top of page
Tom Monto

Edm. Bulletin called for majority rule 1884, mirrors today's call for Effective Voting

Updated: Dec 30, 2023

In 1884 Great Britain debated extending the franchise in 1884, eventually negotiating a compromise. The Edmonton Bulletin weighed in on how such an extension had to be done for the sake of the strength and stability of Great Britain and the Empire as a whole.


The Edmonton Bulletin editorial sheds light on the need for proper democracy then and now. It has been said for many years that the vote is important, but just as important is having an effective vote.


An effective vote is a vote that makes a difference however small.


An effective vote is only possible in a system where --

most votes make a difference and are not simply thrown in the wastebasket,

where a party with a majority of the votes gets a majority of the seats,

where a party with only a minority of the votes gets only a minority of the seats -

where a party with more votes get more seats than a less-popular party,

all things not provided consistently by FPTP.


The extension of the franchise considered in 1884 was to give votes to those who had not previously had it - still only to men though. Woman suffrage was decades in the future.


The social impact of the 1884 extension could be considered the equivalent of the move to effective votes today, the kind of change that could be created by a change to STV or other form of proportional representation.


The discussion at that early time of the change sheds light on thought patterns of those who oppose such a change today.


And too voices that supported the 1884 change, such as this editorial in the Edmonton Bulletin in those early days, buttresses such change today:


...The upper classes oppose the change as owing to the comparatively small number of electors - the relative few who had previously had the vote - had been able to control to a great extent by sheer numbers the government of the country. The franchise extension would naturally result in them being snowed under at a general election and depriving them of what they considered their inherent right to rule.


[However] there can be no doubt that

an extension of the franchise was necessary

to the safety and welfare of the Empire.


The voting - the governing - power was in the hands of a minority of the people.


As long as that minority possessed a monopoly of the educational and intelligence, it was probably better that they should govern. But with the education and ideas of liberty now so widely diffused, government by minority was no longer possible with safety. The object of good government is to attain the greatest possible good for the greatest number, and who can tell as well as that greatest number what is best for themselves.


Time was when an intelligent, determined and organized minority could effectually quell all attempts of an ignorant and unorganized majority to rule. Such a condition of affairs does not exist in Britain, but if it did, the invention of dynamite - the weapon that places the weak and strong on the same footing - has rendered this no longer safely possible.


Even in Russian Germany where only a minority are striking for their right of self-government, enough has been seen to prove that the work of opposing popular opinion is analogous to that of holding down a safety valve. If the task of ruling a people without the assistance of the majority is so difficult and unsatisfactory in Russia it cannot be expected that in enlightened Britain it would be beneficial or be much longer tolerated.


It was the part of a wise statesman -

To meet the necessity instead of waiting to be met by it.

To grant to the majority the right of rule to which they are entitled before they make their claim and begin to enforce it with wild theories, destructive of society and religion backed up by dynamite.

To show that present forms of government, present conditions of society and present religions are not necessarily antagonistic to popular rights and liberty but rather that by, with, and through these, true liberty can be attained and maintained.


This extension of the franchise - this taking the ruling power out of the hands of a minority and placing it in those of the majority - unless all reasonable calculations are astray - must add to the strength and stability both of Great and Greater Britain.


... [But franchise should be extended only to those who have] "an interest sufficient to be security to his fellow citizens that his own material advantage as well as theirs is at stake when his vote is given.


....In national affairs the man who merely uses the country to make a living in is clearly not entitled to say how its affairs shall be conducted. He is not entitled to a vote unless her holds a share. His intelligence, business ability and integrity are all besides the question.


The point is, what surety [insurance] have the community that self-interest will not direct his vote against their welfare. This point can best be decided - although this decision be only partial - by the franchise being based on a property qualification. [Other reformers put forth that university education, marriage status, having children, having a business are also signs of attachment to a country.]


The greatest objection to the undue extension of the franchise is that in practice it increases rather than lessens the power of the rich and the influential. Instead of being truly democratic, it is really aristocratic in its tendencies [perhaps referring to a right-wing populist movement led by a millionaire].



As a matter of fact in many instances it increases a millionaire's single vote to thousands. In open voting the employees of labour count their votes by the number of their employees and in most cases are nearly correct. While the experiment with the ballot [secret voting] in the U.S. where the political leaders manipulate the vote with such certainty that the party is said to be run as a machine, is if anything worse. For there, if the party leaders are made all right, the people follow like a flock of sheep.


The true democratic idea is that the people, or rather a majority of them, shall rule, but it is not truly democratic and neither is it common sense, to allow every member of a community to take part in administering its affairs until every member is qualified by intelligence and interest to be trusted with that responsibility.


The U.S. is known to be among the worse governed... solid men are swamped at the polls by irresponsible and mercenary millions with whom the franchise is a weapon to wound, not defend, the interests of the commonwealth. [This could be taken as reference to libertarians, or those who see only selfish interests but not the interests of the country as a whole, who don't see the moral imperative of aiding the weak and poor, the old and young, the sick and lame.]


The franchise should be general enough to allow a majority the franchise, provided that the intelligence and interest of that majority qualify them to use it with benefit to themselves but not too general to include those who have no settled interest in the common welfare."

------------


Looking at what was written on that page in 1884, one can see the flip-side of the coin - the majority, since they now have the vote, must be allowed the ability to grow attachment, to grow a connection with the country, an interest in the country's future, the land and its people so that they will naturally vote in accordance with the interests of Canadians present and future.


Full employment, universal basic income, an end to poverty and homelessness should be the goal of a government that wants strength and stability.


If corporations are defended because they provide employment, then let's see some guarantees that they won't just pull up stakes and drift on. Paying taxes at even rate with small business would be a start.


As it is, we know they are in Canada for the profit. They easily fit the definition of "the man who merely uses the country to make a living in", as the 1884 writer set down on paper.


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

The 1884, or 1885 actually, saw the end of most of the multi-member districts that had been source of injustice to some voters in prior times. The MMDs could have been source of fairness and diversity if voting within them had been fair but instead block voting was the method used, which produced the same minorty wins and one-party sweeps of FPTP.

I am referring to the Third Reform Act of 1884-5.

Before 1885 70 percent of MPs sat for multi-member constituencie.

After the passage of this Act, only 8 percent of MPs (56) sat for MMDs....


Later, some MMDs used for election of MPs used STV - a fair voting system. This was to fill University seats, 1918-1950.


Thanks for reading.

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

keyword: electoral reform, Alberta history



















1 view

Recent Posts

See All

Comments


bottom of page