The 1952 BC election used Alternative Voting. This election produced an upset in government but the result was perfectly in line with most voters' sentiments.
At the time, BC was exceptional in its electoral system. Its electoral system used a mixture of single-member and multi-member districts. In the multi-member districts MLAs were elected through Block Voting.
To combine Alternative Voting with multi-member districts, the BC government instituted separate ballots in the city district. Candidates were divided among separate ballots, and each voter voted on each ballot separately. This was a cumbersome way to avoid having Single Transferable Voting, which the government apparently felt would be too amenable to the opposition.
The change to Alternative Voting was made for selfish partisan reasons by the reigning Liberals, formerly part of a Liberal/Conservative coalition whose primary goal was to exclude the CCF from power.
Although brought in to facilitate re-election of Liberal or Conservative MLAs, AV is a fair system that ensures that the majority of voters in any district would elect the local MLA.
As it happened, in most cases this was not the local Liberal or Conservative member. That was democracy. It was not proportional but it was democratic.
It disappointed the Liberal and Conservative leaders but did not disappoint most of the voters. It may have surprised them but it did not disappoint them.
The intent of adopting Alternative Voting was to ensure a majority government for Liberals, with or without the Conservatives, by allowing voters for either party to give their second preferences to the other, and thus preserve the seat for one or the other. Without Alternative Voting, it was feared that vote splitting between the two parties would allow their mutual enemy, the CCF, to take seats.
This strategy failed but not due to any fault of the new electoral system.
The strategy was based on two assumptions:
- that the Liberal and Conservatives together would compose a majority of the vote in most of the seats.
- that the supporters of either party would give their secondary preferences to the other.
Neither assumptions proved correct.
The Liberals and Conservative parties were, as it turned out, not very popular with voters. Most of the district contests were close four-way races on the first count, with the relatively-new CCF and the brand-new Social Credit Party doing unexpectedly well. The SC was so new that it had never had had any MLAs elected. it had two sitting MLAs though. Two renegade Conservatives, W.A.C. Bennett and Tilly Rolston, had crossed the floor as the coalition collapsed.
Liberal and Conservative candidates together received a majority in only eight districts:
Nanaimo, Oak Bay, Skeena, Vancouver Point Grey (two of the three ballots), and Victoria City (all three ballots).
Lib/Con co-operation ensured that all eight of these seats were captured by one or other of the two old-line parties.
A PC candidate was elected in Nanaimo and in two of the three ballots in Vancouver Point Grey. A Liberal candidate was elected in Oak Bay, Skeena and on the three ballots in Victoria City.
In Nanaimo, despite the combined Liberal/Conservative majority, the coalition vote was split and the CCF candidate had plurality (lead in votes) on the first count. This is the one district where Alternative Voting worked as its advocates had envisioned. With the right vote split between the Liberal and Conservative parties, the CCF would have taken the seat under FPTP. Alternative Voting saved the seat for the right when the transfer of the Liberal vote gave the PC candidate the seat. (This was one of the seven turn-overs that Alternative Voting created in this election, none of which would have happened under FPTP.)
In Oak Bay, the Liberal candidate had plurality on the first count. SC vote transfer - 400 votes went to PC, 500 to Liberal. Liberal won.
In Skeena, the Liberal candidate had a plurality on the first count. On the third count, PC votes were transferred. Due to Conservative's antipathy to CCF, it would be expected that the Conservative vote transfer would go mostly to the Liberal, instead of the CCF. Such did happen, securing the Liberal candidate a majority.
The Liberal and Conservative leaders had expected to combine their parties' votes and win easily, keeping the CCF out of power and perhaps even out of substantial representation. But the CCF was very popular among voters.
The CCF had held only 7 seats before the election. But when the votes were counted, it was seen that the CCF was the most popular party in 21 of the province's 48 seats.
Thus the CCF would have received 21 seats, the most of any party, if the 1952 election had been held under FPTP rules. Under FPTP, SC would have taken 14 of the remaining seats, the Liberals 9 and the Conservatives 3. Labour candidate Uphill would have taken Fernie, as he in fact did under Alternative Voting. FPTP thus would have produced a CCF minority government.
Most of the leaders in the district fights did win in the end.
But there were seven turn-overs. Importantly, three districts switched from the CCF to SC, giving the SC a slight lead in the number of seats. This produced a Social Credit minority government, determined by having the most seats (nothing to do with the number of votes received).
