But do give it credit for fair representation...
Many voice fears that proportional representation will cause an increase in the number of political parties causing chaos and constant minority governments.
Some forms of proportional representation might do that but Single Transferable Voting does not necessarily do that.
It certainly did not do that during its use to elect MLAs in Edmonton and Calgary from the 1920s to the 1950s.
Now if we are talking about a multitude of parties getting fair representation and thus depriving any one party of a majority of the seats, (which i guess we are basically), then STV is guilty.
The representation of each city in each election, being mixed, would have meant that no party took a majority of the seats of Edmonton and Calgary had been the entirety of the province.
However various measures can be brought in to make sure that the most popular party does have a majority of seats apart from the mixed representation - giving extra seats to the most popular party for example or using transferable votes at the party level, where to form government a party must have support of a majority of the voters achieved through transferable votes working the same ways as STV at the district level.
Few new parties emerged during Alberta's STV period and those that did reflected broader developments than the effects of STV.
Going into the STV period, in 1921 three parties ran candidates in Calgary -- Liberals, Conservatives, Labour. Independents (and a single Labour Socialist (soon to be Communist)) also ran.
In Edmonton Liberals, Conservatives, Labour and a single UFA candidate ran with all the seats taken by Liberals under Block Voting.
In 1926 three parties ran candidates in Calgary -- Liberals, Conservatives, Labour.
In Edmonton Liberals, Conservatives, Labour and a single UFA candidate ran with each electing at least one MLA under STV.
In Edmonton Liberals, Conservatives, Labour and a single UFA candidate ran with all four parties electing at least one MLA under STV.
The number of parties stayed the same in the 1930 election - the Communist Party was in existence but its activists chose not to run after being recently kicked out of the Labour Party.
Each of the three parties in Calgary and the four in Edmonton, under STV, elected MLAs.)
Before the next election, there was one new party in each city -- Alberta's Social Credit party was created in 1935 (after two years of active grassroots organizing, politicking and propagandizing by William Aberhart and many others). (This party would be elected in 1935,, to become the first Social Credit government in the world.) Its election could in no way be blamed on STV as it was not like it used STV to gain a small foothold in the Legislature then gradually through increased exposure and media coverage got its message out and then came into power. NO - this was the first election it ran in. It went from zero seats to majority government in just one day.
By 1940 two new parties were running candidates in Edmonton and Calgary:
the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation party (a coalition of the old Labour and the old UFA)
and
a coalition of Conservatives and Liberals opposing the Social Credit (and the CCF of course) - the Unity League, running under the Independent label.
With the Liberals and Conservatives labels gone and the Labour and UFA labels gone the number of parties decreased to only three.
Under STV both SC and the anti-SC Unity League won representation in Calgary and in Edmonton. The CCF was shut out in both cities in this pro- and anti-SC fight.
By 1944 the Communist Party, by then illegal and operating under the label Labour Progressive, were added. The same wartime atmosphere that had made them illegal also spawned the Veteran and Armed Forces party, which ran one candidate in Edmonton. The pro- and anti-SC fight loosened after the passing of Aberhart and the CCF elected one MLA in each city. (The LPP were shut out in each city.)
In Calgary three parties were elected -- anti-SC Independents, SC and CCF.
In Edmonton a fourth party was added to the usual three parties elected (SC, anti-SC Unity League , CCF) with the election of the V. and A.F. candidate. This range again represented the multitude of sentiment among voters. A real Independent, WWII fighter ace Johnnie Caine, led the first count but did not have enough overall popularity to take a seat- this shows that although there is a wider range represented under STV, not just anybody can be elected -- there is still screening done. And with STV it is more scientific than under FPTP.
In 1948 again in Calgary four parties ran candidates (SC, anti-ind, CCF, LPP) with three being elected (all but LPP).
In Edmonton the old anti-SC Unity League "Independents" coalition ended. it carried on as a Conservative vehicle under the name Independent Citizens' Association (its one candidate: J. Percy Page) while the Liberals took to the field under their own name. J. Percy Page, fourth in the first count, did not have overall support and he did not find a seat. Edmonton seats went in the end to SC, Liberal and CCF.
in 1952 the anti-SC coalition was finished as well in Calgary. SC, Liberals, Conservatives ("Progressive-Conservatives"), CCF, LPP (Communists) ran in that city. Three parties took seats - SC, Liberals and a Conservative.
In Edmonton also five parties ran candidates - there were no independent candidates -- it had become common knowledge that STV does not favour the outliers. Four parties shared Edmonton's seven seats - SC, Liberal, Conservative and CCF.
1955 (the last general election under STV) the parties running were the same as had been the case since the collapse of the anti-SC coalition -- SC, Liberal, Conservatives, CCF, and LPP (Communist). One Independent ran in Calgary and in Edmonton, hoping for a miracle apparently. The SC government was put under stress with the emergence of a strong Liberal contention for power -- the CCF again were denied even one seat in either city in this Liberal versus SC fight, with each city only pushing Liberal, SC and Conservative MLAs over the goal line.
Although STV did not manufacture a multitude of splinter and oddball parties during its use in Alberta, it did provide fair representation that was split among three to five parties in each city in each election. Although fairer this did make elections messier - There was not much mess - unfairness for sure but not much mess - about the 1959 general election, the first held without STV, when all but one seat in Edmonton and Calgary went to the SC government.
So those who want a pretty much guaranteed majority government -- even if the majority of voters do not support the government so named and even if they do not want to use innovative mechanisms to see that a majority government should reflect the will of the majority of the voters -- were happy with the 1959 result.
It was not messy - it was also not democratic.
Since that election, despite using First past the post, the number of parties has increased. For example, in the 2019 election using FPTP, 11 candidates ran for the sole seat in Edmonton Strathcona, all but one of them running under the label of a registered party.
STV aside, the number of parties have been growing (in fits and starts) since 1910s, as Canada's economy, society and politics has become more sophisticated. New parties have emerged since then - the NDP (carrying on the old CCF/ UFA/Labour fight) and the Greens. But Alberta's FPTP system has not changed since 1959.
The federal FPTP system, in use federally for the last 150 years since the 1860s, has been unmodified during all that time.
You could say we are still using a pre-telephone electoral system now in the computer age.
Comments