Editing Husting (section)

==18th and 19th century practice==
===Britain===
In Britain, a similar practice prevailed in [[List of United Kingdom general elections|elections]] to the [[British House of Commons|House of Commons]]. At the conclusion of candidates' speeches, a show of hands was taken. This was an informal indication of the opinion of the voters and no official record was kept of how many voted for a particular candidate. Sometimes a candidate who found he had little support or otherwise did not want to continue declined to call for a poll. One example of this was seen in the 1784 election for the [[City of London (UK Parliament constituency)|four seats of the  City of London]]. [[William Pitt the Younger]] was proposed and "was returned on the show of hands" but removed himself from consideration before the polling was completed.<ref>{{cite book | last=Smith | first=Henry Stooks | title=The Parliaments of England | publisher= Political Reference Publications | year=1973}}</ref> Hustings crowds were often boisterous<ref>Angus Hawkins, ''Victorian Political Culture: "Habits of Heart and Mind"'' (Oxford University Press, 2015), p. 286.</ref> and unruly.<ref name=Vernon>James Vernon, ''Modern Britain, 1750 to the Present'' (Cambridge University Press, 2017), p. 525.</ref>

An individual [[Constituencies of the Parliament of the United Kingdom|parliamentary constituency]] might have several separate hustings.<ref name=Vernon/> Initially, many constituencies had only a single hustings as the polling place,<ref name=Roberts>Matthew Roberts, ''Political Movements in Urban England, 1832–1914'' (Bloomsbury Publishing: 2008).</ref> but the [[Reform Act 1832]] required that a separate hustings exist for every 600 electors.<ref name=Roberts/><ref name=Ackerman>Edwin F. Ackerman, ''Origins of the Mass Party: Dispossession and the Party-Form in Mexico and Bolivia in Comparative Perspective'' (Oxford University Press: 2021), p. 123.</ref> The 1832 act also slightly extended the franchise, expanding the percentage of the population eligible to vote from about 5% to 7%, and furthering the notions of [[Political representation|representation]].<ref name=Roberts/> Although ineligible to vote, historians have noted that women and unenfranchised men took part in "looking on"&mdash;the "active participation of non-electors in the rituals of the nomination and the hustings."<ref>Angus Hawkins, ''Victorian Political Culture: "Habits of Heart and Mind"'' (Oxford University Press, 2015), p. 162.</ref>

The [[Ballot Act 1872]] abolished the hustings in Britain in favor of the [[secret ballot]].<ref name=1911EBritannica/> The system of public nomination at the hustings was replaced by nomination based on the submissions of signed papers. [[John Bright]], a [[Radicals (UK)|Radical]] reformer, was among those who supported the secret ballot and the end to the hustings, citing the "tumult and disorder" (including often alcohol-fueled [[mob violence]] that accompanied the hustings process in some areas).<ref>Jon Lawrence, ''Electing Our Masters: The Hustings in British Politics from Hogarth to Blair'' (Oxford University Press, 2009), pp. 45–48.</ref> Proponents of the abolition of the public hustings also argued that the increased [[literacy rate]] and the availability of inexpensive newspapers rendered the hustings superfluous.<ref>Jon Lawrence, ''Electing Our Masters: The Hustings in British Politics from Hogarth to Blair'' (Oxford University Press, 2009), p. 46.</ref>

===Canada===
In pre-[[Canadian Confederation|Confederation]] [[Ontario]], the [[returning officer]] (under an 1849 act) typically administered elections from the hustings. "Nomination day" and "declaration day" were separate. The returning officer took nominations by a [[Show of hands (politics)|show of hands]] to determine if any candidate received a majority; if a losing candidate demanded a vote, this was followed by several days of polling, then a return to the hustings where the returning officer declared the winner. (The polling period was originally six days, but this was reduced to two days with the 1842 and 1849 Election Acts). The [[Voting methods in deliberative assemblies|show of hands]] and hustings declaration were abolished in 1866, and hustings nominations were abolished in 1874 by a Dominion statute.<ref>George Neil Emery, ''Elections in Oxford County, 1837-1875: A Case Study of Democracy in Canada West and Early Ontario'' (University of Toronto Press, 2012), pp. xii, 24, 50.</ref> Historian George Neil Emery writes that after this point, "only in [[Elections in Canada|provincial elections]] did the hustings retain its original meaning: an elevated platform at the place of election from which the returning officer, candidates, and nominators of candidate addressed an assembled of electors before then."<ref>George Neil Emery, ''Elections in Oxford County, 1837-1875: A Case Study of Democracy in Canada West and Early Ontario'' (University of Toronto Press, 2012), p. 24.</ref>

===Elsewhere===
In [[Virginia]], the Corporation or Hustings Courts were formerly lower-level [[State court (United States)|state courts]].<ref name=1975Report>''[https://books.google.com/books?id=C8WlhzeOfFsC National Survey of Court Organization: 1975 Supplement to State Judicial Systems]'', [[United States Bureau of the Census]] (1975), p. 33.</ref><ref>Harry M. Ward, ''Public Executions in Richmond, Virginia: A History, 1782–1907'' (McFarland: 2012), 10, 15.</ref> However, a reorganization of state courts that took effect on July 1, 1973, abolished these and other courts, replacing them with a streamlined [[Virginia Circuit Court]] system.<ref name=1975Report/>