Canada's First Past the Post system creates various un-proportionality and other negative aspects. FPTP causes unstable minority government, made worse by parties' hope for a lucky break, the loss of valuable members of House of Commons and the exaggeration of regionalism. All this was known a full hundred years ago. STV Would Provide Stability If STV had been in use in the 1921 election, electoral reform Ronald Hooper stated in 1922, the government would have been more stable.
Many say proportional representation creates unstable governments, but when minority governments are created – and they are increasingly being created even under First past the post – they are more stable under pro-rep than under FPTP.
Ronald Hooper a hundred years ago explained how this is. Under FPTP, a slight difference of votes can make a large difference in who wins seats.
The see-saw effect of FPTP was demonstrated in the federal elections as held in Alberta during and after WWI.
The Conservative-dominated Union government of Borden rigged the 1917 federal election to ensure that it would be re-elected to a majority of the seats. Alberta was no exception - Edmonton MP Frank Oliver lost his seat but not because he was not popular with Edmonton voters but by the way government officials distributed the soldier vote. Only one Liberal won a seat in Alberta.
The next election, after the leash was taken off, Alberta voters elected no Conservatives, and no Liberals either. Labour and United Farmer candidates took every Alberta seat, with 64 percent of the votes. Farmers were elected in other provinces as well (under the name Progressives), and the Liberals, the largest single party, took a bare majority of the seats. Reverses in by-elections eventually ended the Liberal dominance in the House and for part of the 1921-1925 term (specifically Dec. 1923 to November 1924) it was a minority government.
The next election, again held using FPTP in single-member districts and Block Voting in two-member districts, yielded another Liberal minority government.
And again in 1926 a minority Liberal government was elected.
Due to the rise of third parties - Farmers and Labour, a bare-majority government was followed by two minority governments.
Thus three times in a row FPTP did not fulfill its most vaunted purpose – stable majority government.
Due to the Liberals' minority position after 1925, Farmers and Labour MPs held the balance of power and used it to force the start of a federal pension plan. They were unable to pass electoral reform though.
In 1922 Ronald Hooper said he did not expect the government to survive more than two years (in reality it did last four years).
If STV had been in use in the 1921 election, Hooper believed, the government would actually have been more stable - there would be little expectation that a new election would yield a different result. Under FPTP, a party in the House of Commons may cause the government to fall prematurely, hoping to get lucky -- another election would probably yield a very different result under the almost random system. FPTP means Loss of valuable members of government just due to district voters As well, the leader of the Conservative party was defeated in his district as were 10 of his cabinet ministers. Thus, the new government could not call on them, even as opposition members, to share their wisdom.
Frank Oliver, a former Liberal cabinet minister running in Edmonton, also was not elected. Regionalism exaggerated by FPTP Frank Oliver's lack of success was mirrored by the total shut-out of Liberal candidates across Alberta. The election thus followed a recurring pattern in several ways.
Alberta elected no Liberals, so the province was not represented in the federal cabinet until a by-election or the next election allowed a change.
It exaggerated the political complexion of different sections of the country. Quebec, PEI and Nova Scotia elected all Liberals. Alberta elected all UFA and Labour candidates. In all these provinces a very considerable percentage of votes went to the other parties and these voters then had no representation.
Montreal elected 12 Liberal MPs while under STV nine Liberals and three Conservatives would likely have been elected.
Toronto elected nine Conservatives while under STV five Conservatives and four Liberals would likely have been elected.
40 to 50 MPs were elected with the proven support of just a minority of the voters in their districts.
Hooper noted "clearly we ought not to retain a system of election that so threatens the unity of Canada as to give whole cities and whole provinces over to one political creed."
(Hooper's views were published in the Proportional Representation Review, January 1922, available on-line.)
Thanks for reading.
Check out my blog "list of Montopedia blogs concerning electoral reform" to find other blogs on this important subject.
-----------------------------------
This year:
*Alberta is celebrating 150 years in Confederation 1870-2020
*100th Anniversary of STV first being used to elect legislators in Canada
Winnipeg MLAs first elected through STV in 1920
==============================================================
Comments