Summary: magazine article by Joseph Harris (1930) dissected North American cities' use of STV and suggested ways of simplifying it to sell it easier - a new name, a smaller council, Hare quota,
these topic heads are indicated by "Harris:"
Joseph P. Harris
"Practical Workings of proportional representation in the U.S. and Canada"
National Municipal Review, 19 (5) May 1930 (pages 337-383)
(info in this article is also used for the Montopedia article on STV Stats)
In 1930 when Harris wrote this article, a form of proportional representative, Single Transferable Voting (STV), had been used in eight cities in the U.S. in 29 elections, and in 20 Canadian municipalities in about 90 elections. [Yes, 90!]
At that time three Canadian cities had used STV for more than 10 years, two being the substantial cities of Calgary and Winnipeg. The other was West Vancouver (which was that year using it for the last time.)
A fourth place, the Winnipeg suburb of St. James, Manitoba, was also using STV and had used it since 1923.
Harris said that in municipal government the problem facing the U.S. municipality was not that of representing national political parties fairly but rather that of getting rid of such parties altogether and securing a system of representation that will produce satisfactory city councils. This was achievable through STV, as proven by the cities who had adopted it. But STV was not easily adopted, due, Harris said, to un-necessary complications.
The following extracts from Harris's article elaborate on these topics.
(My comments in square brackets.)
Harris wrote:
A council to be satisfactory must be representative, must consist of at least a few outstanding leaders in the life of the city, must maintain at least a fair level of ability among its members.
Even where party is not used, without STV "some large part of the body of citizens is without representation in the city council." (p. 338)
Problems with ward elections (a city is divided into many single-member districts and each voter given one non-transferable vote) [this is the system used today in Edmonton city elections]
- fills our municipal councils with mediocre members, sometimes corrupt
- lowers the prestige of membership in the councils
- creates and fosters a narrow provincialism with petty politics, wirepulling and logrolling in the council
- inadequately represents the various groups in the city.
Problems with at-large elections [Block voting]
(a city is taken as a single district, multiple councillors elected at one time, and each voter given as many votes as the number of positions to be filled) This means Block voting is used.
- places undue premium on those known across city
- discourages candidacy of leaders of minority groups
- candidates must campaign across city at great expense
- each voter may cast as many votes as there are open seats although voters may have little info about more than 3 or 4 candidates.
Ashtabula, Ohio
At the time Harris was writing, Ashtabula, Ohio had had STV longer than any other city.
A review of its practical operation there found no problems.
Invalid ballots had declined to negligible numbers.
Council was of high quality, possibly due to the city manager plan and not STV.
It was noted that like-minded or interest groups played little part in the elections. Acquaintance or neighbourhood associations played larger role. Labour was not stirred to action and Socialists in Ashtabula, as elsewhere at the time, had practically disappeared.
Religion played a large role. In 1917 shortly after STV's adoption, the Guardians of Liberty, an anti-Catholic group, supported four successful candidates, and in 1923 the KKK played a prominent role in the election. But in both elections a Catholic was elected to council, reflecting the other side of the diverse views of the populace.
Ashtabula's move to cancel STV was caused by confluence of bad events. In the 1927 election, there had been the largest number of candidates and the largest turn-out, due to a contentious proposal to sell off the municipal electricity plant. Practice was to name the candidate with the largest votes the president of the council (equivalent to mayor?), but in this case the most-popular candidate had become ill. A contender came forward - a deadlock - resignation, etc. Thus was aroused a considerable resentment against the council, part of which was transferred to the electoral system.
A city newspaper editorialized "it is apparent that the will of the majority is not entirely attained by STV..." It was not stated, and Harris did not choose to explain, how it came about under STV that the majority was not represented.
But certainly it seems there was dissatisfaction with a few of those elected - a bootlegger, "several troublemakers" and one elected by "a small but loyal political club". (As well, the presence of ethnic candidates on council evoked some resentment as discussed below.)