These turn-overs included the Simalkameen seat and the two seats in Vancouver Burrard.
Transfers from Liberal and Conservative candidates to SC candidates ensured SC's success. This is how Alernative Voting suited the Liberal and Conservative leaders. Even if their own party was not elected government, their voters helped dictate which party would rule. Many Liberal and Conservative voters supported the SC party over the CCF. Thus the election of a SC government suited them better than a CCF victory.
Although there were only seven turn-overs, there was the possibility for many changes. In only five districts did a candidate receive a majority of the vote on the first count:
Atlin CCF
Cariboo SC
Chilliwack SC
South Okanagan SC
Vancouver East B CCF.
In all others, the least-popular candidate(s) was eliminated and the votes transferred based on back-up preferences marked by voters, until one candidate had a majority of the votes.
A sign of the weakness of the Liberal and Conservative parties is that neither of these parties took a majority of the vote in any district.
These five districts saw only one count with no vote transfers conducted, as the candidate with a majority in the district was declared elected on the first count.
In all the other districts, under Alternative Voting, in successive counts, the lowest-ranking candidate was eliminated and votes transferred until one candidate accumulated a majority of the district vote.
In addition to individual Liberal and Conservative candidates receiving no majority in any district, leaders of those parties were unpleasantly surprised to see that their parties -- even when combined -- received the majority of votes in only eight districts (listed above).
As well the supporters of one of the old-coalition parties did not in many cases give their secondary preference to the other party, as the parties' leaders learned to their chagrin.
Most Liberal voters did not give their secondary preferences to Conservative candidates. Many did not have any secondary preferences marked at all. In other cases many instead were marked for the Social Credit candidate. Although the strategy did not pan out to the extent envisioned by Liberal and Conservative leaders, there was some co-operation between the two parties' voters. Lib/Con co-operation was seen in the final vote transfer in several districts.
Vote transfers from the eliminated Liberal candidate gave the Vancouver Point Grey Ballot B seat to a Conservative.
Vote transfers from the eliminated Liberal candidate gave the Vancouver Point Grey Ballot A seat to a Conservative.
Vote transfers from eliminated Conservative and SC candidates gave the Skeena seat and the three Victoria City seats to Liberals.
But, as mentioned already, the Liberal and Conservative leaders must have had some satisfaction from the use of Alternative Voting. Alternative Voting did not ensure that a party of the Liberal or Conservative stripe would form government but did ensure that the Social Credit party would. A Social Credit government was approved by the Liberal and Conservative voters, if not by their leaders. And the Social Credit government, despite its inexperience, was preferred by both old-line party leaders and supporters as preferable to the CCF, which would have formed a minority government under FPTP.
The Liberal and Conservative's strategy had been based on a three-way fight, Liberals and Conservatives versus CCF. The strong showing of the Social Credit party changed the fight into a contest between two pairs of parties, with the Social Credit being the choice of the Liberal and Conservatives if they themselves could not be elected, and also the choice of the CCF, likewise.
These choices were particularly shown when the field of candidates in a district narrowed to only three candidates. In many districts, with the least-popular candidate eliminated, vote transfers could have made a winner out of either front-runner.
In three districts, when the field narrowed to a CCF, a SC and a trailing Liberal, votes transfers from eliminated Liberal candidates went to SC to give that party the seat (Dewdney, Peace River, Similkameen). Similkameen is an extreme case - the CCF was leading until the final count.
The only multi-seat district that had mixed representation was Vancouver Point Grey. This hybrid of AV and multiple members saw the same voters vote in three different ballots. Representation ranged only from Conservatives (two members) to Social Credit (one member). The sole SC winner in that district was in Ballot C, where sitting MLA Tilly Rolston was re-elected. The PC vote in Ballot C was smaller than in the other two ballots, due perhaps to Rolston's continuing appeal to Conservative voters. (Before joining the SC party she had sat as a Conservative MLA.) Due probably to her move to SC, those who voted PC gave their secondary preferences to the Liberal candidate, and not to her. But her allegiance to the SC party was an attraction to some - when CCF votes were transferred they went in large number to Rolston, giving her the seat.
