How we understand Los Angeles matters. I claimed in a recent piece that the 1913 defeat of open-list PR there was a critical juncture for American PR advocacy. (I recently learned of a similar event in Western Europe, with the opposite effect. More on that another time.) Recently, there appeared two articles saying that the referendum was on STV. So, which was it?
Here is how Sitton (1995, p. 355) describes the measure, emphasis mine:
“Written by George Dunlop, the proposal was a modification of the Hare system. Political groups could submit petitions containing at least 500 signatures requesting that their group name and candidates for city council be printed on the primary ballot. Voters would indicate their party preference on the ballot and then cast votes for individuals in the order of the voter’s choice, regardless of the party those candidates represented. (A Republican could vote for five Republicans and four candidates from other parties if desired.) An ‘independent’ column would be provided for those candidates and voters who did not belong to the major parties. The city clerk would then count the total votes and divide by the number of available council seats to arrive at the quota needed for nomination. For each full quota polled by a group, its top two vote getters were nominated for the general election. Fractional units would be divided proportionately among the parties. In the general election the process was to be repeated, except that only one candidate was elected per quota. Thus, if the GGO received a total vote equal to three quotas (one-third of the total vote for nine council seats), the top three GGO candidates would be elected.”
I would like to share my interpretation of this passage. Here are some thoughts on what I’ve boldfaced and why.
1. “Modification of the Hare system” — Hare system is an old term for STV. How is it being modified?
2. “Group name and candidates… printed on the primary ballot” — This suggests the presence of party labels on the ballot, grouping of candidates by party, and some level of control of candidates’ use of those labels.
3. “Voters would indicate their party preference” — This is where the key modification of STV begins. Votes for parties are going to play a role in seat allocation.
4. “For each full quota polled by a group” — Seats are being allocated to parties as parties. Or, in the first round, positions on the general-election ballot are being allocated to parties as such.
In sum, note what is happening in both rounds. Voters cast party votes. Party votes then determine quotas. Quotas then determine what happens to a party in that round. In the primary, for each quota, the party sends two candidates to the general election. Then, in the general election, the party gets one seat per quota. Seats not yet allocated are dealt with via largest remainder.
The only role played by rankings here is to set the order of the party list. That sounds like an open-list system to me, even if an uncommon variant. See this essay on open lists from Alan Wall and the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA) for more information. I also recommend the analyses of open lists (and other list systems embedding candidate choice) in Votes from Seats (2017).
Very interesting, and I think I had missed this post before. I have read this a few times, and I am still confused (not your fault), and uncertain if it is basically an open list or not. Do I understand that in both the primary (or first round, as I am not sure it is a “real” primary) and in the general (final round) voters cast a party vote AND ranked candidate choices, which could be across party lines? If so, I have no idea what to call it, but I have doubts that it falls within the usual category of OLPR.
Also, how is it different from the Australian Capital Territory system that was used in the late 1980s? I think it is different, but both of these are so complex that I can’t say how!
Another question is how would it have been determined how many candidates of each party advanced from the first round to the second?
I looked for the full text of the measure when I was in the city archive and couldn’t find it. All they had was the language that appeared on the referendum ballot. Here is Sitton’s footnote 18 in case some enterprising reader wants to go on a scavenger hunt: Express, March 17, 1913; PCC pamphlet for 1913 charter amendment election, box 104, Haynes Papers.
It may help for interpreting the above to keep in mind that Swiss “free list” was the main competing model at the time. One-vote OLPR was not really on the agenda. Also, voters would have been more habituated to what we now call MNTV (loosely “at-large”). So, free list might have seemed less strange to contemporaries than it seems to us.
Here is how I read the above:
– party votes determine quotas
– for each quota, each party gets to run two candidates in the first round
– remainders add to the slates/lists in some way
– we can’t tell from the above what role rankings might have played
– I think all are assuming there were rankings based on the phrase “modification of the Hare system,” and maybe there were not!
– the process repeats in round two, except that each quota buys a party one seat instead of two nominees
I cannot remember exactly how I learned of this measure. Barber (1995) makes passing reference to the early possibility of cities voting on list PR instead of STV. That then led me on a goose chase, probably through notes I’d taken when reading the PR Review four or so years earlier.
Now you have me wondering if this was two-round free-list PR.
Apparently the comment form does not let paragraph breaks survive. Too bad. It was so nicely laid out in this box!
I see breaks. Hmm.
Yes they are there now. I guess when it gives you your “receipt” it does not include the breaks. I am referring to the screen I got telling me the comment was in moderation, which showed the text without breaks.