top of page
Tom Monto

1955 Alberta election - Despite Alternative Voting, many but not all won with majority of votes cast

Updated: Jun 28, 2021

Alberta used proportional representation (STV) and Alternative Voting in the 1955 provincial election. Although there was concern at the time about the number of rejected votes, comparison to the recent Alberta election shows that rejected votes still exist and under FPTP the fairness of our elections are much less than it was in 1955.


The goal of Alternative Voting (AKA ranked-choice voting) is to guarantee representation of the majority. Under Alternative Voting, to be elected you must receive a majority of votes. But due to some votes being rejected and to others being exhausted, sometimes the successful candidate merely had a majority of votes still in play, less than a majority of votes cast, and sometimes less than a majority of valid votes.


But still the proportion of votes that went to successful candidate was larger than the proportion that go to successful candidates under FPTP, where 40 to 65 percent of the votes in most districts are wasted.


And in many cases the successful candidate did receive the majority of votes cast. A thing that happens rarely under First Past The Post.


The goal of STV is that most of the votes will be used to elect someone preferred by the voter, even if unable to elect his or her first preference, and that all substantial groups in a city will elect at least one representative. Under STV, to be elected a candidate had to receive a quota based on the number of valid votes, or merely to survive until the field of candidates thinned to where there were only as many candidates as the number of remaining seats to be filled.

But unfortunately, same as in Alberta AV election contests, many votes were rejected, thus affecting the representative-ness of the elections.


In Calgary 2000 votes were rejected, out of 65,000 votes cast.

In Edmonton 6000 votes were rejected, out of 83,000 votes cast.


But under STV, the proportion of votes that went to successful candidate was around 80 or 90 percent, a much greater proportion than go to the successful candidates under FPTP. Under FPTP, 40 to 65 percent of the votes cast in most of the districts are wasted.


The successful candidates in Edmonton received 66,104 votes out of 83,000 votes cast and out of 76,544 valid votes. Of votes cast, Edmonton winners received 80 percent; of valid votes, they received 86 percent.


(in the 2019 election, successful candidates in Edmonton received only 214,000 out of 407,000 valid votes in Edmonton districts, 53 percent, barely more than half. 193,000 votes cast in Edmonton were wasted, were not used to elect anyone.)


The successful candidates in Calgary in 1955 received 52,000 votes, out of 65,000 votes cast and out of 63,000 valid votes. Of votes cast, Calgary winners received 80 percent; of valid votes, they received 83 percent.


(in the 2019 election, successful candidates in Calgary received only 302,000 out of 555,000 valid votes in Calgary districts, 54 percent, barely more than half. 253,000 votes cast in Calgary were wasted, were not used to elect anyone.)


June 29, 1955 election

Alberta elected 61 MLAs in the June 29, 1955 election.

Seven were elected through STV in Edmonton.

Six were elected through STV in Calgary.

48 were elected through Alternative Voting in 48 single-member districts.


The 1955 Election district by district

(Words in bold indicate districts where no one took a majority of votes.)


Acadia-Coronation Turn-over

three candidates no candidate received majority on first count

4863 votes cast 298 ballots rejected

4565 valid votes

Turn-over (due to vote transfers)

SC leading on first count and elected on Second Count. after elimination of CCF candidate, SC vote count went up by 100, Liberal vote count went up by 200.

Winner received 2263, not a majority of valid votes, not a majority of votes cast.


Alexandra

four candidates The SC candidate received majority on first count

4513 votes cast 259 ballots rejected

4254 valid votes

Winner received 2143, a majority of valid votes, not a majority of votes cast.


Athabasca three candidates TURN-OVER

no candidate received majority on first count

4725 votes cast 290 ballots rejected

4435 valid votes

SC leading on first count but Liberal elected on Second Count due to receiving many votes after elimination of LPP candidate

Winner received 2145, not a majority of valid votes, not a majority of votes cast


Banff-Cochrane two candidates "Coalition" candidate received majority on first count

4561 votes cast 293 ballots rejected

Winner received 2342, a majority of votes cast.