[Under STV the majority takes a majority of the seats. Perhaps the issue is that it is not necessarily always true that the majority of the votes is a single group. If the majority is spread over various candidates then those candidates are elected to a majority of the seats. Together they compose a majority but the majority of the seats are thus filled with people of various small groups of support. Superficially, election by plurality seems to ensure "majority" representation.
The plurality system, on the other hand, always achieves election by a single group or candidate, which, although often not having majority support, does represent the largest single group, and hence colloquially is said to represent the "majority."
There was little way to ensure that a single group had to have a majority of votes to have a majority of seats on council, as Ashtabula, like many cities, did not have municipal political parties.]
Various reforms including cancellation of STV were discussed and put to referendum vote in the 1929 election.
There was little excitement although Italians, Finns and Swedes opposed cancellation of STV as they saw it as "an attempt to prevent them from having representation on council."
But cancellation of STV passed 2639 to 1935.
The vote in the ethnic parts of Ashtabula was strongly pro-STV, while the sections of the city mostly populated by "older American stock" was two to one against STV.
Harris sums up STV's defeat in Ashtabula as being the result of "the lack of tolerance on the part of the older American stock, who were bitterly opposed to several representatives of the foreign-born groups in council and who attributed their presence to the STV election system." (p. 343)
=======================================
Harris provided this useful info on STV in Canada:
[I have tweeked some to correspond with what I know.]
Alberta passed enabling legislation permitting cities to adopt pro-rep in 1916
BC in 1917
Sask and Manitoba in 1920
20 Western Canadian cities had adopted it as of 1930.
[None have adopted STV since 1930, except Saskatoon, which dropped it finally in 1942.]
Three were using it as of 1930, plus three smaller Manitoba municipalities.
13 had dropped it
South Vancouver had used it from 1923 until its amalgamation with Vancouver in 1929. (p. 365)
Most of the Canadian municipalities that adopted STV were small in population.
Only Calgary and Winnipeg, Edmonton, Regina and Vancouver exceeded population of 50,000 at time of adoption of STV.
Those that dropped STV did so due to:
- complexity
- delay in the count
- failure on the part of the citizens to understand the system
- perhaps most importantly, because it was felt that the system did not make any marked difference in the personnel of the council. (p. 366)
- because certain minority groups secured representation to the council - in some cases perhaps due to opposition from politicians who found the system unsuited to their needs. But Harris disputed this saying that the willingness to adopt STV in the first place indicates the absence of machine politics.
Most of the Canadian cities that adopted STV did not have the city manager plan. Only St. James, Manitoba and Lethbridge had the city manager plan. [When Lethbridge adopted STV in 1929, it switched to the city manager plan. Earlier (1913) it had brought in Alternative Voting when it disbanded its city council and switched to the pure city government by commissioners plan.
In the U.S., STV was invariably adopted with the manager plan. STV was seen in many cities as part of the manager plan and not a separate reform. (p. 367)
WORKING OF STV
Effectiveness of the vote [STV produces a large proportion of Effective Votes]
Under STV about 80 percent of the votes are effective - that is, help to elect candidates
Under ward and at-large elections, ordinarily only from 50 to 60 percent are cast for winning candidates and approx. 40 percent are wasted on losing candidates.(Examination of FPTP elections of city councillors in NY revealed that in 23 years an average of only 54 percent of the vote were cast for winning candidates. (p. 369))
[In the last Edmonton city election (2017), of the votes cast for councillor candidates, more were wasted than used to elect winning candidates.]
To be sure, in computing the percent of effective votes under STV, all ballots that help elect some candidate are counted as effective regardless of whether it's the first or some other choice. Many are in fact first preferences, with many being second preferences. The exact amount of effective is concealed in the number of exhausted votes, some of which despite being thought to be disregarded, in fact saw one or more of their choices marked there previously elected.
