Edmonton City elections used STV from 1923 to 1927.
Single Transferable Voting, a voter-driven candidate-based form of proportional representation, was used in Edmonton city elections in the 1920s. In each election it produced a mixed crop of aldermen, consisting of Independents and candidates belonging to both major parties, that reflected voters' sentiments. As well, Alternative Voting was used for single-winner elections such as the mayoral contest.
Edmonton elections from 1923 to 1927 used STV for multiple-winner elections -- councillors and school board trustees, all elected at large. Thus in most of the city elections during these five years, there were three separate STV elections -- one for the councillors, one for the public school board and one for the separate school board.
Complicating the STV election of councillors, the Strathcona-Edmonton amalgamation agreement ensured that at least two seats on council would be held by southsiders. There was no separate ward, no separate votes, but the two most popular of the southside candidates would be elected as a minimum, and possibly more - "irrespective of whether the votes received by the southside candidates are as large as some of their opponents or not", as the Edmonton Bulletin phrased it it in 1923. Southside candidates identified themselves in advance of the election. The City Clerk did not properly understand how the clause affected the transferable votes of the overlooked northside candidates, as we see in the second-last STV election ever held in Edmonton.
Most of the leaders in the first count of the aldermanic votes went on to be elected. Vote transfers usually changed few of the leading candidates. But that does not mean the results were unfair. Just the casting of single votes in multi-member district, as done in the initial count, put a mixed roughly-proportional group of candidates in the leading position in the first count.
But there were usually one or two candidates that rose up from just slightly below the front-runners to take a seat. (Winners' names are in bold in the first count lists below to show this effect.)
The Edmonton Bulletin noted in 1923 that in past STV elections in Calgary, where STV had been in use for six elections, it was seen that no candidates switched places unless there were less than 150 votes between candidates in the First Count.
The mixed representation commonly associated with STV was seen in each Edmonton STV election. At least two Labour and two business candidates were elected each time, with each party's fortunes above that reflecting the party's popularity among city voters, and the odd Independent candidate also finding success under the system.
The business community was represented by the Civic Government Association (AKA the Citizens' League). It had been prominent in the campaign to adopt STV. It expected that with STV it would elect four councillors each election, enough to have majority control of council. To do this, CGA always ran one or two less candidates than a full slate. This careful concentrating of votes meant that in 1923, 1924, 1925 and 1926 all its candidates were elected. Only in 1927 did one of its candidates not win a seat. This perhaps was a portent of the Labour advance that would happen, ironically, after STV was replaced by Block Voting in 1928.
The number of valid votes varies from mayoralty, councillor and school board elections. Some voters did not vote for both mayor and councillor candidates. No voter could vote in both the public school board and separate school board elections. In two of the elections there was no separate school board election as the seats were not contested. (Perhaps after one person put their name in, there might have been one person wanting to compete but did not sign up, feeling that it was not worth causing an election across the whole city.)
====================================================
1923 Edmonton city election Dec. 10, 1923
Eligible Voters: 22,077
Ballots Cast: 13,016
Voter Turnout: 59 percent
Mayoralty election
As only two candidates ran, there was no need for voters to mark back-up preferences.
Blatchford, Ken 8,314
Ramsey, James 4,421
Election of councillors
Six are to be elected. Elected at-large (whole city as single district)
Proportional Representation achieved through STV
The first five elected were elected to two-year terms, the last to only a one-year term.
Two seats had to be filled by southside candidates, and would be given two-year terms. (the five southside candidates if they received enough votes could all be elected but at least two of them were assured election.)
Under STV, each voter cast only a single vote in the aldermanic election (although there were six being elected).
voter marked first preference and back-up preferences if he or she wanted to.
Votes were transferred if found to be un-needed due to recipient being elected with surplus or recipient eliminated due to being least-popular candidate (if there were still open seats to be filled).
(bold = elected. ss = southside)
13,016 votes cast
Valid votes 11,857
About 1200 spoiled ballots but it was reported that indications were that they did not affect result of election - the spoiled ballots were fairly evenly spread across richer and poorer sections of the city. But it was noted that many of the spoiled ballots were merely left blank, say when a vote voted for mayor and council but not school board.
Other mistakes were not using number 1, or writing number 1 next to several candidates, or leaving a number out, say writing 1 and 2 and 4 and 5, or, due to this being the first election where voters had to switch from writing X to writing numbers, some were declared spoiled because the voter had marked an X.
