Editing Proportional representation (section)

== History ==

=== Pre–19th century ===
One of the earliest proposals of proportionality in an assembly was by [[John Adams]] in his influential pamphlet ''[[Thoughts on Government]]'', written in 1776 during the [[American Revolution]]:
{{Blockquote|text=It should be in miniature, an exact portrait of the people at large. It should think, feel, reason, and act like them. That it may be the interest of this Assembly to do strict justice at all times, it should be an equal representation, or in other words equal interest among the people should have equal interest in it.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Adams |first1=John |title=Thoughts on Government |url=http://www.masshist.org/publications/apde/portia.php?&id=PJA04d040 |website=The Adams Papers Digital Edition |publisher=Massachusetts Historical Society |access-date=26 July 2014 |year=1776 |archive-date=27 May 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140527205110/http://www.masshist.org/publications/apde/portia.php?&id=PJA04d040 |url-status=dead }}</ref>}}

[[Honoré Gabriel Riqueti, comte de Mirabeau|Mirabeau]], speaking to the [[Parlement|Assembly of Provence]] on 30 January 1789, was also an early proponent of a proportionally representative assembly:<ref name="hoagHallett">{{cite book |last1=Hoag |first1=Clarence |url=http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015008357249;view=1up;seq=5 |title=Proportional Representation |last2=Hallett |first2=George |date=1926 |publisher=The Macmillan Company |location=New York}}</ref>

{{Blockquote|text=A representative body is to the nation what a chart is for the physical configuration of its soil: in all its parts, and as a whole, the representative body should at all times present a reduced picture of the people, their opinions, aspirations, and wishes, and that presentation should bear the relative proportion to the original precisely.}}

In February 1793, the [[Marquis de Condorcet]] led the drafting of the [[Girondin constitutional project|Girondist constitution]] which proposed a [[limited voting]] scheme with proportional aspects. Before that could be voted on, the [[The Mountain|Montagnards]] took over the [[National Convention]] and produced their own [[French Constitution of 1793|constitution]]. On 24 June, [[Louis Antoine de Saint-Just|Saint-Just]] proposed the [[single non-transferable vote]], which is semi-proportional, for national elections but the constitution was passed on the same day specifying [[first-past-the-post voting]].<ref name="hoagHallett" />

Already in 1787, [[James Wilson (Founding Father)|James Wilson]], like Adams a [[Founding Fathers of the United States|US Founding Father]], understood the importance of multiple-member districts: "Bad elections proceed from the smallness of the districts which give an opportunity to bad men to intrigue themselves into office",<ref>{{cite web |last1=Madison |first1=James |title=Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, Wednesday, June 6 |url=http://teachingamericanhistory.org/convention/debates/0606-2/ |access-date=5 August 2014 |publisher=TeachingAmericanHistory.org}}</ref> and again, in 1791, in his Lectures on Law: "It may, I believe, be assumed as a general maxim, of no small importance in democratical governments, that the more extensive the district of election is, the choice will be the more wise and enlightened".<ref>{{cite book |last1=Wilson |first1=James |title=The Works of the Honourable James Wilson |date=1804 |publisher=[[Constitution Society]] |chapter=Vol 2, Part II, Ch.1 Of the constitutions of the United States and of Pennsylvania{{snd}}Of the legislative department, I, of the election of its members |access-date=5 August 2014 |chapter-url=http://www.constitution.org/jwilson/jwilson2.htm}}</ref> The 1790 [[Constitution of Pennsylvania]] specified multiple-member districts for the state Senate and required their boundaries to follow [[county line]]s.<ref>{{cite web |title=Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania{{snd}}1790, art.I,§ VII, Of districts for electing Senators |url=http://www.duq.edu/academics/gumberg-library/pa-constitution/texts-of-the-constitution/1790 |access-date=9 December 2014 |publisher=[[Duquesne University]]}}</ref>

