Tom Monto

May 18, 202313 min read

Don't forget Block Voting but do note it is not PR

Updated: Nov 15, 2023

People often forget to mentoin the Blockj Votoing eleciton system.

They say ther are three or sometimes four sytems

FPTP

Instant-runoff Votoing

List PR

and STV

But leave out Block Voting which was used commonly in many places over many yers and is still used in such places as Mauritius today.

Block voting is like FPTP in that the most popular candidates are elected and X voting is used.

It is like PR and STV in that multi-member districts are used.

Despite the promise for PR and balanced representation offered by the use of MMDs, Block Voting is like FPTP in that the seats usually are filled by candidates who were elected by only a minority of the voters in the district.

Here I examine the theoretical implcations of use of Block Voting and then present the results of Block Voting elections in history first in Alberta, then in Mauritius.

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

in recent email to a friend, I wrote the following,:

Don't feel bad about forgetting that Block Voting was used,

and for seeing the historical electoral system choice in Canada as binary --

as either X voting in FPTP or ranked voting in multi-member districts (STV).

Many otherwise learned discussions of politics do not discuss Block Voting (multiple X voting in multi-member districts (MMD)) at all, even though it is common way to vote (more on this in footnote)

Block Voting does not give proportional results and does not ensure majority representation any more than FPTP.

BV is particularly disappointing as it uses multi-member districts

and with simple addition of single voting (restriction of voter to just one vote) could easily produce rough proportionality

with addition of ranked voting, it could produce very proportional results.

as simple as that.

when/if we get PR, people will ask what was the big fuss - it is so simple and good.

People will still have problems - sickness and death, broken families. broken hearts, road accidents, etc. will still occur

But at least we won't have to worry about un-representative government and

regional disparities - the west versus the East, Edmonton versus Calgary, etc.

rural (as will be pretended in the upcoming Alberta election in two weeks) - will not be thought to be of one party sentiment. Regionalism is artificially produced under our present system. Seats won are very unbalanced but votes as cast are much more consistent from place to place than the seats won.

A large proportion of votes in each district will be used to elect someone -

voting will be important.

But so much will still need to be done to address frustrated human aspiration, and serve basic needs of all, and protect this world we call Earth.

Representative government is an important first step to addressing much of this. And PR is the only route to truly representative government.

Multi-member districts (or some kind of pooling of votes in a multi-member setting) are an important first step to PR

but it is not enough -- you need single voting.

BV allows the largest party (which often is not majority of people) to take all the seats.

As well, under Block Voting when parties run multiple candidates, you cannot actually measure how many voters vote for each party. Looking at the most popular party, which often receives more votes than there are voters who vote, every voter might give one vote for a party candidate or perhaps it is just a third or so of them who give all their votes for the party's candidates. You just can't tell. (But under single voting - FPTP or STV - you can know how many voters vote for each party.)

Some indication of a party's support can be taken by looking at the most-popular candidate of that party. if that person got a vote from 38 percent of votes (and of course all the other party candidates each get votes from fewer voters, likely sub-parts of the larger tally), then it is likely true that that party was only supported by 38 percent of voters. Any assumption of wider support is not proven at all at all.

As well with each voter casting as many votes as seats to fill, what wold be a trickle of votes becomes a flood as each voter casts perhaps three or five or more votes when one is sufficient.

So Block Votiing produces minority winners in many cases. and is flawed by the murkiness of mutlple voting and by the extra counting involved.

as well, as years go by under Block Voting voters learn to plump so their lesser preference are not used against their higher ones.

Kathleen L. Barber (PR and Election Reform in Ohio) points out concerning Hamilton Ohio's Block Voting system where seven seats were to be filled (at-large), that voters started out by casting votes for six candidates and "over time this number [did] decline [perhaps because] voters experienced defeat of a more preferred candidate by a less valued one for whom they had also voted.

With bare electoral data it is impossible to distinguish between lower knowledge or interest and strategic voting as an explanation" for the decrease in the number of candidates marked by voters."

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

Next I compare results under Block Voting in Edmonton in 1921 with STV in Edmonton 1926-1955 and with FPTP in Edmonton after 1956. and toiuch on use of IRV in distrcits outside Calgary and Edmonton.