Bonnyville three candidates SC candidate received majority on first count

4513 votes cast 259 ballots rejected

4369 valid votes

Winner received 2250, a majority of valid votes, a majority of votes cast.


Bow Valley-Empress two candidates SC candidate received majority on first count

4753 votes cast 384 ballots rejected

Winner received 2569, a majority of votes cast.


Bruce four candidates no candidate received majority on first count

4832 votes cast 261 ballots rejected

4571 valid votes majority is 2286

SC leading on first count and elected on 3rd Count. SC vote count went up by barely a hundred while Liberal improved by 500 after elimination of Conservative and CCF candidates.

Winner received 2105, not a majority of valid votes, not a majority of votes cast


Calgary

64,660 votes cast

2166 votes rejected (PAA 1971.138, #49)

62,494 valid votes Quota (Droop): 8928

23 candidates: 7 SC, 6 Liberal, 4 Cons., 4 CCF, 1 Ind., 1 LPP

Elected: 3 SC, 2 Liberal, 1 Conservative

These winners received 51,769 votes

Exhausted votes at the end: 3107

2107 other votes were not used to elect anyone.

Women elected: Rose Wilkinson (SC) elected


Camrose

four candidates no candidate received majority on first count

6349 votes cast 285 ballots rejected

6064 valid votes majority: 3033

SC leading on first count and elected on 3rd Count. SC vote count went up by barely 200 while Liberal improved by 500 after elimination of Conservative and CCF candidates.

Winner received 3081, a majority of valid votes.

Winner did not receive a majority of votes cast


Cardston

two candidates SC candidate received majority on first count

2879 votes cast 81 ballots rejected

Winner received 1813, a majority of votes cast


Clover Bar

four candidates no candidate received majority on first count

5155 votes cast 298 ballots rejected

4857 valid votes majority: 2429

SC leading on first count and elected on 3rd Count. SC vote count went up by barely 200 while Liberal improved by 500 after elimination of Conservative and CCF candidates.

Winner received majority of valid votes

Winner received 2505, a majority of valid votes but not quite a majority of votes cast


Cypress

two candidates SC candidate received majority on first count

4040 votes cast 167 ballots rejected

3873 valid votes majority: 1937

Winner received 2668, a majority of votes cast and a majority of votes cast.


Didsbury

two candidates SC candidate received majority on first count

5079 votes cast 239 ballots rejected

4840 valid votes majority: 2421

Winner received 2601, a majority of votes cast


Drumheller

three candidates SC candidate received majority on first count

4437 votes cast 35 ballots rejected

4402 valid votes

Winner received 3224, a majority of votes cast


Edmonton

82,792 votes cast

6248 votes rejected (PAA 1971.138, #49)

76,544 valid votes Quota (Droop): 9568

30 candidates: 7 SC, 7 Liberal, 7 Cons., 7 CCF, 1 Ind., 1 LPP

Elected: 3 SC, 3 Liberal, 1 Conservative

These winners received 66,104 votes.

Exhausted votes at the end and other votes not used to elect anyone: about 10,000

Women elected: none


Edson

three candidates SC candidate received majority on first count

5312 votes cast 445 ballots rejected

Winner received 2529, a majority of valid votes

Winner received 2529, a majority of valid votes but not quite a majority of votes cast


Gleichen two candidates SC candidate received majority on first count

3898 votes cast 202 ballots rejected

Winner received 1912, a majority of valid votes

Winner received 1912, a majority of valid votes but not quite a majority of votes cast


Grande Prairie

four candidates SC candidate received majority on first count

6118 votes cast 482 ballots rejected

Winner received 3240, a majority of votes cast


Grouard

three candidates no candidate received majority on first count

6255 votes cast 510 ballots rejected

5745 valid votes majority: 2873

Liberal leading on first count and elected on 2nd Count. both SC vote count and SC vote count went up by barely 100 after elimination of CCF candidate.

Winner received 3026, a majority of valid votes

Winner received 3026, not a majority of votes cast


Hand Hills

three candidates SC candidate received majority on first count

4893 votes cast 260 ballots rejected

4633 valid votes majority: 2317

SC candidate received 2685, a majority of votes cast.