In the 1919 Ashtabula election, where 83 percent were said to be used to elect the successful candidates, examination of the ballots showed that in fact 86 percent saw their first or second preferences elected and 91 percent saw one of their top three choices elected. [The additional 3 and 8 percent respectively was concealed in the exhausted votes. The preferences directed the votes to the successful candidates after they had already been elected.]
Cincinnati
The election system used in Cincinnati transfers the ballots of the runner-up (the last defeated candidate) after he has been eliminated, which is provided by charter. [London, Ontario did this in some wards, but it seems, did this poorly with all the votes of the runner-up going to the winner, which is unlikely if the transfer was done as indicated by marked preferences set out by voters.]
Milwaukee uses the ward system with a non-partisan primary [I don't know how this works, so don't ask me!] and an election following between the two most-popular candidates in each ward.
Detroit and Dayton use a nonpartisan primary, which limits the number of candidates in the final election to twice the number of seats to be filled. (p. 369)
(In Ashtabula the number of candidates decreased after adoption of STV.)
Harris wrote (p. 341) that the number of candidates in Ashtabula has been about half the number that had run under the previous system, a combination of at-large and ward elections, with the same number of positions to be filled.)
The amount of effective votes under FPTP is very similar to the amount in the first count of STV.
The difference is "the multiplicity of choices and the alternative vote" [AKA minority representation?] That is, the percentage of effective votes may be the same under both systems but in FPTP it is centred on one person, while in STV it is spread over many, reflecting STV's production of mixed representation.
And under STV the percentage of effective votes increases in counts following the first count due to the multiplicity of choices and the transferable votes, while under FPTP there are no subsequent counts in which the percentage of effective votes could increase.
The effective vote in the first count is the percentage of the first count votes that were marked for those who would eventually win in the election, not those placed with candidates elected in the first count itself.
In a sampling of U.S. STV municipal elections held in 1929, the percentage of effective votes in the first count ranged from 40 to 61 percent, with the percentage of effective votes rising not at all or as much as 12 percent as later preferences were revealed following eliminations. (p. 368)
Proportionalists claim rightly that the system results in a maximum percentage of votes being used to help elect some candidate, with a minimum wastage of votes. (p. 370)
STV generally sees about 20 percent more effective votes than under any other system.
Put another way, four out of five voters under STV see their vote used to elect a candidate for whom they have a choice, while under FPTP, with a preliminary primary [however that works], only three voters out of five see their vote help to elect someone.
Under Block Voting, also, only three out of every five votes are effective (the winners receive about 60 percent of the votes), but since each voter casts his ballot for a number of candidates, in all probability a much larger proportion of the voters vote for one or more of the winning candidates.
A large percent of effective votes under STV means
- elections cannot be manipulated
- the persons elected are representative in the sense that their election was desired by the voters
- that majority rule is assured
- that every substantial minority is represented.
Large percentage of ineffective votes under FPTP may means that the council is not truly representative.
A party or some other group of votes may be under represented or not represented at all.
But large number of ineffective votes may not mean that a large group of like-minded voters are necessarily unrepresented. Successive choices decrease in importance.
[I think Harris means here that the distinction between the fourth and fifth ranked choice may not be too important]
Does P.R. secure a more representative council?
Harris writes that many see representation being the creation of a "true sample" or "small map" of the entire population.But he says he believes that "members of city council are not, or should not be, elected primarily to represent a group or section of the city but rather to have charge of the public affairs of the city. They should be voted for because of their ability, experience, and integrity rather than their membership in a particular race, religion, party, group belief or disbelief in prohibition, or their stand on other particular public questions."...
If a true sample of small map of the population is really desired, some ingenious lottery would be vastly superior to any system of popular elections.
But vaguely councils do need to be representative. It is not desirable that council be only filled with mediocre persons generally labelled "politicians," nor that they be filled entirely with businessmen and the city government controlled by the wealthier groups.
