There's an article on the 1921 election in the Proportional Representation Review magazine.
It is written by Ronald Hooper, one-time PRR editor, by then working as editor of a Winnipeg newspaper.
He helped bring PR-STV to Winnipeg - it was used both in provincial and municipal elections there for many decades.
He mentions issues still (or again) of concern today:
- minority election of local members
- overall minority governments and the fact that majority one-party governments were not being produced dependably by FPTP.
- FPTP-exaggerated regionalism.
He also mentioned how prominent statesmen were denied seats due to FPTP. This was not an issue in this week's election unless you think of how the leader of the Green party was denied a seat.
====================================================================
THE CANADIAN GENERAL ELECTIONS, DECEMBER, 1921
Overwhelming Proof of Need for Electoral Reform
By Ronald Hooper, Honorary Secretary, P.R. Society of Canada
Owing to the absence of complete election returns it is not possible at the present time to do more than discuss in a broad way the Canadian parliamentary elections which took place on December 6 last, and which resulted in the overwhelming defeat of the Conservative Government tmder the leadership of the Rt. Hon. Arthur Meighen, and the setting up of a Liberal regime under the Hon. W.L. Mackenzie King.
Before proceeding directly to the subject, it will be of interest to recall that in May last the Parliamentary Committee appointed by the government to consider the subject of proportional representation in connection with federal parliamentary elections reported that after due investigation it had come to the conclusion ''that at this time it was not prepared to recommend the application of proportional representation in the next general election as a method of electing members to the House of Commons."
The Committee was, however, "impressed with many of the arguments advanced by the advocates of this system," and believed "that the system merits further study and investigation by the Canadian people."
The Committee went a step further and stated that recent experiences in elections in Canada had brought out the fact that when three or more candidates present themselves in single-member constituencies "the candidate declared elected may, and often does, represent merely a minority of those voting in the constituency."
It, therefore, recommended that “in constituencies where more than two candidates presented themselves, the alternative vote* offers a solution of the difficulty, inasmuch as by such method the candidate finally elected would represent the choice of the majority of the electors."
These recommendations were presented to Parliament without discussion on the dosing day of the last session, at which time it was understood that the matter would be brought up for consideration and possible action at the next session.
* The Hare system applied as a majority system to the election of the members singly.
Since then, however, it has been deemed advisable to sound public opinion on political issues, and a general election has been held. With the election of a new parliament the understanding mentioned above is automatically cancelled, officially at any rate. Advocates of P.R., however, are not worrying, as the results of the election afford incontrovertible proof of the claims made by them before the parliamentary committee, and, further, have drawn the attention of the press of the country to the urgent necessity for at least some measure of electoral reform.
Representation of the Parties
One of the arguments advanced at the Parliamentary Committee against the adoption of P.R. was that it might yield a government with such a small majority as to be scarcely able to carry oft. This would imply that the single-member constituency system carries with it a guarantee of large government majorities.
But what are the facts of the recent election?
In a parliament of 235 members the Liberal party has obtained 117 seats — one less than half the total number — while the Progressive (or "Farmer") party has obtained 65 seats, the Conservative party (the late Government) 51, and Labour 2. If this result had been obtained under P.R., the new Liberal government would have been more stable than it can now hope to be, as in that case it would be realized that if a new general election were held within the next two years or so, practically the same result would follow: the opponents of the government would not, therefore, be so likely to force an election prematurely.
Under the present system, on the other hand, the opposition, knowing that another general election would probably yield a very different result, might be tempted once more to try their luck at the polls, and therefore to shape their parliamentary tactics with the sole object of forcing such election.
Defeat of Outstanding Men
A regrettable feature of the election was the personal defeat of the prime minister, Mr. Meighen, in his own constituency, which happened to be situated in a strongly Progressive province. Notwithstanding that thousands of Canadians of all political views would be glad to see Mr. Meighen leading the opposition in the new House of Commons, he can now only enter parliament through the back-door method of a resignation and by-election in some Conservative stronghold, if he will consent to do so.
Statesmen who have conscientiously served their country to the best of their ability for a number of years should not be subjected to such indignities. In a P.R. multi-member constituency, there is not the least doubt that Mr. Meighen would have been one of those at the head of the poll. In addition to the prime minister, 10 members of his cabinet also met personal defeat, while another minister only succeeded in election by the narrow majority of 6 votes.
On the Liberal side the same fate was meted out to the Hon. Frank Oliver, who was for many years a member of Sir Wilfred Laurier’s cabinet. Unfortunately for Mr. Oliver, his home constituency is situated in the almost solidly Progressive province of Alberta. It has been the practice in Canada to distribute the cabinet offices as far as possible among the different provinces, and it was no doubt originally intended that Mr. Oliver should represent the Liberals of Alberta in the new cabinet. But the Liberal party has not won a single seat in Alberta; so it will be impossible for them even to hope to win a seat for Mr. Oliver in that province until there arises a vacancy through the death or resignation of one of the opposition members. The province of Alberta is therefore cut off from cabinet representation — for some considerable time, at least.
Party "Blocs" in Provinces and Cities
It is particularly noticeable that the election results have exaggerated the political complexion of different sections of the country. The anomalies of the present electoral system have led to the creation of regional blocs.
For example, the province of Quebec has returned to parliament a solid bloc of 65 Liberal members. The provinces of Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia have also returned solid blocs of Liberal members. The provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta, on the other hand, are represented almost entirely by the Progressive party, which is largely supported by the farming communities. In alt these provinces very considerable percentages of votes were polled by the respective minorities, and consequently a very considerable number of our voting population are now without parliamentary representation. The same thing, of course, has resulted in the cities.
