Page:Thomas Hare - The Election of Representatives, parliamentary and municipal.djvu/358

306 scribed in the text (Clause I., page 25), is termed the “first-trial” quota. The excess votes of the candidates having more than the quota will then be reapportioned among the successive names, and a dividend composed of the numbers attributed to the [654] highest again divided, and a “second-trial” quota obtained, and the same process of appropriating the excess votes, and again computing the successive quotas, repeated, until the uniform quota can be no further reduced. This is explained in the following example:—Take the case of 7 candidates, of whom 5 are to be elected by 200 electors. A receives 37 first votes, B 14, C 31, D 45, E 24. F 19, G 30. To obtain the first-trial quota, the 5 highest, which are D 45, A 37, C 31, G 30, and E 24, are added together, and the result, 167, divided by 5 = 33, which is the first-trial quota. As D's number therefore exceeds the quota by 12 (45−33) these 12 votes are then distributed to the candidates whose names follow his on the voting papers. C is supposed to stand next on 3 of the papers, E on 6, G on 3; these votes are added to those already given to those candidates, and if A's 4 surplus votes (37−33) being set free belong to B, and G's last vote (34−33) also to B, the 5 highest will now be found to be, D 33, A 33, C 33, G 33, E 30: these numbers must again be added together, and the result, 162, divided by 5 = 32, which is the second-trial quota. The same process must now be repeated, D's surplus vote of (33−32) given to G, whose name stands next on the voting paper, A's surplus vote to B, C's to B, G's two last votes (one received from D) to F, the 5 highest are now, D 32, A 32, G 32, G 32, E 30, added together = 158 + 5 = 31, which is the third-trial quota. D's surplus vote must now be set free, and E's name following on the voting paper, is given to E, A's to B, C's to B, G's to E, which gives E one surplus vote,—supposing this vote when set free to belong to F, we have now, D 31, A 31, C 31, G 31, E 31; these five candidates are therefore elected, with a quota of 81.

In adopting this reduced quota a succession of trials is indispensable; for the reappropriation of the papers after settling the first-trial quota, may displace some of the candidates who were at first within the number to be elected, and bring up in their stead some of the candidates lower on the poll. Those originally higher will therefore be entitled to require that the same process shall be continued until the quota is fixed at its lowest point, and no further substitution can occur. There is really nothing complicated in this process. It only repeats several times what it was at first proposed to do once for all. The alteration of a few lines in the Electoral Law would sufficiently prescribe the course to be taken. A larger number, or perhaps the whole, of the voting papers would, when arranged, be required to be transmitted to the Registrars, and the declaration of the ultimate result would probably have to be deferred a day or two longer.

A very striking illustration of the effect of this mode of computation is found upon its application to the Danish problem, objected to the system of Mr. Andriæ (Appendix D, p. 302). It would in that case place B in a