Proportional Representation Review, published 1893-1932
Many of the issues of the 1893-1924 period are available online.
The Proportional Representation Review chronicled the advances and defeats of PR movement in the U.S., Canada and Europe in that period.
By 1893, there had already been decades of disappointing FPTP elections. Canadian MP Richard Cartwright had spoken of it in the HofC and PR and majority rule groups had been formed in many places.
Even experiments had been done using alternative systems but not yet quite "proper" PR (as I see it anyway).
Toronto MLAs were elected through Limited Voting in 1886 and 1890, and Cumulative Voting and Bucklin Voting were used prior to first use of "proper" PR in North America in 1913.
Chicago adopted Cumulative Voting in 1871. continued to be used until 1970ish
PR first used in North America in 1913 in Ashtabula (Ohio). This was STV-PR.
Cleveland adopted STV around 1917 - having almost 800,000 population, it was largest city to use any form of PR in those early days.
first Canadian city -- Calgary -- got STV in 1917.
18 more Canadian cities got STV in next five years after that.
Alberta and Manitoba got STV and used it to elect 10 or 12 of their MLAs in early 1920s.
(This was largest experience of PR in Canada and U.S. to elect legislators ever.)
Many cities dropped STV by 1924.
These changes are chronicled and analyzed in the pages of Proportional Representation Review.
Other advances and defeats were not chronicled in the available pages of the Proportional Representation Review:
Lethbridge belatedly adopted STV in 1928.
Saskatoon had it off and on, from 1920 to 1925, then 1938 until 1942.
Winnipeg used STV to elect its councillors and MLAs from 1920 to 1953 and for its councillors but not MLAs until late 1960s.
Calgary used STV to elect its councillors (starting in 1917) and MLAs (starting in 1924) and used it without break to 1956 for MLAs, and for its councillors but not MLAs until 1961, three odd times in middle1960s, and then again for all seats in 1971 as a one-off election.
Edmonton used STV to elect its councillors (starting in 1923) and MLAs (starting in 1924) and used it without break to 1956 for MLAs, and for its councillors just until 1927.
Edmonton's rejection of STV for city elections was reported in the pages of Proportional Representation Review.
The rejection resulted from
underlying desire of Business for more seats (although the right-wing initially took a hit after the return to non-proportional Block Voting),
from an official's foul-up with his application of a city charter clause guaranteeing seats for the southside (Old Strathcona) in the 1926 election,
and from STV producing a supposed large number of spoiled votes.
A big reason for dropping STV was the way the elections were analyzed. Spoiled votes were recorded and widely reported on, but the number of votes that are not used to elect anyone under FPTP were not recorded or reported on -- and still aren't.
Thus the fact that STV elections in Edmonton were hampered by perhaps 6 percent spoiled votes while spoiled votes had been less under FPTP was much ballyhooed, while it was not commonly noticed that under Block Voting usually less than half of votes cast, sometimes less than a third of votes cast, elect someone, while under STV, 80 to 90 percent of valid votes were actually used to elect someone.
(This un-balanced reporting, which not coincidentally serves the purposes of the powers that be, is still seen today. The dis-proportional misrepresentation of FPTP is overlooked or actively swept under the rug, while the pretend terrors of PR are inflated and shone a spotlight on.)
The adoption of STV and its successful use in these cities is described in the pages of the Proportional Representation Review of the time. And the early defeats for STV as well.
(in 1937 after PR Review ended publication as far as I know, New York adopted a free and easy form of STV. Having 7.5M populaiton, this was largest city in North America to use PR.
====================================
コメント