The Edmonton Capital newspaper of Aug. 24, 1914 discussed what system of voting Edmonton would use if the City brought in the Commissioner form of government.
Lethbridge by that point had made that switch - disbanding its city council and having government just by small team of commissioners. The commissioners were elected, not just appointed, and IRV was used to ensure that each commissioner was choice of majority of voters.
In Edmonton's case, in 1914 a discussion was held on how best to elect the mayor --
have the commissioner vote among themselves and for one of their own members to be mayor
the commissioner who had received the most votes as candidate in the last election would be mayor
elect the mayor as popular choice of votes using the Edmonton ballot. The Edmonton ballot had four columns beside the names of the candidates - two were for the commissioner post, one for firts choice and one for second choice. An X in each column was all that was required of the voter. Beside those two columns were two columns for the post of mayor, one column for first choice and one for second choice. These columns allowed voters to mark their first choice for mayor and second choice. The post of Commissioner of Finance, Commissioner of Safety & Health, and Commissioner of Public Works were elected in separate IRV elections. Each post was to be filled in a separate contest, as per the markings in the left-most two columns. The preferences marked in the right-most two columns were used to determine which candidate would have majority support and be mayor. Also discussed was the method that would be used to elect the commissioners and the mayor. The choices discussed were: - the Bucklin voting method where second choices are lumped in with first choices if no one takes majority in first count. The Bucklin form of electing "gives the elector the widest possible range in expressing his preference for the candidatres. The objection raised to this method is that the elector may defeat his first choice by the application of his second or lower preference." The Bucklin ballot add a column for first choice, and voter marked his choice with an X. It also had a column for second choice, and voter marked his second chicoe with an X. (in the Bucklin system adopted in Seattle around 1914, second preferences were valued at half value compared to first preferences. In the Bucklin system adopted in Grand Junction, if no one takes majority in first count, the lowest man is dropped before second prefernces are added into the mix. If still no one is elected, again the lowest man is dropped before adding the third preferences into the mix.) The Bucklin sytem was never used anywhere in Canada that I know of. By 1914 or so, it had proven to be defective in Cleveland city elections and quickly fell out of favour. IRV and STV became the preferred alternative to FPTP. (IRV is described next.) - the Alternative Voting method (Instant-Runoff Voting) where if no one gets majority, the lowest candidate is eliminated and his votes belonging to that candidate transferred to next usable preference. The article described it this way: "another form of preferential ballot, which is patterned after the proportional representation ballot [STV was known as PR in those old days], was inaugurated in the proposed city charter for Seattle and has been suggested by Prof. W.H. Alexander, a member of the city charter committee for Edmonton. Only one column is required and the voter uses numerals to show order of preference of the candidates on offer. The article noted "This ballot gives to the elector the widest opportunity for expressing his preferences in respect to the candidates and is expressed by its simplicity." The article stated "This type of balloting is receiving serious consideration." (It would be used in 1923 when Edmonton did adopt STV for city elections.) The Edmonton Capital article noted that in Lethbridge, each voter is allowed to mark only three preferences. "The low man is dropped in canvassing the results. It is really a two-choice ballot carried to a third column." (First Past the Post was already seen as a defective means of election and was not put forward in the new more-logical system envisioned by the reform-minded city charter committee. In fact, FPTP would not be used to elect city coucnillors any time in Edmonton history until 2010. Mayor yes but not election of city councillors. As it happened, Edmonton did adopt commissioners but never had elected commissioners nor disbanded its city council. Partly because elections continued to be held for the city councillors, the mayor continued to be elected directly by city voters. The mayor was always elected in separate contest visa vis the election of city councillors, unlike the Edmonton ballot described above. A candidate for one post did not concurrently run in the other contest. Usually the mayor was elected by First Past The Post, but in the 1920s when STV was used to elect city councillors, the mayor was elected by IRV.
The "Edmonton Ballot" was never used in an Edmonton election, but is interesting as an alternative way to conduct two contests with the same ballot and to allow candidates to run for both at the same time. ================
Comments