Interestingly, in Ballot B in Vancouver Point Grey, vote transfers from the eliminated CCF candidate went largely to the SC candidate who moved from third to second place, only to lose in last count when vote transfers from the eliminated Liberal candidate went largely to the Conservative candidate. The same happened in the district's Ballot A as well.
=========================================
CCF two majorities on first count, 15 pluralities
SC three majorities on first count, 15 pluralities
All the rest of the districts were pluralities at first count, with no candidate taking a majority of the votes until after vote transfers.
There were seven turn-overs:
2 SC over Liberal (Fort George, Yale) SC victories due to vote transfers from CCF
1 CCF over Liberal (New Westminster). In the second-last count, the Liberal was leading the CCF-er. In the last count SC's 4100 votes went 2000 to CCF, 700 to SC, putting the CCF candidate in the lead and handing him a majority.
3 SC over CCF due to Lib/Cons. vote transfers to the SC candidate (Similkameen, both seats in Vancouver Burrard)
1 Conservative over CCF due to Liberal vote transfers (Nanaimo)
Effects of these turn-overs were:
SC 14 plus 2 (from Lib) + 3 (from CCF) = 19
CCF 21 - 3 (to SC) - 1 to Cons + 1 from Lib = 18
Lib 9 - 2 (to SC) - 1 (to CCF) = 6
Cons. 3 + 1 (from CCF) = 4
Labour 1 with no change = 1
Total 48
==========================
As we saw in Vancouver Point Grey, CCF voters generally gave their second choice to Social Credit, instead of either the Liberal or Conservative parties. Thus it was that Social Credit won in Fort George and Yale, where CCF vote transfers produced SC majorities despite the lead taken by Liberal candidates in the first count.
(Conversely, SC voters gave many of their back-up preferences to the CCF. Vote transfers made after elimination of SC candidates put the CCF into majorities in 11 districts. CCF won two others through first count majorities and five more through transfers from Liberal candidates.)
The Labour Progressive Party (the Communist Party under another name) shared somewhat similar perspective as the CCF. And many of their votes (scant in any event) were transferred to the CCF.
The poor showing of the Liberal and Conservatives, and their lack of unity, meant that the Social Credit benefited from Alternative Voting. But that is not to say this was unfair - in each district the majority was represented by the representative elected. Very few votes were wasted (less than half did not find homes with winners, a much smaller wastage than under FPTP, where in some districts a full 65 percent are wasted).
Aside from districts where one candidate won a majority on the first count, almost all districts saw the field of candidates reduced to two, with one winning a one-on-one majority. Burnaby though saw three candidates at the end when one of them accumulated a majority and ended the process. Having two unsuccessful candidates at the end did not inflate the number of wasted votes as it usually did under FPTP. Instead, same as if there was only one unsuccessful candidate, only a minority of district votes were wasted by not finding a home with the winning candidate.
Nor was the Social Credit victory bizarre. Voters obviously accepted the SC candidates. That party could not have won 19 of the province's 48 seats by majorities if voters had not voted for them. And the Social Credit government would be re-elected in the next election as well. The old-line party leaders may have viewed the result as bizarre but luckily for us, party leaders do not dictate the results of elections.
The 1952 election was not more bizarre than two of Alberta's elections where victory went to an un-tried party. Of that province's five government-changing elections, two were for neophyte parties. The UFA had just one seat before its election victory. The SC had never run before in Alberta before its victory.
The result was bizarre in that the CCF received 31 percent of the vote in the first count to the Social Credit's 27 percent but the Social Credit were elected to government. The CCF's large vote total plus its majority or plurality in 21 seats to the SC's original 14 signalled to many the legitimate right of the CCF to form government. However, as it turned out, in several districts Social Credit, not the CCF, was the more generally acceptable choice. Under Alternative Voting, general acceptability, not mere plurality, was the all-important factor.
AV is not a proportional system but at the district level ensures majoritarian representation.
However BC's 48 small districts did produce disproportionality by themselves. Districts ranged in size. Skeena had just 3635 valid votes; South Okanagan had 11,870 valid votes. Each elected a single member.
This range in size created variation in the number of votes required to win. The Liberal victor in Skeena had just 1865 votes to his name, while the unsuccessful CCF candidate in Similkameen received 3433 votes and the unsuccessful CCF candidate in North Vancouver received 6300 votes.
