Minority, Representation.— The chief dif ference in principle between proportional repre sentation and minority representation is that the latter system seeks to secure the representation only of the leading minority party or parties. It may be presented in terms of the Illinois system of minority representation adopted in 1870 for the election of the lower house of the State legislature. This is a system of cumu lative voting. From each district three repre sentatives are to be chosen and each voter is given three votes to cast He may cast them in any way he chooses, — one for each of the three candidates, two for one and one for another, one and one-half each for two, or all three for one candidate. The result is that any party in any district which can cast one-third of the total vote may, by concentrating or °plumping) all their votes on one man, elect him. In prac tice it has commonly worked out that the major ity party has elected two candidates and the minority has elected one. The smaller minority parties go unrepresented. Under extraordinary circutr.stances the minority party by supporting solidly two candidates has been able to elect them both against the majority party which has unwisely scattered its vote among three candi dates. To avoid this the party managers have usually tried to limit the number of candidates of their parties to the number they can reason ably expect to elect. In this way the freedom of choice of the voter is somewhat abridged.
Arguments for Proportional Representa tion.— The arguments in favor of propor tional representation may be summarized as fol lows: First, it would prevent the non-repre sentation of any respectable minority in the body politic but allow each group to enjoy that share in political power to which its numbers entitle it. The domination of majorities would be abolished. Second, attention would be cen tered upon the selection of men who represent a definite body of opinion rather than upon men who, as now, represent a definite geograph ical unit or district. Third, by the wide range of choice open in the election the necessity for complicated machinery with all the evils attendant upon it would be obviated, Finally, it would tend to break up_ the bi-party system and the elaborate organizations and methods of control which that system produces, and replace it by a natural, informal and genu ine alignment of the people along the lines marked out by the actual divisions in the public opinion of the community. This is peculiarly desirable in municipal government where the influence of State and National parties domi nates municipal politics to the exclusion of local issues. For this reason proportional represen
tation has developed most rapidly and success fully in cities.
Arguments Against.— The following argu ments are advanced by the opponents of pro portional representation: First, the system makes the formulation and development of a legislative policy very difficult. The legislature is composed of a large number of groups with no cohesive influence uniting them and the poli cies they work out are usually compromise* which really do not represent the real views of any group. Furthermore, responsibility is lost in such a case. Under the two-party system each party goes before the people on a certain platform and the successful one may properly be held responsible for the carrying out of that policy. With a large number of parties the policy which is ultimately agreed upon is one upon which the electorate may never have ex pressed itself and no one group can be held accountable for it. Second, it is very hard to say just what is being represented in an elec tion held under this system. The groups which may temporarily gather in support of a candi date may be based upon racial, religious, social, or political grounds, and the legislative body which results may be a mosaic of widely diver gent and incompatible interests with no common ground upon which to meet. Third, it is urged that the average voter would not be able to vote intelligently the somewhat complicated ballot necessary to a proportional representa tion scheme; that it enormously increases the difficulties of counting the election and materi ally augments its cost.
Extension in the United States.—Although proportional representation in its various forms has been used rather widely in Europe for many years it has but recently made its appearance in this country. The first instance of its use was in the city of Ashtabula, Ohio, in 1915 where under a new city charter it was used in the selection of the municipal commission. In 1917 it was incorporated into the charter of Boulder, Colorado. It is being seriously considered as a desirable adjunct to the commission and city manager types of municipal government.
Consult Humphreys,