I've long been interested in the history of Bucklin voting, also
called the Grand Junction method, or sometimes simply "preferential
voting," in the United States, there is a peculiarity in what is
available on Googlebooks on the topic. We see, beginning in 1909 or
1910, much comment on this method, and praise for how it worked,
though it must be said that Bucklin himself seems to have been a
tireless promoter for a time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Abd/Preferential_voting_notes
Sometime roughly around 1920, Bucklin drops off the radar. Before
1920, many publications documented how it had been implemented by up
to around ninety cities and towns, and there were enthusiastic
reports of the election results, how Bucklin actually functioned to
find a better winner than the first preference choice, how "the
people" were able, using the method, to "negotiate a majority."
Then references to the Grand Junction method almost totally cease. In
every jurisdiction, Bucklin was replaced by something else. A decent
historical study would look at each place, what incidents or
arguments preceded the method being dropped, and the process by which
it was dropped. I know of only two situations: Duluth, where Bucklin
was ruled unconstitutional by the Minnesota Supreme Court, in an
idiosyncratic ruling, and Cleveland, Ohio, where the story is more
complex. The Cleveland story, though starts to bring up what is now
an operating hypothesis for me.
Bucklin was replaced because it worked. It allowed candidates from
powerful political parties to lose, when someone else had broader
support. The story with PR/STV in the U.S. was similar; in Cleveland,
ironically, the Bucklin method was superseded by PR?STV (I don't know
the details about the single-winner mayoral elections, though), and
then PR/STV was in turn axed after a decade, in 1931. What was
happening? The Democratic Party was becoming a majority party, and it
had no more need for voting systems which allowed minorities to find
fair representation. PR/STV in Cleveland, as well as it did in New
York, allowed "Negroes" and Socialists to win representation.
Okay, we can understand the political forces that repressed
proportional representation. Did this same set of forces do the same
with Bucklin?
The clue that I've found is something that I'd overlooked before.
Bucklin had succeeded in putting through a thorough reform of the
city government in Grand Junction, and this model covered many
different issues, not just voting method. Whether as part of this
reform or a previous one, political affiliation information was not
allowed on the ballot for city government offices. This reform, in
many places, stuck, it's still true in lots of towns across the U.S.,
including San Francisco. The reform included a version of the Bucklin
method, which was first used in 1909. I had seen the results from
this election many times, but hadn't realized the significance of
what was really one of the most notable things about it: the winner
was "affiliated with" the Socialist Party.
I first picked up on this in reviewing arguments about the Bucklin
implementation in San Francisco. Before the charter amendment passed,
there was a report prepared by the Commonwealth Club, which included
debate over Bucklin. And, there, it was claimed that a Socialist had
won because, allegedly, it is a "matter of religion" for a Socialist
to never vote for anyone but a member of their party, whereas
supporters of, say, the Republican, Bannister, in Grand Junction,
would, my reading of the argument, generously and in good civic
spirit add votes for the Socialist.
Of course the votes actually cast in that election show that the
support for the Republican, who was the plurality leader in the first
round of counting, was very narrow, the Republican got hardly any
additional vote support, whereas the Socialist, Todd, had come up
from third place to win. I have never seen a result like this from
IRV, by the way, and it is rare, in a nonpartisan election, for a
candidate to rise up from even second place to win.
But, in the end, the election was not particularly close. With 1799
total ballots containing an enumerated vote, Todd had 1051 votes. The
runner-up was Slocomb, with 912 votes. I have previously written that
there were thus two candidates with majorities, but that was an
error, and only applies to a majority of votes for the candidates on
the ballot, I had neglected this:
I have just now noticed on the record provided by Bucklin for this
election that there is a note: Total Votes Cast: 1847. Majority to Elect: 924.
They were following the standard rule of parliamentary procedure that
any non-blank ballot counts in the basis for a majority, it appears.
I saw what appeared to be a contradiction, in the election of the
Commissioner of Finance and Supplies. But the rules apparently
provided for additional ranking, one additional ran