Every large section or group of the population should have representatives of their own choosing in the council, and the system of election should enable and encourage each group to elect its real leaders. The practical experience of P.R. shows that it does this more effectively than other methods of representation."
[In short, I think what he is saying is that STV elects representatives chosen by the voters, not necessarily those that reflect or are sampling of the voters themselves.]
Does it increase racial and religious voting?
Proportionalists say STV ameliorates such voting because it guarantees each group a representative, while opponents say STV will deepen that kind of voting. Harris points out that at one time or another voting along those lines is seen in various cities whether they have STV or not.
The composition of city council varies little by religious or racial categories before or after adoption of STV. In some cities race seems to have played little role where the voter has some other good basis for voting.
Racial voting is more extensive in Cleveland than in Cincinnati because of larger percent of foreign born and also because the larger city council in Cleveland - 25 members - facilitates the voting of small racial groups as a block.
But observers say that race and religion have little to do with the action of the members of the council after they are elected and that racial and religious alignments are forgotten.
In Ashtabula, Catholics were unable to elect a single representative in the council in the 10 years prior to adoption of STV adoption but in every election since have elected a member each time.
Does STV elect radicals?
In the first three STV elections in Ashtabula, a socialist was elected but none since.
In the first election in Kalamazoo, three socialists were elected in the first STV election. One was a reputable businessman, and all three were not looked upon as dangerous radicals.
Generally speaking, the middle of the road, rather than the extremist, is elected under STV.
There are no out-and-out radicals in the U.S. STV city councils, except one or two. Dr. Mark Milliken, Hamilton city councillor, is an outspoken liberal and single taxer. Peter Witt, a popular radical, is the only person generally regarded as a radical who has been elected to the councils in Cleveland or Cincinnati.
In several Canadian cities, organized labor has used STV as means of securing representation in council. Much of the opposition to STV in many cities arose from this fact. But in Calgary and Winnipeg the labour and conservative members work together quite harmoniously. [Both these cities kept STV (or Alternative Voting) until the 1970s.]
Are better councilmen elected?
claim put forward that STV improves quality of council as it makes it easy for outstanding citizens who might have difficulty in being elected under the ward or block system to be elected.
"Ability" is as difficult to define as "representative"
But those knowledgeable in such things have said that the quality of the council in Ashtabula was measurably improved after adoption of STV.
Harris wrote:
"STV seems to be a success in Cleveland in part because of reaction from the city hall scandals and in part because of the formation of a Progressive Government Committee to draft capable candidates and to wage a campaign for them....
Calgary has found STV a means of electing to its council the industrial, business, professional and labour leaders of the community. All factions are highly pleased and attribute the high quality of the council to STV. In Winnipeg it has made little difference to the council. Other Canadian cities have abandoned STV because they saw no difference and thought the system was not worth the trouble."
In Calgary and other cities where STV has been success, "there exists a nonpartisan organization dedicated to the task of drafting capable candidates to stand for election and securing their election. Under STV such as organization is assured of representation in council according to its strength. It does not have to go into each ward and select a candidate agreeable to the dominant political group of that particular ward.
It does not have to dicker with the party organization, though it may fuse with them.
It does not have to wage its battle in the partisan primary of any party.
It may pick outstanding citizens to run for council and give them some assurance that they will be elected.
Even a perfect election system cannot elect capable men to the council unless capable men stand for election.
STV prevents the politician from controlling the nominations for public office and opens the way through a nonpartisan organization of citizens, for the outstanding citizen to be brought into the race." (p. 375)
Does STV increase voter turn-out?
Many things other than adoption of STV, may causes increase or decrease.Some cities have shown decrease in turn-out after adoption of STV but this was in line with decreases in turn-out in FPTP state elections at the same time.