=== 19th century ===
A PR system that uses single transferable votes was invented in 1819 by an English schoolmaster, [[Thomas Wright Hill]]. He devised a "plan of election" for the committee of the Society for Literary and Scientific Improvement in Birmingham that used not only transfers of surplus votes from elected candidates but also transfers from candidates who did not have enough votes to be elected, a refinement that later [[Carl Christoffer Georg Andræ|Carl Andræ]] and Hare initially omitted. But the procedure seemed unsuitable for a public election and was not publicised. In 1839, Hill's son, colonial administrator [[Rowland Hill]], recommended the concept for a city election in Adelaide, and a simple process was used in which voters were allowed to form groups that would each elect one representative. Each group, being equally sized, elected a representative with the same number of votes, ensuring election of a carpenter and a draper in addition to usual politician types.<ref name="hoagHallett" /><ref>{{cite news |work=South Australian Register |title=Municipal Election |date=October 31, 1840 |p=2 |url=https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/27441962}}</ref>

The [[Sainte-Laguë method]] of party-list proportional representation was first described in 1832 by the American statesman and senator [[Daniel Webster]].

The list plan system was conceived by Thomas Gilpin, a retired paper-mill owner, in a paper he read to the [[American Philosophical Society]] in Philadelphia in 1844: "On the representation of minorities of electors to act with the majority in elected assemblies". It ensured at least one popularly elected member for each part of a multi-member district and also district-wide party-balanced representation.<ref name="auto2">Swain, Civics for Montana Students, 1912, p. 163</ref> It was never put into practical use, but even as late as 1914 it was put forward as a way to elect the U.S. electoral college delegates and for local elections.<ref name="hoagHallett" /><ref>Hoag, Effective Voting (1914), p. 31</ref><ref name="auto2" />

A practical election using the single transferable vote system (a combination of preferential voting and multi-member districts) was devised in Denmark by Carl Andræ, a mathematician, and first used there in 1855, making it the oldest PR system.

STV was also invented (apparently independently) in the UK in 1857 by [[Thomas Hare (political scientist)|Thomas Hare]], a London [[barrister]], in his pamphlet ''The Machinery of Representation'' and expanded on in his 1859 ''Treatise on the Election of Representatives''. The scheme was enthusiastically taken up by [[John Stuart Mill]], ensuring international interest. The 1865 edition of Hare's book included the transfer of preferences from dropped candidates and the STV method was essentially complete, although Hare pictured the entire British Isles as one single district. Mill proposed it to the House of Commons in 1867, but the British parliament rejected it. The name of the system evolved from "Mr. Hare's scheme" to "proportional representation", then "proportional representation with the single transferable vote", and finally, by the end of the 19th century, to "the single transferable vote". Such a system was well suited to the British political tradition prevalent in the English-speaking world because under STV, votes are cast directly for individuals.<ref>Humphreys, Proportional Representation (1911)</ref> STV was later adopted for national elections in Malta (1921), the Republic of Ireland (1921) and Australia (1948).

In Australia, the political activist [[Catherine Helen Spence]] became an enthusiast of STV and an author on the subject. Through her influence and the efforts of the Tasmanian politician [[Andrew Inglis Clark]], Tasmania became an early pioneer of the system, [[Hare–Clark electoral system|electing the world's first legislators through STV in 1896]], prior to its federation into Australia.<ref>Newman, Hare-Clark in Tasmania, p. 7-10</ref>

=== 20th century ===
In Russia, [[Leon Trotsky]] had proposed the election of a new Soviet [[presidium]] with other [[socialist]] parties on the basis of proportional representation in September 1917.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Deutscher |first1=Isaac |title=The Prophet: The Life of Leon Trotsky |date=5 January 2015 |publisher=Verso Books |isbn=978-1-78168-721-5 |pages=293 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=YGznDwAAQBAJ&q=isaac+deutscher+trotsky+the+prophet}}</ref>

In the UK, the 1917 [[Speaker of the House of Commons (United Kingdom)|Speaker]]'s Conference recommended STV for all multi-seat Westminster constituencies, but it was only applied to [[university constituencies]], lasting from 1918 until 1950 when the last of those constituencies were abolished.

In Ireland, STV was used in 1918 in the [[Dublin University (constituency)|Dublin University]] constituency, and was introduced for devolved [[1921 Irish elections|elections in 1921]].