This unfairness was also seen in the cities. Looking at Victoria City, the Liberals received 35,000 votes in the final count and won all three city seats. The CCF had 26,000 votes in the final count but received no seats. If the city's three seats had been filled through STV, it is likely the CCF would have won at least one city seat. If we look at first count tallies, quota would have been about 18,000. If the three SC candidates had pooled their votes they would have had 25,000 votes while the CCF similarly would have had 18,000.
The invention of separate Alternative Voting ballots in multi-member districts seems a contrived way to avoid adopting a dual system of AV in the rural districts and Single Transferable Voting in the cities. This is all the more surprising as the dual STV/AV system was in full use in Alberta and Manitoba and had been for many years at the time of the 1952 election.
The likely reason for the adoption of the multiple ballot system was to exclude the large CCF minority in the cities from representation as the Liberal and Conservative pooled their vote. This was not very effective in practice as the CCF took both Vancouver East seats and both Vancouver Centre seats. The SC captured both Vancouver Burrard seats. This left the sizable Liberal minorities in those cities with no direct party representation. Liberals would have likely elected one or two seats among these cities if the city seats had been filled through STV.
This may have been balanced by the Liberals taking an undue portion of the Victoria City seats. Liberal candidates were elected in all three of them, with no more than 37 percent of the vote.
STV would have likely provided a surer representation, as well as a more democratic representation, in the cities than was provided by Alternative Voting.
Reports of the 1952 election state that it took a full month to calculate the winners in the 40-plus districts where no candidate took a majority of the vote on the First Count.
This delay seems not to be a sign of corruption but of inefficiency. The 1940 Alberta election held partly with STV and partly with Alternative Voting, had taken no more than a week for enough results to be determined to know that the government had been re-elected but with fewer seats. The Official results were not published until later though, not until more than a month later, about the same length of time as the results took in BC in 1952 apparently. (Bassano Recorder, March 28, 1940)
==================
Miscellaneous notes:
1952 BC election
two SC candidates collected seats where Liberals had been leading, SC received vote transfers from CCF (Fort George, Yale)
CCF won a district by overtaking a Liberal who had lead in the First preference (New Westminster)
in three districts Liberal was eliminated and many vote transfers went to SC to give that party the seat (Dewdney, Peace River, Similkameen)
in 11 districts SC eliminated. Their vote transfers gave seats to CCF, who had been leading from the first count. if they had gone to Liberals, still in the running at the time of their eliminations, the seat would have gone Liberal.
Alberni CCF lead
Comox CCF lead
Cowichan CCF lead
Esquimalt CCF lead
Grand Forks CCF lead
Kaslo CCF lead
Mackenzie CCF lead
Prince Rupert CCF lead
Revelstoke CCF lead
Vanc Centre A CCF lead
Vanc Centre B CCF lead.
As Dennis Pilon described it in The Politics of Voting (2016) (p. 82):
"Though the majority voting system had helped secure their surprise victory, the [SC government] decided they didn’t need majority voting anymore and instead returned to plurality voting."
It seems as per my analysis above, that the AV system did ensure the 1952 SC victory, at least by allowing it to "steal" the election from the CCF, if not from the Liberals or Conservative, neither of which would have been elected under FPTP or AV.
And it seems the SC analysis was correct in that it was re-elected under FPTP in every election until 1972. (Usually, as is the case under FPTP, the SC, being the leading party, took far more than its due share of the seats. In 1956 it took 75 percent of the seats with only 45 percent of the votes!)
These re-elections, even if only with a minority of the votes, were the result of its popularity compared to the other parties, already seen in 1952 when the SC took 200,000 more votes than it had received in the previous election.
----------------------------------
keywords: electoral reform British Columbia Social Credit CCF
===================================
Later discussion of 1952 BC election
Based on how Alternative Voting worked in 30 years in Alberta and Manitoba, it is safe to say that Alternative Voting makes few changes to whom would have been elected under the notoriously-unfair FPTP.
As my detailed list of AB and MN elections (below) shows, AV actually made few changes to whom would be elected under the notoriously-unfair FPTP.
and the BC 1952 election also shows this.
BC 1952
although generally presented as surprising ie. strange result, the 1952 BC election was democratic and the result was based on how votes were cast.
Lib and Cons did badly but not due to AV.
Lib. had majority of votes in no district.
Cons. had majority of votes in no districts.