Liberal government brought in BV in Edmonton and Calgary in 1921 (see my booklet or blogs for how this was attempt to seem to be doing the electoral reform that many were calling for, without producing PR.)

BV allows largest party (which often is not majority of people) to take all the seats.

We see this in Edmonton in 1921 prov. election when Liberal took all five seats with about a third of votes cast (total vote tallies of the five Lib candidates.

There is no way to know if this Liberal grand total was (approx.) one vote from each voter who then gave their other votes to others, or just all five votes from each of about 34 percent of the city voters.

BV's multiple voting skews the party proportionality -

the Lib candidates in Edmonton actually received more votes than there were voters who voted in the city. (this is detailed in analysis in the Wikpedia "1921 Alberta election" article.)

The UFA won majority of seats elsewhere (this was under FPTP so they might have won with plurality or majority but often the local UFA candidate actually had majority of votes cast in the district.)

Farmers were very loyal to their new party, the political wing of an organization that had been going since 1909, with an immense following in Alberta countryside

(The UFA also received support from members electred under labels of other parties. Liberal MLA McClung (1921-1926) voted in favouir of some UFA measures, as often did the Labour MLAs who were elected during this period. Labour candidates did have some luck under FPTP in 1921. 4 or five were elected outside Edmonton and Calgary in 1921, and then under Alternative Voting from 1926-1935, with one Labour man being consistently elected in Edmonton after adoption of STV there in 1924.

in their 1921 election campaign, the UFA promised "PR through grouped constituencies", Proportional Representation in multi-member districts, which at time and that place meant STV)

And after the UFA's election they made the change but only in cities.

STV outside cities meant the resulting district size made by grouping rural districts was thought to be an un-solvable problem.

(although STV can produce local representation -- any corner of the district if it has quota will elect a member.

just as any group with support spread across district will elect a member if it has quota.

But PR (STV) in cities did mean that most (80 percent or more) votes in cities were used to elect someone,

No one party could take all the seats as had happened under BV

But I don't see the UFA's adoption of STV in the cities as a selfish manoeuvre -

some say the UFA did PR in cities to split up opposition, but the non-farmer parties could have joined together if they wanted. (The business people who supported the Liberal and Conservative parties did have common ground)

Anyway the non-farmer parties were guaranteed their fair number of seats in the city, which the UFA did not have to grant at all.

and the UFA could have won a full slate across the province if they were greedy for seats.

Under STV, Labour got a seat in 1926 which had not happened previously any time in Edmonton history. (From 1905 to 1982 the only time Labour, CCF or NDP got a seat in Edmonton was under STV, never under FPTP or Block Voting.) Conservatives and Libs also got their due share of seats and the UFA took one seat in Edmonton. The UFA might have taken more Edmonton seats but only ever ran one candidate in Edmonton.

Elsewhere the UFA brought in ranked votes (so voters across province used consistent voting method - an important thing for public education).

IRV (also known as Alternative Voting) ensured that each member had the support of majority of votes in the district- fair to that extent. but no overall or district proportionality

The result in 1926 was again majority government for UFA

but in each rural district the UFA MLA had majority support (not just plurality but majority support, even if votes had to be transferred to achieve that)

As well, UFA got one seat in Edmonton where farmers (on the edge of the city) and other pro-farmer sentiment ensured support for UFA from a minority. (The UFA candidate was actually the most-popular candidate in the city! But this was in part due to him being the only candidate in the district for the party.)

Labour also got a seat which had not happened any time in Edmonton history,

Due to STV's single voting, the actual voter support could be measured in way that was impossible under previous Block Voting.

STV in cities ensured most votes in the city were used to actually elect someone - no way the result is not proportional if that happens.

UFA government had troubles

Depression hit. UFA like most governments could not solve the widespread unempoyment,

Alberrta also suffered drought

Anti-banker Social Credit thought pervaded province. The UFA saw unconstitutionality of anti-bank reforms

Calgary principal Aberhart did not see this as problem and to some degree proved that his was correct interpretation of the power relationship. (after 1935 Alberta had its own money for a time, and has had a chain of government-owned banks ever since the 1930s.)