STV is currently used for two national lower houses of parliament, Ireland, since independence (as the [[Irish Free State]]) in 1922,<ref name="ideaGallagher" /> and Malta, since 1921, long before independence in 1966.<ref name="AceMalta">{{cite web |last1=Hirczy de Miño |first1=Wolfgang |date=1997 |title=Malta: Single-Transferable Vote with Some Twists |url=http://aceproject.org/regions-en/countries-and-territories/MT/case-studies/malta-single-transferable-vote-with-some-twists-1997 |access-date=5 December 2014 |publisher=[[ACE Electoral Knowledge Network]]}}</ref> In Ireland, two attempts were made by [[Fianna Fáil]] governments to abolish STV and replace it with the first-past-the-post plurality system. Both attempts were rejected by voters in referendums held [[Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill 1958|in 1959]] and [[Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill 1968|again in 1968]]. STV is also prescribed for all other elections in Ireland including that of the presidency, although it is there effectively the [[alternative vote]], as it is an election with a single winner.

It is also used for the Northern Ireland Assembly and European and local authorities, Scottish local authorities, some New Zealand and Australian local authorities,<ref name="ersSTV" /> the [[Tasmanian House of Assembly|Tasmanian]] (since 1907) and [[Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly|Australian Capital Territory]] assemblies, where the method is known as ''Hare-Clark'',<ref name="prsaHC">{{cite web |title=The Hare-Clark System of Proportional Representation |url=http://www.prsa.org.au/hareclar.htm |access-date=21 November 2014 |publisher=Proportional Representation Society of Australia |location=Melbourne}}</ref> and the city council in [[Cambridge, Massachusetts]] (since 1941).<ref name="cambridgePlanE">{{cite web |title=Adoption of Plan E |url=http://www.cambridgema.gov/election/programsandservices/cambridgemunicipalelections/Cambridge-City-Charter/adoptionofplane.aspx|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141213015655/http://www.cambridgema.gov/election/programsandservices/cambridgemunicipalelections/Cambridge-City-Charter/adoptionofplane.aspx |archive-date=13 December 2014 |access-date=25 November 2014 |website=Welcome to the City of Cambridge |publisher=City of Cambridge, Massachusetts}}</ref>

The [[D'Hondt method]] was devised in 1878 by Belgian mathematician Victor D'Hondt as a way to allocate seats in a party-list PR system. Some Swiss cantons started using it to produce PR, beginning with Ticino in 1890. [[Victor Considerant]], a utopian socialist, described a similar system in an 1892 book. Many European countries adopted similar systems during or after World War I. List PR was favoured on [[the Continent]] because the use of lists in elections, the [[scrutin de liste]], was already widespread. Each uses one of a variety of methods of allocating seats{{snd}}the [[D'Hondt method]], the [[Sainte-Laguë method]] or a different one.

Through the late 1800s and early 1900s, political reformers were involved in discussion and squabbles on the alternative system that would replace the first-past-the-post or block voting systems that were being used. [[Cumulative voting]], [[limited voting]], supplementary voting ([[contingent voting]]), STV, [[instant-runoff voting]], the Bucklin system of ranked voting, and list PR were used in different places, at the municipal, state or national level in that period. List PR or STV eventually became the preferred alternative electoral method for many jurisdictions by the 1920s. The MMP version of list PR began to be used after the Second World War. District representation, proportionality of the results, the rate of wasted votes, the acceptable level of complication for voters and election officials, quickness of announcement of results and other aspects were often valued differently by the different reformers and by the elected governments who usually had the power to make decisions over electoral system. There is thus a wide range of PR systems used by the countries in the world that have adopted PR.<ref>{{cite thesis |first=Harry Charles |last=Phillips |title=Challenges to the Voting System in Canada 1874–1974 |degree=PhD |date=1976 |publisher=University of Western Ontario |url=https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1860&context=digitizedtheses}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.fairvote.ca/introprsystems/|title=Proportional representation systems for Canada}}</ref>

PR is used by a majority of the world's 33 most robust democracies with populations of at least two million people{{snd}}23 use PR (20 use list PR, two use MMP and one uses STV), while only six use [[Plurality voting|plurality]] or a majoritarian system ([[Two-round system|runoff]] or [[Instant-runoff voting|instant runoff]]) for elections to the legislative assembly; and four use [[Parallel voting|parallel systems]], which usually involves some members being elected through PR.<ref>{{cite web |title=Proportional Representation in Most Robust Democracies |url=http://www.fairvote.org/proportional_representation_in_most_robust_democracies |access-date=9 October 2017 |website=Fair Vote: The Center for Voting And Democracy |date=7 March 2016}}</ref> PR dominates Europe, including Germany and most of northern and eastern Europe; it is also used for [[European Parliament]] elections. France adopted PR at the end of World War II, but discarded it in 1958; it was used for parliament elections in 1986. Switzerland has the most widespread use of proportional representation, as it is used there to elect not only national legislatures but also cantonal and communal legislatures.