Lib and Cons together had majority in only eight districts.
Lib/Con co-operation ensured that all eight of these seats were captured by one or other of the two old-line parties. so AV worked in the way they intended - just in far fewer places than they expected.
Despite Liberals blaming AV for their defeat or blaming AV for SC victory, AV had actually little to do with the Liberal/Cons coalition dropping from 39 seats to 10 (combined total for two parties).
There were only seven turn-overs - only 7 places where the leading candidate in the 1st Count did not win in the end. The leading candidate in the 1st Count is whom would have been elected under FPTP.
In recent discussion on the topic, another person made a good point -- up to a point:
"AV was brought in by the post-war alliance of Liberals and Conservatives in British Columbia in the 1950s, under the assumption that most Liberal voters would select the Conservatives as their second choice, and vice-versa, in a plan to marginalize the socialist third-party (the "CCF") that was growing in popularity at the time.
It didn't do that..."
Here's where my analysis differ from the one that person went on to say. It seems to me that the SC victory was not due to what he said "The majority of voters selected the fourth-party, Social Credit, as their second choice. Social Credit was a fringe party, yet won a minority government over being the overwhelmingly most popular second choice."
Instead I would say the SC victory was due to the SC candidates leading in 14 districts and then taking five more seats through AV vote transfers to squeak out a minority government by (barely) taking more seats than the more-popular. CCF.
Want to point out that seats in AV are not decided by who takes majority of second preferences - that features nowhere in actual vote procedure. Like in FPTP, under AV each district is fought for independently. Maybe that person meant the SC won government by receiving more second preferences than any other party and taking more seats that way, then that might be true - certainly they took many second preference ballots where it mattered.
I would say SC did unexpectedly well already on the first count and then when it squeaked out three district victories where CCF had been leading in the first Count (and the CCF lost another seat to a Conservative and the SC took two seats where Liberal had been leading) that sealed up SC's place as the leading party (by seats) and thus gave it minority government.
The AV's "gift" to the SC of what could have been three CCF seats is what put SC past CCF in seat tally, and due to Lib and Cons vote collapse the fight was really between those two parties - the SC and CCF - on who would have government.
That person also queried my statement "Vote transfers can never benefit the least popular candidate who is immediately eliminated,"
He said “Yes, but the least popular candidate under an FPTP ballot, and the least popular candidate under an AV ballot, could be radically different.”
I answer --
Sure, people may vote differently. the least-pop. candidate may be different.
But whoever it is, the least-popular candidate will not benefit under AV because the person will be eliminated before any vote transfers take place and of course after elimination, that person will receive no vote transfers.
The hope that you as candidate, or that your candidate if you are a voter, will get some kind of benefit from AV is only solid if you or your candidate is not the lowest candidate. Perhaps this is so basic that it does not need to be said, but it seems that hope - false in most cases - of surprising success under AV against the odds is probably why more parties run in AV elections, (as recent FVC webinair quoted Alberta PR expert Harold Jansen as saying). This behaviour is done despite the fact that the result is usually the same as under FPTP
A person raised an interesting point that if AV is brought in without referendum in Ontario, as Liberal leader Delduca is promising to do if elected in next election) that would point toward change to real PR without referendum.
However BC did already bring in AV without referendum, and Alberta and Manitoba brought in STV/AV in their day without referendum, so there is already evidence that there be no need for referendum before ER.
As well, AB and MN already proved that we can simply move to (partial) PR, at least, without first going to AV, without referendum.
AV is not necessarlily a retrograde step.
As someone else recently said, AV districts could be part of MMP,
And ranked ballots, as well as being part of AV, are also part of PR-STV - you just need to add multi-member districts.
So I would say (and perhaps you agree), ranked ballots shows good spirit even if not a clear understanding of how it will work in practice.
Oddly enough in the 1952 BC election that we were discussing, BC had both ranked ballots and (some) MM districts - it went out of its way to avoid PR-STV by holding separate elections for each seat in the MM districts.
Multi-member districts are good - essential to district-level PR - if each voter can cast just one vote. But their importance is often overlooked. Many STV explanations talk more about the ranked ballots/preferential voting than the value of single voting in MM districts.
with only Single Member districts (and no top-up) there can be no proportionality - at least no mixed representation where there is direct relationship between each voter and each elected member. (For example, a Liberal elected in one district can give voice to Liberal in a different district but there is no direct relationship).