STV may excite voters or make them blase, under different circumstances.Where declines occur it could be due to the use of at-large multi-member elections under the city manager plan. The absence of the old-fashioned, mud-slinging ward contests, as well as the absence of dramatic mayoralty fights, tends to reduce turn-out.
A good administration and general satisfaction, such as may be created under STV, are not conducive to heavy voting.
Invalid ballots/spoiled ballots
In some STV elections invalid ballots reached as large an amount as 8 percent. [However some of these were likely ballots where there were back-up preferences marked but directed to candidates already elected. Some perhaps were also ballots where first-prefence candidate was elected and then the ballot was transferrd on or attempted to be.]
Invalid ballots are not major problem under STV. [certainly less of a problem than the 40 to 60 percent usually disregarded under FPTP.]
The number of invalid ballots decline after a few elections, although often it rises in the second or third election after adoption of STV.
Often invalid ballots are caused by the use of X instead of numbers. [Rules do not have to dictate that the use of X is enough to rule a ballot invalid. Rules concerning STV provincial elections in Alberta went back and forth on this.]
Does transfer of votes change the results?
Calgary in the five STV elections from 1924 to 1928 the six or seven most-popular candidates (depending on the number to be elected) in the first count were elected, with no change from vote transfers.
Thus the same result may come from a system of limited voting with every voter being permitted to vote for one candidate only, and the candidate with the most votes being elected.
This questions the necessity for the elaborate count under PR, the expression of numerous choices by the voter and the transferable vote though it is not an argument for the ward or block systems. (p. 377) [The Limited Vote system would retain both the multi-member districts and the single vote used under STV.]
There have been many instances where the front leaders in the first count did not win. One or two moved up from lower ranks many times in STV city elections in the U.S. and in Canada.
And too it should be borne in mind that in such a Limited Vote system the voter may not place his single choice with the same person whom he honours in the STV election. Voters would feel compelled to measure the chances of success of their first choice and might vote for a different candidate believing that their favourite did not need their vote or stood no chance of election. The transferable vote relieves the voter of guessing about the strength of his favourite candidate.
STV failed to find support in many places though
Harris noted that STV has not fared well after adoption in Canada.
By 1930, nine STV referendum had been held in Canadians cities using STV, almost all rejecting STV.
it had been voted out in every city where it was brought to a vote. In Regina and Saskatoon, voters at first had voted to continue STV in the first referendum held after adoption. A later referendum though overturned the result, and forced the end of STV in those two cities as well.
In Calgary and Winnipeg it was never brought to a vote and continued (somewhat intermittently at the end in Calgary's case) to 1971, when it was discontinued without a vote.]
Reason for this negative referendum results - the average voter does not understand the system and resents this.
in the U.S. the voter is told that STV is complicated, mysterious, un-American, socialistic and undemocratic. "The voter who doesn't understand it is apt to be suspicious and unfriendly."
But everywhere councils under STV have been more truly representative of the wishes of the voters. (p. 379)
STV will not revolutionize the political life of a city.
But STV will
- facilitate the election of the real leaders of a city to city council
- works with absolute fairness to the various groups in the election- prevents the manipulation of the election
- guarantee minority representation as well as majority control, and
- most importantly, make it feasible for nonpartisan citizens interested in securing good government to form a civic organization that will draft capable candidates and secure their election.
No method of election can do other than choose from the candidates who stand, and if the candidates are unsatisfactory the council will be unsatisfactory.
in Calgary the Civic Government Association has been formed to make STV (and democracy) a success [as a counterpart to the Labour Party.]
Certain modifications and simplifications proposed
Certain modifications and simplifications might be made to STV without changing the practical operation of transferable votes.
Maybe give up some of the theoretical merits of the system to simplify and popularize it.
Harris suggested use of the Hare QUOTA
Droop quota difficult to explain
fixed quota also complicated [although seemingly simple](see notes below]
The real purpose of the quota is not so much to elect candidates but to fix a number beyond which votes will not be counted for any candidate.
