In the first place, it secures a representation, in proportion to
numbers, of every division of the electoral body: not two great
parties alone, with perhaps a few large sectional minorities in
particular places, but every minority in the whole nation,
consisting of a sufficiently large number to be, on principles of
equal justice, entitled to a representative. Secondly, no elector
would, as at present, be nominally represented by some one whom he had
not chosen. Every member of the House would be the representative of a
unanimous constituency. He would represent a thousand electors, or two
thousand, or five thousand, or ten thousand, as the quota might be,
every one of whom would have not only voted for him, but selected
him from the whole country; not merely from the assortment of two or
three perhaps rotten oranges, which may be the only choice offered
to him in his local market. Under this relation the tie between the
elector and the representative would be of a strength, and a value, of
which at present we have no experience. Every one of the electors
would be personally identified with his representative, and the
representative with his constituents. Every elector who voted for
him would have done so either because, among all the candidates for
Parliament who are favourably known to a certain number of electors,
he is the one who best expresses the voter's own opinions, because
he is one of those whose abilities and character the voter most
respects, and whom he most willingly trusts to think for him.
Pages:
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167