The city of Montreal in the province of Quebec has returned a solid bloc of 12 Liberal members; but unofficial figures indicate very clearly that under the P. R. system Conservative candidates would have been elected to three of these seats. On the other hand the city of Toronto in Ontario elected a bloc of 9 Conservative members, whereas unofficial figures show that under P. R. 4 Liberal representatives might have been elected.
Clearly we ought not to retain a system of election which so threatens the unity of Canada as to give whole cities and whole provinces over to one political creed.
Representation of Minorities Only
The Parliamentary Committee on P.R. correctly stated in its report that three-cornered contests in Canada were increasing in number. In the recent election there were no less than 142 three-, four-, and five- cornered contests for single seats. The Committee was also right in stating that in such case the candidate "may, and often does, represent merely a minority of those voting in the constituency." When the official figures are published it will be seen that between 40 and 50 members in the new House of Commons will represent minorities only of the electorate in their constituencies.
Future outlook for P.R. in Canada
The future outlook for the adoption, or partial adoption, of P. R. in federal and provincial elections in Canada is bright. The Liberal party at its national convention in Ottawa in 1919 went on record as approving the principle, while the premier-elect, Mr. Mackenzie King, has been for some years a member of the P. R. Society of Canada. Further, the Farmer party, or Progressive party as it has come to be known, made P. R. one of the prominent planks in its platform during the recent electoral campaign. Organized labour has also placed itself on record in its support.
In the provincial field it would appear as though Alberta would soon follow and even surpass the example set by Manitoba in 1920. The premier of Alberta, Mr. Greenfield, the leader of the Farmer government which came into office in July last, has just been reported as saying that the next provincial elections would in all probability be under the P. R. system. The attitude of the premier, and of the government generally, can best be gathered from the following extract from a press dispatch of December 16.
"The United Farmers of Alberta have always stood strongly for proportional representation, and there is no doubt that the question will come before the provincial legislature before the next election,' declared Mr. Greenfield.
"The premier added that personally he was a strong advocate of the system and would like to see it brought into force. From what can be gathered, the same attitude generally pervades the rank and file of the United Farmers, which adds to the likelihood of early legislation on the question.
"Every election which has been held recently simply adds to the force of the arguments presented in favor of proportional representa- tion,' asserted Mr. Greenfield. 'No better example of the unfairness of the present system of electing representatives, whether federal, provincial, or municipal, could be found than the elections of July 18, December 6, or the municipal election the other day,'”
===========================================================
I was particularly struck by this that Hooper said:
"In a parliament of 235 members the Liberal party has obtained 117 seats — one less than half the total number — while the Progressive (or "Farmer") party has obtained 65 seats, the Conservative party (the late Government) 51, and Labour 2. If this result had been obtained under P.R., the new Liberal government would have been more stable than it can now hope to be, as in that case it would be realized that if a new general election were held within the next two years or so, practically the same result would follow: the opponents of the government would not, therefore, be so likely to force an election prematurely.
Under the present system, on the other hand, the opposition, knowing that another general election would probably yield a very different result, might be tempted once more to try their luck at the polls, and therefore to shape their parliamentary tactics with the sole object of forcing such election." Hooper blames the opposition for snap elections but most today blame Trudeau for the last snap election. But if we take what Hooper said from a different angle, we see that the damage of FPTP is not just an disproportional government now but the probability that Trudeau will try an election again in 18 months (as he has already said he will do), just as Hooper expected King to do in 1923. Actually King had slight majority off and on through the 1921-25 term and his government did last for "full" four-year term. In part this was made possible by promises to Labour MPs (Calgary's Irvine and Winnipeg's Woodsworth, later founders of the CCF/NDP) to bring in the start of a national old-age pension plan, eventually done - another signal accomplishment of minority government and inter-party compromise, the type of thing that PR would encourage. (King also allowed MPs Irvine and Woodsworth to investigate working of Canada's banks when the banks' charters came up for renewal. helping expose the bankers' self-serving activities and the need for government regulation, or even government-owned banks. Irvine's work in particular would bring Social Credit thought to Alberta (laying the base for Alberta's election of the world's first SC government in 1935, which lasted to 1971). ------------------------------------------------------------ Sidenote: Alberta did have partial PR for years prior to 1935, but the SC election is not result of PR. The SC did not get a few seats through PR then gradually grow to be government. Formed as party just a couple years before the 1935 election, the first election the SC party ran in was 1935 and it got a majority of the vote and won a majority of seats right off. The election of SC is example of what many saw as fringe or extreme group - still it is described that way - its "funny money" policies are often butt of jokes - but it turned out to be the choice of majority of Alberta voters.
The Alberta SC government was always popular during its reign (although in the middle of its reign it derived extra representation through urban-rural disparities and in its last years through the change from STV/AV to FPTP).
The SC government was also self-modulating. Over the decades it kept the best of its policies and discarded the really-out-theres, a process we can expect any fringe or extreme group to do under social pressures of governance and democracy. So that can be taken as proof that we should have confidence that extreme groups can be trusted with democracy and democracy can be trusted with due representation of extreme groups. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- King's inter-party co-operation of 1921-1925 was not something that Hooper expected - Canada back then had little experience with minority governments. King was better than Hooper expected - he worked compromises that allowed his government to last for four years. Can Trudeau learn from King and learn to work deals with other parties to assemble a stable working majority in the HoC, instead of just hoping for a lucky break by calling an election and hoping to receive a windfall of seats through the workings of semi-random FPTP?
=========================================
Here is link to another article by Hooper on how the 1921-1925 government would have looked different under PR:
=========================================================
Opmerkingen