PR is less common in the English-speaking world, especially at the national level. Malta and Ireland use STV for election of legislators. Australia uses it for senate elections. New Zealand adopted MMP in 1993. Gibraltar uses quasi-PR, limited voting. 

The UK, Canada and India use [[first-past-the-post]] systems for legislative elections, but even then its use is a fairly recent phenomenon, with single-member plurality used exclusively in the UK only since 1958, in Canada only since 1968, and in India only since 1950.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://aceproject.org/main/english/es/esy_in.htm | title=India - First Past the Post on a Grand Scale — }}</ref><ref>1969 Canadian Parliamentary Guide, p. 333-334</ref> STV was used to elect British university MPs prior to 1958. As well, a variety of election systems were used in Canada to elect provincial legislators. STV was used to elect some provincial legislators in [[Alberta]] from 1924 to 1955, and in [[Manitoba]] from 1920 to 1953. In both provinces, the [[Instant-runoff voting|alternative vote]] (AV) was used in rural areas alongside STV in the major urban centres. First-past-the-post was re-adopted in Alberta by the dominant party for reasons of political advantage. In Manitoba, a principal reason given was to address under-representation of Winnipeg in the provincial legislature (which could have otherwise been addressed by adding more members to urban districts).<ref name="hoagHallett" />{{rp|223–234}}<ref>{{cite web |last1=Jansen |first1=Harold John |date=1998 |title=The Single Transferable Vote in Alberta and Manitoba |url=http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/obj/s4/f2/dsk2/tape15/PQDD_0004/NQ29051.pdf |access-date=23 March 2015 |website=[[Library and Archives Canada]] |publisher=University of Alberta}}</ref>

STV has some history in the United States. Between 1915 and 1962, twenty-four cities used the system for at least one election. In many cities, minority parties and other groups used STV to break up single-party monopolies on elective office. One of the most famous cases is [[New York City]], where a coalition of Republicans and others pursued the adoption of STV in 1936 as part of an effort to free the city from control by the [[Tammany Hall]] [[political machine]]. Under the new electoral system, Tammany Hall's power was abated but NYC dropped STV in 1946 after only five elections.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Santucci |first=Jack |date=10 November 2016 |title=Party Splits, Not Progressives |journal=American Politics Research |volume=45 |issue=3 |pages=494–526 |doi=10.1177/1532673x16674774 |issn=1532-673X |s2cid=157400899}}</ref> Another famous case is [[Cincinnati]], Ohio, where, in 1924, Democrats and [[Progressive Era|Progressive]]-wing Republicans secured the adoption of a [[Council–manager government|council–manager]] charter with STV elections in order to dislodge the [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican]] machine of [[Rudolph K. Hynicka]]. Although Cincinnati's council–manager system survives, Republicans and other disaffected groups replaced STV with [[plurality-at-large voting]] in 1957.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Barber |first=Kathleen |title=Proportional Representation and Election Reform in Ohio |publisher=Ohio State University Press |year=1995 |isbn=978-0814206607 |location=Columbus, OH}}</ref> From 1870 to 1980, [[Illinois]] used a semi-proportional [[cumulative voting]] system to elect [[Illinois House of Representatives|its House of Representatives]]. Each district across the state elected both Republicans and Democrats year-after-year.

[[Cambridge, Massachusetts]] (STV) and [[Peoria, Illinois]] (cumulative voting) have used PR for many years. Illinois used cumulative voting for decades in its state elections.<ref>Newman, Brad (11 May 2008). "Two new faces join AC regents | Amarillo.com | Amarillo Globe-News". Amarillo Globe-News. Retrieved 17 May 2015</ref>

[[San Francisco]] (in most elections before 1977 and between 1980 and 1999) had citywide elections in which people cast multiple votes{{snd}}sometimes for as many as nine candidates but usually for five or six{{snd}}simultaneously ([[Plurality block voting|block voting]]), producing some aspects of PR through the use of a multi-member district. San Francisco used preferential voting ([[Bucklin voting]]) in its 1917 city election.{{Citation needed|date=May 2025}}