us an effective Government to which the great majority are willing to give allegiance.

Our voting system has served us well; we know it as we know no other system; through it we see democracy in action at the hustings and in Parliament; in its workings it eliminates the discontented, dangerous and sullen type of minority to which the British method gives rise; it has been moulded to our needs and it has fulfilled expectations. To change to the system which we have seen in action in Northern Ireland, in Britain and in South Africa could lead to political and parliamentary chaos. P.R. has brought us a great many blessings, and has brought about a certain unity rather than increased division. It would seem a great pity to give up these blessings now and throw
our country back into the melting pot.

____________________________________________________________________________
Printed by Rely's Ltd. for the Publishers, The Irish Times Ltd.
31 Westmoreland Street, Dublin