Lac La Biche

two candidates Liberal candidate received majority on first count

3897 votes cast 98 ballots rejected

3799 valid votes majority: 1900

Winner received 1931, a majority of valid votes, but not a majority of votes cast


Lacombe

three candidates SC candidate received majority on first count

4774 votes cast 338 ballots rejected

4436 valid votes

Winner received 2255, a majority of valid votes, not a majority of votes cast


Lac Ste. Anne Turn-over

three candidates no candidate received majority on first count

7052 votes cast 377 ballots rejected

6675 valid votes

Turn-over due to vote transfers

SC leading on first count but Liberal elected on Second Count due to receiving many votes after elimination of CFF candidate

Winner received 2592, not a majority of votes cast


Leduc

five candidates no candidate received majority on first count

5137 votes cast 345 ballots rejected

4792 valid votes

Exhausted votes at the end: 866

Winner received 2035, not a majority of valid votes, not a majority of votes cast


Lethbridge

four candidates one candidate received majority on first count

9940 votes cast 418 ballots rejected

9522 valid votes

Winner received 4788, a majority of valid votes, not a majority of votes cast


Little Bow

three candidates a candidate received majority on first count

4607 votes cast 257 ballots rejected

4350 valid votes

Winner received 2481, a majority of votes cast.


Macleod

two candidates SC candidate received majority on first count

5263 votes cast 280 ballots rejected

4983 valid votes

Winner received 3037, a majority of votes cast.


Medicine Hat

three candidates a candidate received majority on first count

7960 votes cast 436 ballots rejected

7533 valid votes

Winner received 5066, a majority of valid votes but not a majority of votes cast.


Okotoks-High River

two candidates Liberal-Conservative candidate received majority on first count

5267 votes cast 384 ballots rejected

5089 valid votes

Winner received 2607, a majority of valid votes but not a majority of votes cast.


Olds

two candidates SC candidate received majority on first count

5610 votes cast 211 ballots rejected

5399 valid votes

Winner received 3161, a majority of votes cast.


Peace River

three candidates a candidate received majority on first count

6908 votes cast 488 ballots rejected

6420 valid votes

Winner received 3456, a majority of valid votes and a majority of votes cast.


Pembina

three candidates a candidate received majority on first count

5622 votes cast 465 ballots rejected

5157 valid votes

Winner received 2609, a majority of valid votes but not a majority of votes cast


Pincher Creek-Crowsnest

three candidates a candidate received majority on first count

4844 votes cast 288 ballots rejected

4556 valid votes

Winner received 2799, a majority of votes cast.


Ponoka

five candidates no candidate received majority on first count

4904 votes cast 315 ballots rejected

4589 valid votes

Exhausted votes at the end: 101

Winner received 2320, a majority of valid votes but not a majority of votes cast.


Red Deer

three candidates no candidate received majority on first count

9637 votes cast 449 ballots rejected

9188 valid votes

Exhausted votes at the end: 116

Winner received 4786, a majority of valid votes but not a majority of votes cast


Redwater

four candidates no candidate received majority on first count

4675 votes cast 343 ballots rejected

4332 valid votes

Exhausted votes at the end: 379

Winner received 2214, a majority of valid votes but not a majority of votes cast



Rocky Mountain

three candidates a candidate received majority on first count

4653 votes cast 207 ballots rejected

4446 valid votes

Winner received 2829, a majority of votes cast.


Sedgewick

three candidates a candidate received majority on first count

4895 votes cast 214 ballots rejected

4681 valid votes

Winner received 2748, a majority of votes cast.


Spirit River

three candidates a candidate received majority on first count

4957 votes cast 332 ballots rejected

4625 valid votes

Winner received 2369, a majority of valid votes but not a majority of votes cast


St. Albert

five candidates no candidate received majority on first count

6231 votes cast 299 ballots rejected

5932 valid votes

This was the only district where the vote count procedure took four counts.

Winner received 3029, a majority of valid votes, but not a majority of votes cast.