Ranked voting would be great - if there was multi-seat districts and single voting.
(More controversially, I would say multi-seat districts and single voting is proportional - 86- to 95-percent-strong anyway.)
ranked voting without MM districts is not going to be satisfactory - it is not proportional.
===========================
Perhaps Ontario may go down the dead-end of AV - if they do try it, they will (likely) find that it does not give more rep. to smaller parties and does not produce kinder, gentler politics.
But perhaps due to the present political situation (Liberal leader happens to want it and voters have to make a choice under FPTP of him or Ford) Ontario will have to try it. AV is not good enough or makes things worse - and certainly is a waste of time.
But let's hope its adoption in Ontario is not disastrous for the PR cause.
With will, a following government can add top-up seats and/or MM districts to make PR.
Ontario needs MM districts or top-up. Nothing else will do. Perhaps Ontarioans will look to MM districts if/when they find AV does not give what its proponents promise it will. And I expect AV won't fulfill expectations - at least it never did when it was used in AB or MN or BC.
I feel that Anita (spokesperson for FVC)* is right to oppose it and others are right to find some glimmer of hope in any change. Those are just my feelings, which are obviously mixed.
Tom
========================
* check out my blog on Ontario's dilemma and AV versus PR:
=====================
More notes on 1952 BC election
We can't know if people voted differently than they would have if the election had used FPTP.
The switch to AV might have emboldened SC voters to actually vote SC. This was ironic for the Lib government that had brought it in.
As well, AV might have emboldened those who did not like the Lib/Cons former-coalition government to vote for SC. under FPTP they might have voted CCF for fear of Liberal re-election.
The use of AV might account for the 200,000 vote increase for SC - I don't know.
It seems that SC and CCF largely helped each other through vote transfers;
Conservatives and Liberals mostly helped each other.
Liberals and Conservatives voters preferred SC to CCF but some PC and Liberal votes did go to CCF.
But the SC minority victory appears to be decided by slight lead in three districts through AV vote transfers. (AV is similar to FPTP in this way. Under FPTP, just a small number tip the balance in a few districts. A small percent of the votes makes all the difference - with the almost random - and disproportional - results that that produces).
In Simalkameen seat and the two seats in Vancouver Burrard, the CCF was leading party in the 1st Count but not elected in the end. but less than 1000 votes in these three districts were critical.
In Simalkameen seat CCF ahead of SC by 90 votes in 1st Count.
When Conservative (1401 votes) and the Liberal (2545 votes) were eliminated, 1235 votes went to CCF; 1368 went to SC, with a great many being exhausted. ( in Wikipedia the Simalkameen district's electoral history leaves out the Conservative candidate in this contest) So SC did take more of LIb and Cons vote transfers than CCF but not by much. SC cand. led CCF by 50 votes in the end.
Vancouver Burrard A CCF ahead by 70 in 1st Count; after transfer of 5800 Cons. votes, 6200 Lib votes and other votes, SC had increased by 4000, CCF count increased by 3000. Lots were exhausted. SC won in the end with 650-vote lead.
Vancouver Burrard B CCF ahead by 1400 in 1st Count; after transfer of 5600 Cons. votes, 6400 Lib votes and other votes, SC had increased by 4000, CCF count increased by 2500. Lots were exhausted. SC won in the end with 250-vote lead.
So due to the district contests breaking up the election into separate dogfights, less than 1000 votes changed the outcome in three districts and took three seats from CCF and gave them to SC, giving SC a one-seat lead in seat count over the CCF and making it government.
Those Cons and Lib voters who objected to CCF did derive some benefit from the vote transfers. they were able to say that if their cand could not be elected, at least CCF would not take the seat.
(This does not show up in party-based proportional analysis but is democratic result of using AV.)
====================================
Yes, let's upgrade - what was good enough for our great-grandparents does not have to be good enough for us. FPTP was used in Canada before Canada got electricity, before telephones, before cars, before TVs and computers and cellphones.
It's time our voting caught up to the times --- or to where Europe was a full hundred years ago. Ireland got PR-STV a hundred years ago; Belgium had party-list PR by that time, etc.
================
The Historical record of effect of vote transfers on results
Alberta used AV to fill most of the seats, in prov. elections from 1926 to 1955.