Generally speaking only about half the candidates elected under STV ever reach the quota. So Harris proposes that we use Hare quota (the total valid vote divided by the number of positions to be filled), saying it is easily explained and easily understood and remembered. A change to Hare will rarely if ever make any difference in the results of the election. Fewer candidates will reach the quota but that is unimportant.
[Hare can be simply stated as the total number of voters divided by the number of positions to be filled rounded down.
A quota similar to Droop - smaller than Hare - is derived by votes/seats+1.
The Wikipedia article Droop quota says this is Droop but it is not Droop at all. It perhaps is Britton quota or Britton-Newland quota.
Although it is not Droop, it works just fine as long as there are rules to cope with any problematic tie.
I doubt that there are any elections where there is not one single exhausted vote, This is important because if there is even one exhausted vote, ther is no way that too many candidates can get quota to take seats, even if votes/seats+1 is used as quota.
And even if there are no exhausted votes and "seats plus 1" candidates achieve quota, then just break the tie.
Quota of votes/seats+1 works but it is not Droop. It is only one number different from real Droop so the diff is minuscule, but the formula votes/seats+1 is simpler than Droop -- votes/seats+1, plus 1. so has advantages that Harris awards to Hare but without the size that Hare has.]
Harris suggested simple way to avoid transfer of surplus ballots
The difficult point about the transfer of surplus votes is to show how and why certain ballots are transferred and others are not. A proposed pro-rep charter for Philadelphia simplified the problem by providing that as soon as a candidate receives quota, he or she shall be declared elected and no further votes shall be transferred to him or her. This would give practically identical results as transferring the surplus votes.
The order in which the wards are counted would be determined by lot, allowing the various polling places in each ward to count and tabulate the votes as usual. [Thus randomizing the selection of the "surplus" votes.]
Harris suggested A NEW NAME FOR P.R.
Proportional representation sounds too complicated. Also it emphasizes too much the representation of groups or proportions. It is easy to ask what the proportion is with regard to any particular councilman, and not easy to answer.
Harris put forward the term "choice voting," which is shorter, simpler and truthfully implies that the voter may vote for his true choice for council, without being restricted to the candidates of his own ward.
[Other names that have been proposed for Proportional Representation
One of Australia's most important STV campaigners, Catherine Helen Spence, preferred the term Effective Voting.
One of Canada's old-time STV campaigners, Sir Richard Cartwright, preferred the term Proportionate Representation, as proportional representation seemed to make false promise of exactly proportional results.
I am using STV because that is what people meant in the old British Empire when they said proportional representation. As well, it is shorter than the term "proportional representation".
I have learned that the term Single Voting is also applicable.
Choice Voting was used for STV in 2009 BC referendum.
Another reformer (whose name I forget) preferred the term "the Super-vote" because if placed on a less-popular candidate, the vote does not just die. Instead of being disregarded and thrown in the wastebasket, it uses its "super-power" of being able to be transferred to another preferred candidate.
(This old name is pursued in the 2024 blog The Supervote: Who benefits?)
Votes under STV have other "super-powers" as well. They are able to be placed with any candidate in a large multi-member district - city-wide or other large "grouped district"; able to be placed with the candidate whom the voter truly supports by relying on its power of transferability to get itself out of a hole if placed on the wrong horse, and more.]
Harris suggested INSTRUCTIONS TO THE VOTERS
We need to issue instructions to votes that will serve to reduce the number of invalid votes and to dispel fear that voters may not fill out ballot properly. the method to do so in Calgary is to print on the ballot itself a sample ballot in small type with fictitious names marked with numbers instead of crosses.
The sample marked ballot used in Calgary is written like this:
MARK YOUR BALLOT IN THIS MANNER.
Mark your first choice with a number 1, your second choice with a number 2, and so on. You may vote as many choices as you desire.
DO NOT USE AN X MARK.
DO NOT USE ANY NUMBER TWICE.