St. Paul

three candidates a candidate received majority on first count

5513 votes cast 288 ballots rejected

5225 valid votes

Winner received 2761 votes, a majority of votes cast


Stettler

three candidates a candidate received majority on first count

5393 votes cast 252 ballots rejected

5141 valid votes

Winner received 2892 votes, a majority of votes cast


Stony Plain

three candidates a candidate received majority on first count

5838 votes cast 427 ballots rejected

5411 valid votes

Winner received 2865, a majority of votes cast and valid votes


Taber

three candidates a candidate received majority on first count

4807 votes cast 238 ballots rejected

4569 valid votes (majority is 2285)

Winner received 2788, a majority of votes cast.


Vegreville

three candidates no candidate received majority on first count

5242 votes cast 276 ballots rejected

4966 valid votes

Exhausted votes at the end: 395

Winner received 2374, not a majority of valid votes, not a majority of votes cast


Vermilion Turn-over

four candidates no candidate received majority on first count

5047 votes cast 310 ballots rejected

4737 valid votes

Exhausted votes at the end: 495

Turn-over due to vote transfers

SC leading on first count but Liberal elected on Third Count due to receiving many votes after elimination of LPP and CCF candidates.

Winner received 2131, not a majority of valid votes, not a majority of votes cast



Wainwright

four candidates a candidate received majority on first count

5242 votes cast 276 ballots rejected

4966 valid votes

Winner received 2657, a majority of valid votes, a majority of votes cast


Warner

two candidates SC candidate received majority on first count

3238 votes cast ballots rejected

Winner received 1917, a majority of votes cast.


Wetaskiwin

four candidates no candidate received majority on first count

5880 votes cast 399 ballots rejected

5481 valid votes

Exhausted votes at the end: 52

Winner received 2756, a majority of valid votes but not a majority of votes cast


Willingdon

three candidates a candidate received majority on first count

4268 votes cast 203 ballots rejected

4063 valid votes

Winner received 2108, not a majority of valid votes, not a majority of votes cast


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

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


Break-down of the district by district results

winner declared in first count,

a candidate secured majority of votes cast in first count 23 (Banff)


winner declared in first count,

no candidate secured a majority of votes cast

a candidate secured majority of valid votes in first count 9 (Alexandra)


winner declared after vote transfers,

no candidate secured a majority of votes cast,

but a candidate received majority of valid votes 10 (Camrose)


winner declared after vote transfers,

no candidate secured a majority of votes cast or of valid votes 6 (Acadia-Coronation)

Total 48

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

42 majority winners produced by Alternative Voting

As the "break-down" shows, as intended under Alternative Voting almost all of the Alberta MLAs elected using Alternative Voting were elected with what could be called a majority of votes. 42 of Alberta's 48 single-member district MLAs were elected with a majority of valid votes, just a hundred or so votes short of a majority of of votes cast in each district.


In 23 districts this happened on the First Count. These 23, just short of half of the possible 48, had outright majority of votes cast in their districts.


Due to a number of votes being declared rejected, it happened that some MLAs were declared elected without achieving this benchmark but only by receiving a majority of votes left after removal of the rejected votes. This happened in the case of 19 MLAs, some on the first Count; others in later counts after vote transfers.


Alternative Voting thus ensured that 42 seats of a possible 48 were taken by candidates who did have the support of at least a majority of valid votes in the district where they ran.


In 23 districts, no votes were exhausted because the successful candidate was elected on the first count: Banff, Bow Valley-Empress, Cardston, Cypress, Didsbury, Drumheller, Grande Prairie, Hand Hills, Little Bow, Macleod, Medicine Hat, Olds, Peace River, Pincher Creek, Rocky Mountain House, Sedgewick, Spirit River, Stettler, Stony Plain, St. Paul, Taber, Wainwright and Warner. The winner in these cases took a majority of votes cast.


In nine other districts, a candidate was also declared elected on the first count. But in these cases the successful candidate received a majority of valid votes on the first count, the votes remaining after removal of the rejected votes.


These MLAs did not receive a majority of votes cast, due in part to the number of votes that were rejected. (No votes were exhausted because the successful candidate was elected on the first count in these cases, but the level of voter support achieved was less than half of votes cast.) These nine districts were: Alexandra, Bonnyville, Edson, Gleichen, Lac La Biche, Lacombe, Lethbridge, Okotoks and Pembina.


