1924 Edmonton Provincial By-Election - Instant-Runoff Voting elects popular choice despite four-way fight -- First use of ranked votes in Alberta election - Communist Party's Bartholomew 3rd place

The first election in Alberta to use ranked voting took place in Edmonton on October 27, following the resignation of Edmonton MLA J.R. Boyle. The by-election winner was determined using Instant-runoff voting, which had just introduced for elections of single members in by-elections in Alberta's largest cities.

Liberal candidate W.T. Henry got the most votes in the first count but no candidate received a majority so subsequent counts were held using second choices of the lower-ranking candidates, Independent G.V. Pelton and Labour's H.M. Bartholomew.

Henry was elected on the third count, with 5472 votes to A.F. Ewing's 5448. (Edmonton Bulletin, Oct. 31, 1924, p. 1)

The Labour candidate H.M. Bartholomew, a Communist Party member, showed a strong third-place showing, almost exceeding the Conservative candidate on the second count. When his votes were transferred on the 3rd count, 70 percent were found to have only one marked preference (the voter had plumped for Bartholomew). Surprisingly most of the Bartholomew's votes that had a usable secondary preference were marked for the Conservative candidate, usually Labour's enemy. But in this case, Liberal candidate Henry had missed no opportunity to attack Bartholomew while the Conservative candidate had stayed silent. As a consequence, Henry had alienated many voters whose votes otherwise would have come to him. (Edmonton Bulletin, Nov. 1, 1924, p. 1)

(This already shows how ranked votes (in IRV and STV) encourages cross-party courtesy and discourages polarization.)

The Edmonton Bulletin criticized the new electoral system, saying that the winner was not announced until four days after the election. It wondered whether it might take even longer when several members were being elected and where dozens of candidate were in the field. The writer admitted the "delay may not be materially important but it does lessen popular interest in the election."

(It actually only took one day once all the votes were gathered at the central election office, and once the first count vote tallies had been recounted, and once the spoiled votes had been double-checked.)

The Bulletin writer saw inconsistency in that the second choices of Pelton's and Bartholomew's supporters were counted while those of Ewing's and Henry's supporters were not counted. It also bemoaned that 1359 voters had had their ballot declared spoiled, and pointed out the "delusion" that representation by someone who was not the voter's first choice was any kind of real representation. ("Confusion worse confounded", Edmonton Bulletin, November 3, 1924, p. 3)

Some of these views were refuted by a representative of the Proportional Representation League in the pages of the Edmonton Journal a short time later who clarified that counting Henry's or Ewing's supporters' secondary choices might have produced a result that was not intended by those voters themselves; that secondary preferences under instant-runoff voting were used as backup contingency votes only, for a reason; that no one can get representation from someone who does not share their views but such is the myth all the time under first past the post, ironically the system that the Bulletin was hoping to see a return to. He predicted that in most future Edmonton elections, when STV would be used, several members would be elected and each would be able to truly represent only his or her own supporters with no pretense at representing all who live in the city.

(J. Delancey Verplanck, "The transferable vote" (letter to the editor), Edmonton Journal, November 1924)

==========================================================