The 2019 Alberta election was held using First Past The Post system.
This awarded each seat to the candidate in the district who earned the most votes, whether he or she received a majority of the votes or not.
In some districts a majority of the votes were ignored and the seat was awarded to a candidate who received only a minority of the votes. Crazy!
In others the successful candidate received as much as 60 percent of the vote, but still leaving as many as one-third of the voters ignored. Still crazy!
I have not totalled up the the number of votes that each winning candidate received and compared it to the total vote to get the number of votes that were totally ignored.
But we can rest assured that it is about half the vote.
A similar statistic taken from the 2015 election results gives an idea of the magnitude of wasted votes under this FPTP system:
In the 18 Edmonton districts where the NDP was elected, 60,000 Conservative votes were ignored. The NDP received 210,000 votes, about 75 percent of the vote and these 18 seats. The UCP got no seats here.
And in Calgary it is the same but in reverse,
in Calgary the NDP took 34 percent of the vote but only 3 seats out of 26 (12 percent). Calgarian NDP-ers were due about 9 seats.
In other words,
at least 22 percent of the vote in Calgary was ignored. Roughly 90,000 NDP votes were wasted.*
In Edmonton the Conservatives took 34 percent of the vote and only one seat out of 20 (5 percent). 29 percent of the vote was wasted.
Outside these two main cities, the NDP received 20 to 25 percent of the vote but only 2 seats out of 41 (5 percent). Fifteen percent of the voters at a minimum were disregarded.
This sort of un-balance thus produced mass wastage of votes.
Voter turn-out was 68 percent. This was a high. In the previous election only 57 percent had voted. But still a lot of votes had not been cast - a lot of sentiment not judged, alot of people not represented. But can we expect people to be excited about participating in a system that wastes a third or half the votes that are cast?
Isn't it about time that we adopted a system where the elected representatives proved their right to be elected by receiving support from a large majority of the voters who cast votes and one where 80 to 90 percent of eligible voters are willing to participate?
Representation is sharper under the Single Transferable Voting system, and turn-out often does rise under the system.
* 137,929 total of NDP votes in Calgary times .65 (22/34 = 65 percent)
=============================
Thanks for reading.
Check out my blog "List of Montopedia blogs concerning electoral reform" to find other blogs on this important subject.
As well, please consider purchasing my booklet "When Canada Had Effective Voting" STV in Western Canada 1917-1971. 68-page overview of Canada's PR experience in the last century - the fight for proportional representation, the adoption of STV by 20 cities and two provincial governments in the 1920s, and STV's final use in a government election, in the 1971 Calgary city election.
Available through AbeBooks.com or email me at montotom@yahoo.ca
---------------------------------------------------------------
This year is the:
* 100th Anniversary of United Farmers of Alberta party being elected on promise to bring in electoral reform, a promise fulfilled three years later.
* 50th anniversary of the last STV city election in Canada. Calgary elected 14 city councillors through STV, and then switched to FPTP for city elections. By that time, more than 54 years after the first STV city election, anyone old enough to have voted using X voting in a city election would have had to be 75 years old.
* 50th Anniversary of election of Lougheed's Progressive-Conservatives. With only 46 percent of the vote they took more than 60 percent of the seats. NDP received 11 percent of the vote but elected just one (Grant Notley), instead of the nine MLAs it was due.
====================================================
What is STV?
From a 1902 reform magazine:
"Thinking it well to have in every number something by way of a brief explanation of proportional voting, I repeat in this number the following. Proportional representation means the use of a reasonable and scientific system of voting instead of the present stupid, unfair and inefficient procedure. Methods: There are several systems by which the principle of proportional representation may be given effect to. Large electoral districts, each electing several members, are a necessary feature. The "quota" plan is usually employed. It means that a quota of the votes elects one representative.
To arrive at the quota, the number of valid votes cast is divided by the number of seats to be filled. For instance in a seven-member district any one-seventh of the voters could elect one representative and the other six-sevenths could not interfere with their choice.
The three principal systems of proportional representation are the Free List as used in Switzerland and Belgium [party-list pro-rep], the Hare system as used in Tasmania [STV], and the Gove System as advocated in Massachusetts. The Preferential Vote [Alternative Voting/Instant Run-off Voting] -- This is used in the election of single officers such as a mayor. It is not strictly a form of pro-rep but is akin thereto, and uses part of the same voting methods.
The object of preferential voting is to encourage the free nomination of candidates and to obtain always a clear majority at one balloting, no matter how many candidates are nominated."
(From the Proportional Representation Review Dec. 1902, p. 77) (Hathi Trust online resource, page 81/180)
Thanks for reading.
========================================================
Comments