In other cases, no winner was declared on the first count, candidates were eliminated, and vote transfers were conducted before a candidate was declared elected. Some votes were rejected and some votes were declared exhausted, but still in ten of these 16 cases a candidate received a majority of valid votes.


In ten of these a candidate received a majority of valid votes, the votes remaining after the removal of any rejected votes. In most of these, the field of candidate had thinned to only two by the end, but in two cases (Ponoka and Wetaskiwin) there were three candidates still standing when the successful candidate had assembled enough votes to be declared elected.


In nine of these cases, no winner was declared on the first count and some votes were rejected and some votes were declared exhausted, but still a candidate received a majority of valid votes on a second or third count.


After vote transfers a candidate accumulated a majority of valid votes, through a combination of first choice and back-up preferences on ballots originally cast for other candidate(s). These vote transfers were conducted when no candidate won a majority on the first count and candidate(s) were eliminated.


This happened in 9 districts:

Camrose, Clover Bar, Grouard, Lac Ste. Anne, Ponoka, Red Deer, Redwater, Wetaskiwin and Willingdon.

But the total of votes that candidate received was not half of the votes cast. The difference was caused by the number of rejected votes.


In one other district, it took four counts to determine a winner, for a candidate to accumulate a majority of the valid votes. This was in St. Albert, where three candidates had to be eliminated before one of the two remaining candidates took a majority of the valid votes. The three eliminated candidates had received a scant 600 votes, so the three transfers involved relatively few votes. And the transfers did not change the order of the other two candidates. The leader in the first count won in the end, making the extra work seem un-necessary.


Alternative Voting thus gave proof that in 42 of Alberta's 48 single-member districts, the seat was taken by a candidate who did have the support of a majority of valid votes in the district where they ran. These 42 candidates received more than half of the amount of votes remaining after rejected votes had been removed. Only in 23 of these districts did the successful candidate receive more than half the votes cast. The difference was caused by the number of rejected votes.


Six districts with no majority winners

In Alberta in 1955 in sixteen districts no candidate took a majority of votes in the first count. In a small number of these, even after vote transfers held as part of the Alternative Voting process no candidate secured a majority of votes. In six of these districts, even after vote transfers no candidate took a majority of valid votes, falling short of that mark by no more than two or three hundred votes. In these districts, the successful candidate was declared elected when the field of candidates was thinned to only one candidate (or was set to be in the very next count, through certain elimination of the least-popular candidate). In these districts, the MLAs were elected by the votes of less than half of the valid votes.


In these cases, the number of votes still in play was reduced by the votes that were rejected and by the number of exhausted votes, votes where voters did not rank all the candidates, could not be transferred where necessary and were declared exhausted. These votes became exhausted during vote transfers conducted after no candidate won a majority on the first count and elimination(s) had to be held.


The six districts where the successful candidate was elected with vote totals just shy of a majority of valid votes were Acadia-Coronation, Athabasca, Bruce, Leduc, Vegreville and Vermilion.


Rejected votes

As explained earlier, the difference between the number of votes cast and the number of valid votes is the number of votes that are rejected. In 1955, rejected votes were considered a problem. In fact the presence of rejected votes was soon to be used as justification for the abandonment of STV and its replacement by First Past The Post.


But it is saddening to note that in the last Alberta election (2019), many districts had a goodly number of rejected votes, even under FPTP.

Drumheller-Stettler suffered 62 rejected votes, compared to 35 in Drumheller in 1955

Camrose suffered 122 rejected votes, compared to 285 in 1955.

Calgary districts suffered more than 3500 rejected votes in 2019, compared to 2166 in 1955.


So to avoid a hundred or two rejected votes in each district, if even that many were avoided with the end of preferential voting, we have brought in a system where in about a third of the districts the successful candidate is elected with less than a majority of votes cast, perhaps as few as 35 percent of the vote.