The marked ballot should show as many choices as there are positions to be filled. [This is to set the example for the voters to do at least that many choices.]
Harris suggested A SMALL COUNCIL (p. 382)
[as compared to the large councils of 20 to 40 members that some U.S. cities had at that time.]
[Western Canadian cities did not have councils that size. In fact they more often streamlined their city government, with power sometimes even devolving on to the backs of a commission board of only three people.]
Use of districts or wards unsatisfactory
Election of representatives in districts [instead of at-large] under STV has not worked satisfactorily in Cleveland and in Winnipeg. Publicity is not efficient under district STV elections as voters are only interested in the candidate in their own district but much advertising is city-wide.
But use of wards means choice of candidates available to voters is greatly restricted.
Elected councillors regard themselves as representatives of a particular district.
The district system makes it difficult for a civic organization to organize a strong slate of candidates and to secure effective publicity.
Use of large at-large councils unsatisfactory
[some like Cleveland's had more than 24 councillors]
A large council elected at-large through STV has serious defects.
A large council elected using STV facilitates racial and ethnic voting. [Harris, I think, meant no more by this than that voters would vote based on skin colour or ethnicity with no thought to quality of candidate.]
The election of a smaller number of councillors [10-14 councillors] makes racial voting more difficult. Harris said with a small council the candidates must have the backing of more than a single ethnic group and thus cannot be elected with only the support of a single racial or ethnic voting block. (p. 383)
[Thus a small council elected at-large is the sweet spot.
I see that New York switched from electing 63 councilmen under FPTP in 1936, to electing just 23 under STV in 1937]
-------------------------------------------------------------------
STV referendums in Canada (Harris, p. 367)
[By 1930, many STV referendum had been held in Canada on STV. And 20 Canadian municipalities had adopted STV.
Ten municipalities adopted STV through referendum.
Ten other municipalities had been able to, and had, adopted STV without holding a referendum.
By 1930, seven of the "referendum" cities had held votes to discontinue it. Two of them had held two votes on its discontinuance, the first in each place going in favour of its survival. South Vancouver had held a referendum to adopt STV but discontinued STV without referendum when it merged with Vancouver.
This left just Calgary and St. James, Manitoba of the original ten "referendum cities."
All but one of the "non-referendum cities" had also discontinued the use of STV by 1931. Winnipeg becoming the sole place where it was carried on, plus four small Manitoba municipalities.
Thus by 1931 only six places were using STV - Calgary, Winnipeg and St. James, plus St. Vital, St. Boniface and Transcona. They each kept it until 1971, although Calgary used more Alternative Voting than STV for the 11 years after 1960.
St. James dropped STV when it became part of Winnipeg about 1970.
At that time, Winnipeg and Calgary both dropped STV without referendum being conducted.
The STV referendum held prior to 1930 were actually all that would be held on the STV question in Canada at the city level even now in the year 2020.
No city has adopted STV since then, with or without a vote, except Saskatoon 1938-1942.
And no votes have been taken at the city level on the adoption of STV since then. (London, Ontario adopted Alternative Voting in 2016 but no referendum was held. And now the Ontario government has taken away that city's right to use AV.)
ALBERTA STV referendums
Calgary
referendum held in 1916 2840 voted in favour and only 1374 against its adoption.
Edmonton
referendum held in 1922 5664 voted in favour and only 3075 against its adoption.
referendum held in 1927 6695 voted against, and only 5473 in favour of its continuance.
Lethbridge
referendum held in 1928 (on city manager/STV city charter) [no numbers given in Harris]
referendum held in 1929 904 voted against, and only 230 in favour of continuance of STV.
BC STV referendums
South Vancouver
referendum held in 1918 1095 voted in favour and only 390 against its adoption.
1929 annexed by Vancouver
West Vancouver adopted STV in 1917 no referendum
Used for last time in 1930. dropping it without the holding of a referendum.
