Edmonton city council's pattern of voting parsed, but not revelatory of democratic base

Data shows six councillors form dominant Edmonton City Council voting bloc

Mayor Amarjeet Sohi, along with Couns. Keren Tang, Andrew Knack, Aaron Paquette, Jo-Anne Wright, and Ashley Salvador all voted the same way more than three-quarters of the time and were each on the winning side of those votes more than 84 per cent of the time

Author of the article:

Matthew Black

Published Oct 06, 2023

As the current Edmonton city council approaches its two-year anniversary, an analysis of voting records shows that a group of six council members has emerged as the dominant voting bloc.

Mayor Amarjeet Sohi, along with councillors Keren Tang, Andrew Knack, Jo-Anne Wright, Aaron Paquette and Ashley Salvador all voted the same way more than three-quarters of the time across all pairings, and were each on the winning side of those votes more than 84 per cent of the time.

(so (it seems) they votes as informal block about 3/4ths of the time and when they voted that way they won their point 4/5ths of the time.

Paquette is likely to be progressive being young and Indigenous.

Sohi comes from solid Liberal party background.

Andrew Knack though is busy pushing city dis-investment in property.

so mixed bag perhaps. - maybe like most people they just like winning.]

Postmedia’s analysis draws from figures taken from the city’s open data portal and filtered to remove unanimous votes that make up about 78 per cent of the more than 2,500 city council votes since the start of the council’s term in late October of 2021.

The number of votes varies between some council members due to absences and abstentions.

The dominant coalition is smaller and somewhat different from the group of seven councillors who had been winning the most votes and voting together over council’s first 11 months, according to similar analysis performed last year.

Sohi, Tang, Knack, Paquette, and Wright were all part of the group of seven, as were councillors Tim Cartmell and Sarah Hamilton. But the latter two’s agreement rates with some of the other councillors have fallen over the past 13 months.

The strongest correlation in voting between any two council members was between councillors Salvador and Anne Stevenson, who represent the neighbouring wards Métis and O-day’min respectively, and voted the same way just under 90 per cent of the time.

For a second straight year, the weakest correlation between any two councillors was between Ward papastew Coun. Michael Janz and Ward Ipiihkoohkanipiaohtsi Coun. Jennifer Rice, with the two voting the same way just 28.9 per cent of the time, an increase of nearly three per cent after the first year

Janz voted the same way more than 70 per cent of the time with just five other councillors.

Together with Rice, Ward tastawiyiniwak Coun. Karen Principe had the lowest overall agreement rate with other councillors, though the pair voted together nearly three-quarters of the time

The pair were also on the winning side of votes the least frequently among all councillors, with Rice being the only council member to fail to reach a 50 per cent win rate.

Mayor Sohi had the highest win rate of any council member, at just under 90 per cent, followed closely by Tang, Wright, and Knack, all of whom have win rates of over 85 per cent.

Such figures shed light on voting coalition but are not necessarily an indicator of councillor effectiveness, given some councillors may be reflecting the wishes of their constituents in voting contrary to the majority of council.

[actually a councillor being able to secure a majroy backing for their stance is a sign of effectiveness, not but not necessarily about being reflective of their position, which may or may not be to the ward's interest - not that the voters of a ward actually hold one sentiment anyway. whether the councillor's position is or not is to the satisfaction of most of the ward's votes will only be seen in the next election.]

The data is also reflective of the absence of parties at the local government level, something Alberta’s provincial government is consulting on, but an idea that many municipalities have spoken out against.

[I don't see how data is reflective of the absence of parties

- perhaps the way in which the data had to be gathered was a result of the lack of political parties

- the writer had to compose the councillors into voting blocks by himself, without having any guide by party label. This is said to be a virtue of non-partisan politics -- councillor's can vote any way they want.

but in fact it means it is more difficult to see how wnd with whom they vote, and therefore to see why councillors vote the way they do -

which in fact the writer did not get into at all -

was one block more leftist?

more - or less- pro-development, in favour of community dis-empowerment?

more car traffic? or more pedestrian? more bike? Or more public transit?

we can't know from the article...

if a councillor is onwinning side a lot of the time, that could be bad or it could be good from a community enmpowerment perspective.

just depends which way they vote, which is not discussed at all in the article.]

Speaking at the Alberta Municipalities convention in Edmonton last month, Premier Danielle Smith said she found that typical low voter turnout at elections “a little frustrating” and that party labels could help voters identify the positions of candidates.

Delegates there pushed back at the idea, citing low public support and the desire of most local politicians to remain non-partisan.

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

Here's my take on party labels in city elections

yes, definitely "party labels could help voters identify the positions of candidates."

but still using single-member wards, it will be possible to be elected with only 4026 votes. (Anne Stevenson won with only that many votes in 2021)

4026 is only 1.7 percent of the 236,000 who voted in the election,

and it is an infinitesimal amount of the 600,000 eligible voters, most of whom did not bother to vote.

while under fair voting, we could expect

perhaps 80 percent of eligible voters to vote

and 80 percent of those votes to be used to actually elect someone.

then we would see about 480,000 voting

about 384,000 effective votes

a candidate being elected with about 32,000 votes, or not at all.

Then we would have democracy.

Here's a letter to editor I submitted to Alberta Views in early 2025.

( not yet published if it will be at all)

Regarding the use of party labels in big-city elections, I want to share a small newspaper article from 1902 that in my opinion, describes how the single-winner First Past The Post election system that we use is flawed, how use of party labels will not be an improvement, and how proportional representation instead would improve how we elect city councils.

"The present plan of electing members of Parliament [and MLAs and city councillors] in single-member districts disenfranchises nearly half the voters at every election and gives undue power to party organizations, including a practical monopoly of nominations. It is so erratic in its operation as to sometimes allow a minority of the voters to elect a majority of the representatives. It encourages gerrymandering; it nourishes party hatred."

(the source is Proportional Representation Record March 1902.  "A Sure Ballot Wanted" 

page 18  (online 134/216)

(The Direct legislation record and the proportional representation review))

The adoption of party labels in city elections in Edmonton and Calgary will not by itself produce fairness, But if it does make our democracy deficit worse, it is not the fault of party labels but the fault of the election system we are using. Party labels merely mean that candidates define themselves and voters are able to judge candidates' positions. This should be a good thing, but in FPTP, party labels means that parties have power over nomination and parties by definition will exert some party discipline over councillors' behavior in city hall.

However under a fair proportional system such as STV -- where city councillors are elected at-large (city-wide district) or in multi-member wards, and where each voter has just one transferable vote (STV) -- party labels would both facilitate fair, balanced representation and could be used to measure exactly how proportional our city elections would then be. 

STV in Edmonton and Calgary at-large would allow any candidate to be elected if he or she could collect about 7 percent of the votes cast. Thus, party control would be weakened under STV. 

Party labels are now objectionable only because under FPTP they will be no improvement and are expected to make parties powerful and harm democratic accountability.

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