Whereas under Alternative Voting, 23 of the MLAs were elected with proven support of a majority of votes cast, another 19 MLAs were proven to have received the support of a majority of valid votes, and only six winners were elected with less than a majority of valid votes in the district.


While under FPTP, there is no such guarantee of majority representation, and 20 MLAs, almost a quarter of the province's MLAs, were elected with less than half the valid votes in their districts.

In the 2019 Alberta election, NDP candidates in Edmonton-Castle Downs, Edmonton-Decore, Edmonton-McClung, Edmonton-West Henday, Edmonton-Meadows, Edmonton-South, Edmonton-Whitemud, St. Albert, Calgary-Buffalo, Calgary-Mountain View and

Lethbridge-West won with less than half the valid votes.


UCP candidates in Edmonton-South West, Sherwood Park and in seven Calgary districts (Currie, Elbow, Klein, Varsity, East, Falconridge and North East) won with less than half the valid votes.


Thus in 20 of the 87 districts, the successful candidate did not have proven support of a majority of voters, sometimes as little as 44 percent of valid votes.


And this was an election where in many cases a good portion of the voters did not bother to vote, seeing the result as pretty much pre-ordained. Voter turn-out seems to have ranged from 50 to 72 percent with 68 percent being the overall provincial figure.


In 1955 the voter turn-out ranged from 56 to 81 percent, with 68 percent then as well being the overall provincial figure.


And voter inequity also was created in 2019 when such candidates as Rachel Notley received more than 70 percent of the vote, more than twice all the other candidates put together, but her extra votes could not be used to assist other candidates of her party elsewhere.


The Alternative Voting system did not allow votes to be transferred outside a district so waste of votes then too was caused by surplus votes going to a certain candidate. Vote transfers under STV do allow one candidate's surplus votes to go to another candidate to aid them to be elected as well.


In 1955 STV was used to elect the MLAs in Edmonton and in Calgary.

In Edmonton the seven successful candidates received 66,104 out of the 83,000 votes cast in the city; in Calgary the six successful candidates received 52,000 out of 65,000 votes cast. This is a much larger proportion than we see under FPTP.


Much fewer votes were wasted in 1955 than are wasted today under FPTP.


When Alberta used STV and AV, a much larger portion of the voters used to have their votes used effectively to elect someone than see that today under FPTP.


Despite the fairness, the government was most annoyed in 1955 when in four districts a Social Credit candidate, although leading in the first count, was not able to get a majority of the votes and a Liberal candidate was elected instead. (These districts are marked with the word turn-over above.)


These AV-caused turn-overs help bulk up the ranks of the Opposition MLAs in the Legislature after the election - and inspired Manning's SC government to force a change to FPTP. The change gave an immediate benefit to the government. In the next election, SC took all the Edmonton seats, up from the three it had won in 1955. And the number of opposition MLAs in the Legislature plummeted from 24 in 1955 to only four.


And the change to First past the post did not result in saving expense. Quite the opposite, the 1959 election cost more than the 1955 election. The cost went up from $458,000 to $580,000.

Four more MLAs were added but about half of the added expense came from the creation of new districts in cities.

5 Edmonton-prefix, 3 Strathcona-prefix districts, and Jasper-West were used in 1959 where a single district of Edmonton had been used in 1955.

In 1955 the expense for the single district had been $91,000; in 1959 Edmonton elections cost more $27,000 more.

7 Calgary districts were used where a single Calgary district had been used in 1955.

In 1955 the expense for the single district had been $69,000; in 1959 Calgary elections cost $96,000.

so the switch from STV to the simpler but less-fair FPTP system did not actually save Albertan taxpayers any money in the cities.

Oddly the change from Alternative Voting to FPTP in the districts outside the cities also apparently caused more cost. The election cost in each district increased by about $2000 between 1955 and 1959.


So less fairness and no significant saving in cost leaves only stark political party greed as a rationale for Alberta's switch from STV/AV to FPTP.


Thanks for reading.

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





















7 views

Recent Posts

See All

Early Labour culture

Clarissa Mackie "Elizabeth's Pride A Labor Day story"    Bellevue Times Dec. 5, 1913

Comments


bottom of page