The 1952 and 1955 provincial elections in Edmonton are good examples of how STV provides fair mixed representation and allows the city as a whole to flexibly elect candidates that altogether generally represent the views of most of the voters.
The historical record does not show the way the elections worked because candidates are presented in haphazard or alphabetical order. In this blog (and nowhere else) they are presented in order of popularity, which shows who were the front-runners in the first count and how they were altered during the vote transfers that come through STV.
1952 7 were being elected to represent Edmonton in one city-wide district.
Although the district elected multiple candidates, each voter had just one vote. This combination ensured that no one group could capture all the city seats, as had happened in 1921 when Block Voting was used and as would happen in 1959, after single-member districts and the First past the post electoral system replaced STV.
1952 First Count of the votes:
Manning Social Credit 17000
Prowse Liberal 7264
Roper Co-operative Commonwealth Federation 6632
Page Prog.-Cons. 2212
J. Donovan Ross SC 1757
Holowach SC 1381
Dechene Liberal 1340
Gerhart SC
Tanner Lib
and about 20 more candidates with lower vote totals
Thus in the First Count the first seven candidates were members of four parties : SC, Liberal, CCF and Prog.-Cons., reflecting the variety of opinion held by the substantial groups among the city voters. This distribution is created by each voter only casting one vote each in a multiple-member district.
As well, the particular candidates were the most popular among their parties' voters. They had not had to be chosen by the party executive (they might have been but not necessarily) but by voters themselves.
And they were not necessarily the ones who would win in the end.
Manning was immediately declared elected as his vote count surpassed the quota (which was set at about 7000 votes). His surplus votes were not wasted but instead by referring to back-up preferences they were proportionately transferred to other candidates.
The others of the initial list of front-runners were not declared elected unless each could accumulate enough votes transferred from others to exceed the quota (about 7000 votes) - or survive to the end when the field narrowed to the same number as the number of remaining open seats. Unless one's support was so large that you surpassed quota and won on the First Count (as Manning did), a certain degree of general acceptability was thus as important as support from a single large group of voters.
Transfers were made when the lowest-ranking candidates were eliminated one by one. Votes were transferred based on the marked back-up preferences on the voters' ballots, if any.
It was revealed that two of the front runners in the first count did not have general popularity. Their vote counts were surpassed by other candidates who had had more general acceptability. Interestingly, a lower-ranking Liberal candidate surpassed an initially-higher ranking Liberal and a lower-ranking SC candidate surpassed an initially-higher ranking SC candidate.
Gerhart SC and Tanner Lib were elected, and not Holowach SC and Dechene Lib.
STV is voter-driven and candidate-based. Party identification is a guide but under STV, voters vote for individual candidates. And their preferences can be based on party, or place of residence (local representation), or past personal interaction, gender, age, or any other factor the voter chooses.
It is thought likely that in many cases a voter from outside the party will choose candidates who are not hard-line party machine types, to mark as back-up preferences for their vote - if the vote has to be transferred. Candidates who do not place themselves in an ideological strait-jacket, who can bridge two or more groups, are more generally acceptable to votes who hold similar open views and will be chosen over the hard-liners. Hardliners though will do better if the voters hold hard-line views. STV is reflective, thus representative, thus democratic.
In the end, the elected were:
Manning SC
Prowse Liberal
Page Prog.-Cons.
Roper CCF
Ross SC
Gerhart SC
Tanner Lib
1955 Again 7 were being elected to represent Edmonton in one city-wide district.
Although the district elected multiple candidates, each voter again had just one vote.
First Count
Manning SC 23216
Prowse Liberal 18755
Roper CCF 4444
Page Conservative 4086
Bailey Liberal 2971
Dechene Liberal 2877
Miller Liberal 2787
Hlynka SC 1896
Payment Liberal 1640
Tanner 1604
Ross 1575
Gerhart 1320
and about 18 other candidates with lesser vote counts
Thus in the First Count the first seven candidates were members of four parties: SC, Liberal, CCF and Conservative, reflecting the variety of opinion held by the substantial groups among the city voters.
As well, again the particular candidates were the most popular among their voting block's voters. They had not had to be chosen by the party executive (they might have been but not necessarily) but by voters themselves.
And they were not necessarily the ones who would win in the end.
Manning again was immediately declared elected as his vote count again surpassed the quota (this time about 9500 votes). Again his surplus votes were not wasted but instead by reference to back-up preferences they were proportionately transferred to other candidates.
The others of the initial list of front-runners were not declared elected unless each could accumulate enough votes transferred from others to exceed the quota (about 9500 votes) - or survive to the end when the field narrowed to the same number as the number of remaining open seats.
Winners' surplus votes were transferred proportionately if possible. Elimination of the lowest-ranking candidates one by one thinned the field, and resulting transfers changed the order of popularity of the candidates.
It was revealed this time that three of the front runners in the first count did not have general popularity. Their vote counts were surpassed by other candidates who had more general acceptability as the vote transfers proved.
Interestingly, a lower-ranking Liberal candidate and two SC candidates surpassed Roper CCF and two initially-higher ranked Liberals.
Tanner, a low-ranking Liberal, accumulated enough votes to pass quota.
Miller in seventh position in the first count also accumulated enough votes to surpass quota and ensure election.
Page slipped down in the order of popularity but was still around, with former low-ranking Gerhart SC and incumbent MLA J. Donovan Ross at the end when the field of candidates thinned to three, the same number as the remaining open seats. Roper CCF, Bailey Lib. and Dechene Lib. had dropped down in popularity as others accumulated more votes. They eventually had found themselves at the bottom of the list and had been eliminated one by one.
The under-dogs, Tanner, Gerhart and Ross, accumulated enough votes quickly enough to also jump over Hlynka SC and Payment Liberal, who eventually being at the bottom of the list were eliminated.
Elected [marked with underlining in above list]
Manning SC
Prowse Liberal
Miller Liberal
Tanner Lib
Ross SC
Page Conservative
Gerhart SC.
Each of the CCF candidates had proven not to have enough support on his/her own to pass quota and did not receive enough other votes from others to surpass quota so none were elected. Thus the number of parties represented among the elected MLAs dropped to three. This gave narrower (by party) representation but representation that reflected the variety and relative strength of the substantial groups in the city. In this election, the CCF was an extreme, or at least marginal, party. (In the province as a whole, it received one sixth of SC's votes and one quarter of the Liberal party's vote total.) Other than Roper, no CCF candidate in Edmonton received even as much as 500 votes of the 83,000 votes cast in the city.
The CCF party as a whole suffered in the weeding-out process and was denied representation. But the back-up preferences marked by their supporters, if any, were used to see that the votes were not wasted but instead used to elect Liberal Tanner, for example, instead of Bailey or Dechene. I don't know why Tanner was more generally acceptable but it is irrefutable that in fact that was the case. STV elections in this way shed much light on the thinking of the electorate - much more than FPTP elections.
That is how STV worked in 1952 and 1955, and how we could expect it to work - for our benefit - in the future.
Thank you for reading.
==================
Comments