New Westminster adopted STV in 1917 no referendum
repealed STV in 1919 no referendum
Nelson
adopted STV in 1917 no referendum
repealed STV in 1919 no referendum
Port Coquitlam
adopted STV in 1917 [no numbers available]
repealed STV in 1919 no referendum
Mission City*
adopted STV in 1917 no referendum
repealed STV in 1921 no referendum
[*Harris says Mission City but my other sources say Mission RMD. Mission City was outside the Mission district municipality until 1969, says wikipedia.)
Victoria adopted STV and rejected STV by referendum.
Vancouver adopted STV and rejected STV with no referendum.
Saskatchewan STV referendums
Regina
referendum held in 1920 1414 voted in favour and only 824 against its adoption. referendum held in 1923 2135 voted in favour and only 1954 against its continuance.
referendum held in 1926 1230 voted in favour, and only 781 against its cancellation.
Moose Jaw
referendum held in 1920 2287 voted in favour and only 678 against its adoption. referendum held in 1925 1552 voted against, and only 839 in favour of its continuance.
Saskatoon
referendum held in 1920 1039 voted in favour and only 651 against its adoption. referendum held in 1923 2003 voted against; only 1965 in favour of its cancellation. referendum held in 1926 3014 voted in favour and only 1202 against its cancellation.
North Battleford
referendum held in 1920 315 voted in favour and only 62 against its adoption. referendum held in 1924 324 voted against, and only 218 in favour of its continuance.
Manitoba STV referendums
Winnipeg 1920 no referendum (Harris, p. 367)
St. James
referendum held in 1923 1161 voted in favour and only 511 against its adoption. (Harris, p. 367)
--------------------------
Notes from Joseph P. Harris The Practical Workings of Proportional Representation in the U.S. and Canada (1930)
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015030803426&view=1up&seq=7
A very good and detailed examination of processes of STV
and its variations such as a "fixed quota" as a means of making it simpler to communicate and thus easier to sell (p. 379)
as well, there is city by city chronology and analysis of STV
Cleveland
Boulder p. 360
Hamilton (Ohio) p. 361
Kalamazoo (Ohio) p. 362
Sacramento p. 363
West Hartford p. 363
Calgary p. 365
Winnipeg p. 366
Past Experience Analyzed p. 368
effective votes
Does PR secure a more representative council? p. 371
"the election of capable persons is of far more importance than the election of typical citizens."
Does it increase racial and religious voting?
Does it elect radicals? p. 373
Are better councilmen elected? p. 373
How does PR affect political parties? p. 364
How does PR affect votes cast? p. 364
Invalid ballots
Does the transfer of votes change the results? p. 376
(vote transfers seldom affect results but they are useful back-up measures)
Is PR popular with the voters? p. 378
General Summary and suggested simplifications p. 379
Fixed quota -- as Droop quota is difficult to explain, a fixed quota may be used instead but that means varying numbers are elected.
(I think NY City used fixed quota in city elections but also it used fixed quota to set seat count in each borough.)
Harris: the real purpose of the quota is not to fix a number that must be reached by a candidate to be elected but rather to fix a number beyond which votes will not be counted for a candidate. There are almost always some candidates elected without reaching quota. ...
the effective principle of the quota is to turn back the surplus votes so as to prevent votes being wasted upon a popular candidate.
Even Hare is simpler than Droop.
p. 381
Surplus vote transfers -- instead of mathematical "exact" whole-vote method or the mathematical and complicated fractional Gregory method, a candidate simply stops accepting votes once quota is reached.
===========================================================
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.
Check out my blog "list of Montopedia blogs concerning electoral reform" to find other blogs on this important subject.
-----------------------------------
This year:
*Alberta is celebrating 150 years in Confederation 1870-2020
*100th Anniversary of STV first being used to elect legislators in Canada
Winnipeg MLAs first elected through STV in 1920
==============================================================
Comments