Thomas Wright Hill (1763-1851). 

From my early years as a young adult and a member of HM Forces I soon found that the constant urging for people to vote in elections was specious. I could not vote where I was stationed as I could never get on the local electoral register as I was not at any one place for the necessary period of time. I could however vote in my designated place of permanent residence which in practice meant wherever my parents had their address. That meant I was stuck with constituencies in which there was a big Conservative majority and so any vote other than for a Conservative candidate was really a waste of time. It might have had some statistical use for the historians of later years analysing the political scene, but for me voting for someone to represent my views at that particular time – utterly useless.

So, for many years – which included three years overseas – with my parents both dead, I took no part in the voting process as we moved around, and even after leaving the services the moving around continued and it was not until the early 1980s that I was able to get on to the electoral roll where we lived. By that time I had read enough to make me become interested in the Electoral Reform Society, and what I learnt through them was enough, and remains enough, to convince me that the only fair way to conduct elections for national or local government is by using the Single Transferable vote

I knew that this had been worked out 130 years ago, but I did not know until today that an attempt had been made to design and use a fairer system even earlier than that. The article below is from the Electoral Reform Society and begins by describing the work of Thomas Wright Hill to that end. This does not, of course, solve the problem of the mobile population, but it does at least offer the hope that if a person can get on the electoral roll somewhere, their vote at that place may well do some good.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

This December, the UK we will be voting in yet another general election using First Past the Post – a system where one party can gain an overall majority of seats with only 35% to 40% of the votes.

Further, three-quarters of people will be voting in seats where there is very little chance the MP will change. Both major parties will be piling up millions of votes in seats so safe the extra votes make no difference, while losing neighbouring seats by a handful of votes.

The ERS’ recent polling revealed that almost a quarter of voters plan on voting ‘tactically’ in the next general election, as voters are so confident that their preferred candidate has no chance that they will vote for someone else.

But what if there was a way for these surplus and wasted votes to actually have an impact?

Faced with similar problems, on 17 December 1819, the Birmingham Society for Literary and Scientific Improvement held an election under a new system devised by one of their leading members, Thomas Wright Hill (1763-1851). Their aim was

“to secure (as nearly as possible) an accurate representation of the whole body … because experience proves that, owing to imperfect methods of choosing those who are to direct the affairs of a society, the whole sway sometimes gets into the hands of a small party; and is exercised, perhaps unconsciously, in a way that renders many persons indifferent, and alienates others, until all becomes listlessness, decay, and dissolution.”

In Hill’s system, members were to vote initially for their favourite candidate, and then:

“every one who has five votes shall be declared a member of the committee; if there are more than five votes given to any one person, the surplus votes (to be selected by lot) shall be returned to the electors whose names they bear, for the purpose of their making other nominations, and this process shall be repeated till no surplus votes remain, when all the inefficient votes shall be returned to the respective electors, and the same routine shall be gone through a second time, and also a third time if necessary…”

This was the basis of the system we now know as the Single Transferable Vote or STV. Carl Andrae introduced a form of STV for elections to a new Danish federal parliament in 1855, including the crucial idea of preferential voting. Rather than handing back thousands of ballot papers, a voter could list how they would vote if their paper was handed back, in advance.

At this point though, only votes beyond the amount needed to win could go to help someone else get elected. The equally crucial idea of allowing those who voted for candidates who don’t stand a chance of being elected to transfer their votes (which was implicit in Hill’s original idea) was only rediscovered in 1865 by Thomas Hare. Allowing such transfers gives independent and minority party candidates a fair chance because voters can put them as their first choice without risking their vote being wasted.

Various other improvements in detailed rules followed over the years, culminating in the conceptually simplest but computationally difficult version of STV introduced by Brian Meek exactly 50 years ago as we entered the computer age. Meek further pointed out that with computers doing the counting voters could be allowed to include equal preferences for some candidates in their vote.

The first attempt to introduce STV for the UK Parliament was in 1872. In January 1884, a diverse group of academics, parliamentarians and members of the legal profession gathered at 7 Clarges Street, Westminster to found the Proportional Representation Society to campaign for STV, they later became the Electoral Reform Society.

There were further near misses in 1884 and 1918. The latter did result in a few UK seats – the university constituencies – being elected under STV from 1918-1950; those elected in this way included Ramsay MacDonald and John Buchan. The discussions of 1918 did, however, lead to STV being introduced for parliamentary elections in Ireland, which continues to use STV, in 3 to 5 seat constituencies. Only the Tasmanian House of Assembly has a longer continuous history of STV, from 1907.

One of the advantages of the multi-member constituencies used in STV is that they can be fitted to natural communities. The first attempt to get STV in the UK in 1872 used constituencies based on existing counties and boroughs. The recent Expert Panel report (2017) advocated STV with constituencies based on local authority areas for the Welsh Senedd.

A major advantage of such a scheme is that changes in the number of voters in each constituency can usually be accommodated by changing the number of seats, rather than its boundaries.

Possible multi member comstituencies.

On the 200th anniversary of the first use of Thomas Wright Hill’s scheme, there will be a meeting celebrating the bicentenary at the Royal Statistical Society on 17 December 2019, with speakers including ERS research officer Ian Simpson, Make Votes Matter’s Klina Jordan and Denis Mollison (Heriot-Watt University). If you’d like to hear more about STV, we’d love to see you there.

This article was written by the organiser of the bicentenary event, ERS member Denis Mollison.

The map is to be found HERE

Thomas Wright Hill in Wikipedia.

About The Author

Born 9 December 1933. Former Royal Air Force person. Retired Church of England Clergyman. Father. Grandfather, and now, Great Grandfather. Citizen of Europe and Fervent Remainer. Thinks that Members of Parliament and especially Ministers of the Crown, who lie to Parliament should be brought before a public tribunal where the evidence can be heard, and examined, and suitable penalties awarded.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.