1935 prov. election

UFA lost every seat in 1935 under Social Credit juggernaut, UFA had run just one candidate in STV areas (1 in Edm 0 in Calg) and in Edm, farmer sentiment went (mostly) to SC, not UFA so UFA did not get qouota and did not get a seat.

elsewhere SC took on mantle of farmer populism/anti-capitalism/anti-banker previously held by UFA government, which had had ill luck to be in government during Depression.

SC candidate took many rural seats all with majority support and its fair due in the cities, so can't hardly complain about the result on democratic grounds - except that the UFA with 11 percent of the vote took no seats when it was due about 7 province-wide

UFA seems to have dropped out of sight politically after that but actually simply rolled itself into the CCF. Even by 1935 it was a part of the CCF, a forerunner of NDP, for good or ill - CCF's clear call for end to capitalism perhaps did the UFA no favours.

1955 Alberta election

SC got about 70 percent of seat with 45 percent of voters based on First preferences - more careful analysis would look at votes as actually used to elect members, not just first preferences.

the SC government saw that they were getting their fair share of seat in Edm and Calgary and wanted more

1959

they dropped STV in cities and dropped IRV outside the cities

and got 95 percent of seat with 55 percent of votes. or something like that

STV had been used only for 13 seats out of 61 so 20 percent of seats - not an insignificant amount but not a full-blown STV experience.

(but with Manitoba, Alberta had the most in-depth use of PR anywhere in North America even to this day.)

But results in 1959 were night and day

SC took every seat in Edm and all but one seat in Calgary

with the votes cast not that much different from the 1955 election where STV had given the SC about half the seats in the two cities.

STV was not dropped on the grounds that it did not work but on grounds that it did, although not stated that way

stated grounds were spoiled votes of perhaps 10 percent

even though under FPTP, which replaced STV/IRV, often more than half the votes are wasted, same effect as being declared spoiled.

still waste but now it was about half instead of about 10 percent.

anyway, government was responsible for some of the spoilage of votes by changing rules of what was acceptable as valid vote

==========

footnote:

Block Voting often overlooked but common way to vote

- used in all city/town/village elections in Alberta except Edmonton, Calgary and Ft. McMurray (everyone except those three uses single-member wards to elect their city councillors)

- used in every Alberta prov. election from 1909 to 1955

(1917 BV was used just in the army portion to elect two members -

election of a nurse and an army officer hints at the balance possible under MMD even using BV )

- used in the 11 federal ridings where two members were elected, when federal elections used MM ridings (almost every election prior to 1968).

- used in provincial elections in every province when that province used multi-member districts

(except where STV or FPTP "post" contests or IRV "post" contests or Limited voting were used)

Every province and territory (except Nunavut) has used MMDs at one or another in their histories. One province elected all their members in MMDs all through their history until 1990s.

city election note:

the mayoral elections are always single-winner so FPTP or IRV is only choice and

ranked voting has not been used in any government election since 1971 except for London Ontario city election in 2018 where city councillors were elected with IRV (Instant-runoff Voting (IRV)

(IRV is a single-winner version of STV)

ranked voting is necessary for STV or IRV.

IRV does not produce proportionality any more than FPTP does.

if it does, it is on overall basis where dis-proportionality in different places is balanced producing overall proportionality based on party vote tallies/shares.

actually IRV produces same winners as FPTP would, in most cases - if votes are cast the same way.

waste of votes

FPTP wastes lots of votes. in some districts as much as 82 percent of votes are wasted.

IRV wastes no more than half of votes (or no more than half of votes still in play in the last round of vote counting)

STV wastes only about 20 percent or so of votes cast.

but with most of the voters (90 percent or so) seeing someone elected whom they marked as a preference

and almost always (90 or 95 percent of the time) a voter likes at least one elected member because he or she belongs to a party they support (or a similar party), whether or not the voter's vote was used to elect the member.

============ about ranked votes some say ranked voting (STV or IRV) means that you are represented by your second choice But I say IRV or STV means you may be represented by your first choice (who is someone else's secondary choice ) or you may be represented by someone else's first preference who is also your secondary choice. (or both.) This is no worse than FPTP when you may be represented by your first choice but often you are "represented" by someone's else first choice who may not be even your secondary choice. in the later case, you are not represented at all except through a polite fiction. ==========================

Montopedia

What is, was and could be

Don't forget Block Voting but do note it is not PR

Recent Posts

Comments