Seat-winners different from FPTP winners (leading candidate in first count)
1926 2 (government lost one and gained one)
1930 (all winners same as under FPTP) (one seat later changed through recount)
1935 (all winners same as under FPTP)
1940 2 (government lost one and gained one)
1944 (all winners same as under FPTP)
1948 (all winners same as under FPTP)
1952 (all winners same as under FPTP)
1955 4 (government lost four)
Manitoba used AV to fill most of the seats in prov. elections from 1927 to 1953.
1927 2 (Government (Progressive party) gained two seats) (one other seat later changed through recount)
1932 1 (turn-over in St,. Boniface - Cons. leading in 1st Count, Labour won in end)
1936 1 (turn-over in St,. Boniface - Lib.-Prog. leading in 1st Count, Labour won in end)
1941 (all winners same as under FPTP)
1945 (all winners same as under FPTP)
1949 (all winners same as under FPTP)
1953 1 (Minnedosa turn-over - Lib-Prog leading in 1st Count, SC won in the end)
1953 BC election
only in five districts did the candidate leading in 1st Count not win in the end.
Turn-overs (where candidate leading in 1st Count did not win in the end)
Lillouet Liberal won
Nanaimo Conservative won
Oak Bay Lib won
Prince Rupert Lib won
Vancouver Point Grey C Lib won
With so few "turn-overs," there is no surprise that the AV vote transfers had little impact on the dis-proportionality produced by FPTP.
=================
Steven,
yes, we can't know how people would have voted under FPTP. According to what you say, the switch to AV might have emboldened SC voters to actually vote SC. This was ironic for the Lib government that had brought it in.
As well, AV might have emboldened those who did not like the Lib/Cons former-coalition government to vote for SC. under FPTP they might have voted CCF for fear of Liberal re-election.
so sure AV might account for the 200,000 vote increase for SC - I don't know.
It seems that SC and CCF largely helped each other, through vote transfers;
Cons and Lib mostly helped each other;
Lib and Cons voters preferred SC to CCF but some PC and Lib votes did go to CCF.
But the SC minority victory appears to be decided by slight lead in three districts through AV vote transfers. (AV is similar to FPTP in this way. Under FPTP, just a small number tip the balance in a few districts. A small percent of the votes makes all the difference - with the almost random - and disproportional - results that that produces).
In Simalkameen seat and the two seats in Vancouver Burrard, the CCF was leading party in the 1st Count but not elected in the end. but less than 1000 votes in these three districts were critical.
In Simalkameen seat CCF ahead of SC by 90 votes in 1st Count.
When Conservative (1401 votes) and the Liberal (2545 votes) were eliminated, 1235 votes went to CCF; 1368 went to SC, with a great many being exhausted. ( in Wikipedia the Simalkameen district's electoral history leaves out the Conservative candidate in this contest) So SC did take more of LIb and Cons vote transfers than CCF but not by much. SC cand. led CCF by 50 votes in the end.
Vancouver Burrard A CCF ahead by 70 in 1st Count; after transfer of 5800 Cons. votes, 6200 Lib votes and other votes, SC had increased by 4000, CCF count increased by 3000. Lots were exhausted. SC won in the end with 650-vote lead.
Vancouver Burrard B CCF ahead by 1400 in 1st Count; after transfer of 5600 Cons. votes, 6400 Lib votes and other votes, SC had increased by 4000, CCF count increased by 2500. Lots were exhausted. SC won in the end with 250-vote lead.
So due to the district contests breaking up the election into separate dogfights, less than 1000 votes changed the outcome in three districts and took three seats from CCF and gave them to SC, giving SC a one-seat lead in seat count over the CCF and making it government.
Those Cons and Lib voters who objected to CCF did derive some benefit from the vote transfers. they were able to say that if their cand could not be elected, at least CCF would not take the seat.
(This does not show up in party-based proportional analysis but is democratic result of using AV.)
====================================
Let's upgrade - what was good enough for our great-grandparents does not have to be good enough for us. FPTP was used in Canada before Canada got electricity, before telephones, before cars, before TVs and computers and cellphones.
It's time our voting caught up to the times --- or to where Europe was a full hundred years ago. Ireland got PR-STV a hundred years ago; Belgium had party-list PR by that time, etc.
==========================
Comments