174 THE TRANSFERABLE VOTE IN ELECTIONS. 



lowest ci these four candidates was excluded without examining 

 or transferring his votes, and the other three were declared to be 

 elected. 



i6. The rule for the transfer of secondary surpluses in the 

 English Municipal Bill, 1908, reads as follows : — 



"4. 1. g. The particular votes transferred from each subparcel 

 shall be those last filed in the sub-parcel." 



If "D" required 750 votes to give him the quota, only 50 of 

 his 800 votes would be taken for further distribution, the fifty 

 votes last filed. Now, here an element of chance occurs, for the 

 next available preferences on these special fifty votes are not 

 necessarily the same as those on any other special fifty votes of 

 the 750 votes left in "C's" sub-parcel. 



In the Johannesburg election there were only 73 out of 116 

 votes in the three sub-parcels, giving secondary surpluses, which 

 were afterwards distributed. Yet even this slight chance is 

 eliminated in the Tasmanian "Electoral Act, 1907," and in our 

 Senate elections, by adopting the Droop system rule of 

 redistribution for secondary surpluses arising from transferred 

 votes, just as it is used for the distribution of surpluses from original 

 votes. 



17. This element of chance is removed in the simplest possible 

 way, by extending to all secondary surpluses the same rule, 

 "Droop's," which we have seen is employed for primary surpluses 

 from original votes in Section 11. 



In the Johannesburg election of 1909, three parcels of excluded 

 candidates' votes gave the quota to three members, say, "A," 

 "B," and "C. " These parcels contained 25, 67 and 24 votes, 116 

 in all. The members required 3, 26 and 14 votes respectively, 43 

 in all. These 43 votes were left unexamined at the bottom of the 

 transferred parcels ; the votes at the top, the votes last filed, 22, 

 41, 10, 73 in all, were distributed to other continuing candidates. 

 Now the next available preferences on the retained 43 voting papers " 

 may probably not be the same as those on any 43 of the 73 which 

 were distributed. This constitutes the element of chance, which 

 is got rid of by treating these surpluses exactly as is done in the 

 case of original surpluses. (See Section 12). 



18. Another element of chance is present under the regula- 

 tions of the Municipal Bill. If "A's" surplus is being distributed 

 and part of it, determined by the number of times "B" was marked 

 second preference, goes to "B" with the loss of one vote through 

 neglect of fractions. That one vote, and the votes "A" retains,, 

 are finally dealt with. "B's" share of votes may have to be 

 distributed, if "B" comes to be excluded, to the next available can- 

 didate. It is improbable that the third preferences on the votes 

 retained by "A," and those transferred to "B," are identical. So 

 here again an element of chance occurs. 



This element, latent in every distribution of a surplus, is 

 entirely removed by Gregory's system of retaining practical values 

 for "A," "B," and so on, even to the ultimate final act of dis- 

 tribution. 



19. Gregory's method of distributing all surpluses. 



In place of giving, as we did, "A" his share of votes, and "C 



