"Seven senators to be chosen by 50,355 voters gives 7193 as the representative quota. From the table it will be seen that there were two full quotas of voters and a surplus of 4034, making in fact three senatorial quotas who were unable to choose a single senator, while no more than four quotas (justly entitled to four senators, but no more), elected all seven of the senators, taking to themselves a monopoly of the whole senatorial delegation. And this is what 'free and intelligent' American citizens are told by the professional office-begging politicians is popular representation !

"Some critics of the free vote have expressed fears that it might result in a great 'waste of votes.' By 'waste votes' they mean votes that fail to elect anybody. The 18,420 unrepresented voters shown in the foregoing table would be described by them as citizens who wasted, or threw away, their votes. They threw away their votes' because the law arbitrarily excluded them from the right of representation and conferred upon four representative quotas all the representatives (senators) to which seven quotas were entitled. They threw away their votes' because the law, in order to give a monopoly of the representation to a part of the constituency, disfranchised them in the senate of Illinois.

"But how was it in the choice of representatives, by the same voters, for the other branch of the Legislature, in which choice the free or cumulative vote prevailed? How many voters in the seven Cook County districts, threw away their votes, or failed to gain representation, under the operation of the new system? The following table shows the number of represented and (apparently) unrepresented voters in each of the same districts under a free vote

"This table shows that the whole number of voters in the seven

Cook County districts, who sought to be represented in the Lower House of the Legislature, was 47,862, of which number 40,385 actually gained a representative or representatives of their choice. In reality, the number who actually gained representation was much more than that, and the number who failed to gain representation much less than 7,477. The column 'unrepresented' in this table is reduced from all the votes given to candidates that were not elected, and is therefore largely made up of voters who gave only a portion of their three votes to the defeated candidate and the rest to a successful candidate. All such are, therefore, not unrepresented, but are actually represented by one representative of their choice. The actual number of unrepresented would, of course, be only those voters who gave all their votes to a defeated candidate. It is impossible to ascertain the exact number of such without an examination of the ballots. It may, however, be fairly presumed that the actual number of voters in the seven districts who failed to gain representation would exclude a few more than those who, in the Third, Sixth, and Seventh Districts, voted 'plumpers' for Mr. Lowe (204), Mr. Buckingham (600), and Mr. Plowe (324). Assuming this to be the fact, the total number of voters in an aggregate of 47,862, who, by the use of the free or cumulative vote, failed to gain representation was only 1128.

"The comparison, then, of the results of the old and new system, operating side by side in these seven districts, at the same election is as follows

"These facts are recommended to the thoughtful consideration of all men who believe in popular representative government.'

دو

The Chicago Daily Tribune (Nov. 21, 1872) expressed a similar opinion

"There are a number of defeated candidates who declare minority representation a humbug, and demand its repeal at the earliest possible time; but, on the whole, it has worked admirably; it has secured the great end sought, and has enabled the people, in many

instances, to defeat the objectionable candidate by the election of better men. The principle of minority representation has been fully indicated by the results."

The World adds

"If the work of this 'reformed' House of Representatives makes good the promise given by the nearly equally balanced state of parties and the defeat of objectionable candidates at the polls, we may expect to see the principle which has brought about these results incorporated into the various State constitutions."

It is clear, then, that the Cumulative Vote secures a share of representation to all important sections of the community; but when more than three members have to be returned, it must be admitted that the almost inevitable waste of votes is a serious objection.

CHAPTER VII.

PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION,

THE FREE LIST, OR TICKET.

THIS system was proposed by Mr. Gilpin, of Philadelphia, in 1844, in a pamphlet, which seems to have been the first attempt to place Representation on a true basis. Under this system the elector would vote for a list. Several modifications have been proposed. To meet the objection that it places too much power in the hands of party managers, Mr. Baily has suggested that the list should be prepared by the candidate himself, instead of by the committee.

Mr. Westlake has pointed out that this system might be combined with the Cumulative Vote by the adoption of the following rules :

1. At every such election every voter shall be entitled to a number of votes equal to the number of members to be elected.

2. Any two or more candidates may be nominated together as a list, in which their names appear in a certain order. The name of no candidate can appear on more than one list.

3. Any voter may give all or any of his votes to any list so formed, and may also give all or any of his votes to any candidates on any list, just as if they had stood separately.

4. The number obtained by dividing the whole number of good votes given at the election by the number of members to be elected, plus one, and increasing the quotient, or the integral part of the quotient, by one, shall be called the Quota.

5. The votes given to any list shall be attributed to the first candidate on it until thereby, together with any votes given to him singly, he has obtained the quota. They shall then be attributed to the second candidate on the list, until he has similarly obtained the quota, and so on.

6. Any residue of the votes given for a list which is insufficient to make up the quota for the last candidate on it reached under the preceding rule, shall be attributed to the next lower candidate on the list, if any, for whom it can make up the quota, until his quota is made up, and so on. Any final residue, which is insufficient to make up the quota for any candidate remaining on the list, shall be attributed to the candidate remaining on it to whom the most votes have been given singly, and, in case of equality, to the first such candidate.

7. Those candidates shall be declared to have been elected to whom the largest numbers of votes shall have been given or attributed.

Another form of the "Free List" has been proposed by Mr. Seebohm and Mr. Parker Smith, and explained