Six to be elected 14 candidates
Quota: 1694
First count results
East, James Labour 3,054
Bury, A.U.G. 1,993
Rea, William 1,150
Douglas, James M. ss 928
Ducey, Thomas J. 789
Findlay, James Labour 707
Rendall, Archie 703
Duggan, Joseph J. ss 563
McKenzie, John James ss 420
Saunders, Mrs. Esther 380 (only woman running in this election for any position)
(second woman ever to run for council)
McBride, James Boyd 317
Putland, A.K. ss 312
Pallot, Herbert J. Labour 308
Lakeman, Jan Labour ss 265
(Pallot and Lakeman were Communist Party members active in the Labour Party.) (Monto P&P, p. 99)
Esther's husband B.J. Saunders (along with others) nominated Thomas Ducey. Ducey and others nominated Rendall.
Esther Saunders was nominated by several women and a few men.
East and Bury elected on first count
Findlay elected on second count (assisted by receiving vote transfers of East's surplus votes)
Rea achieved quota on the 10th count to take a seat. This left only two seats empty (and only six candidates still in the running).
No southsiders had been elected to that point so the two southside candidates with the highest totals at that point (Douglas and Duggan) were named to fill the two vacancies for guaranteed southside representation. This was announced in the newspaper the next day. (Edmonton Bulletin, Dec. 12, 1923, p. 1, 4)
Elected after vote transfers arising from elections and eliminations
East, James Labour (re-elected) 2-year term
Bury, Ambrose (re-elected) 2-year term
Findlay, James Labour 2-year term
Douglas, James M. ss 2-year term
Duggan, Joseph J. ss 2-year term
Rea, William 1-year term to finish Blatchford's term
(Blatchford had resigned as councillor to run for mayor)
Those elected in this election included mixture of business and Labour candidates, in rough proportion to their first count popularity - four business, two Labour.
Findlay's chances were helped by transfer of East's surplus.
Esther Saunder's defeat was not unusual - no woman would be elected to council until 1933, few prior to 1954, and only 31 prior to 2020. Edmonton has never yet established gender-based quotas to ensure balance on council between genders. A simple formula - such as where Edmonton is split into three five-seat districts and in each the two most popular males and the two most popular females are elected plus the next most popular candidate - would do the trick. Each voter having only one vote of course.
Continuing councillors from previous year:
Adair, Joseph W.
Collisson, James T.J.
Knott, Daniel K. Labour*
Sheppard, Rice Southside Labour
With two new and two continuing members, Labour had four seats on the ten-seat council in 1924. It maintained this level for five years under STV's fairness. After return to Block Voting in 1928, it would be different story, as is shown below.
(*Dan Knott is a controversial person in Edmonton's history. He went on to be mayor in the 1930s. Possible connection to the KKK and his decision as mayor to send in city police to stop the peaceful and lawful 1932 Hunger March meant his reputation is questioned. The name of the Dan Knott School in Mill Woods is possibly up for replacement as I write this in 2022. (See Wikipedia "Dan Knott" for more information.))
==============================
Public School Board Trustees
4 seats to be filled
10,902 votes (The number of votes is lower than the mayoralty election because supporters of Catholic schools did not vote in this election.)
Quota: 2183 (the total of votes divided by five, plus one)
First Count
Barnes, Samuel Labour 3,239
McPherson, Dr. F.S. 1,769
Crang, Dr. Frank Labour 1,740
Bellamy, Ralph 1,643
Steer, George H. 1,054
McCreath, Robert Labour 1,015
Massey, George 442
Elected
Barnes, Samuel Labour 2-year term
Bellamy, Ralph 2-year term
Crang, Frank Labour 2-year term
McPherson, Dr. F.S. 2-year term
Barnes achieved quota in 1st count to get a seat.
Enough of his surplus went to Frank Crang to give him quota in the 2nd count.
Bellamy and McPherson were elected in the 5th count, held after Massey and Steer had been eliminated, their second choices being distributed.
McCreath, who had picked up many votes in the second and third counts (thus moving up from the bottom of the pack where candidates were being eliminated), was dropped off in the fifth count, leaving only two candidates left to fill the two remaining slots - Bellamy and McPherson.
Continuing members:
Alexander, Dr. W.H. (professor)
Barclay, Lyman T.
Bishop, Mrs. Thryza
Separate school trustees
Robert Crossland (ss), Paul Jenvrin, Thomas Magee, and Joseph Henri Picard were elected by acclamation.
=========================================================
1924 election
Eligible Voters: 22,298
Ballots Cast: 9,477
Voter Turnout: 43 percent
Mayor:
As only two candidates ran, there was no need for votes to mark back-up preferences.
Blatchford, Kenneth 5,664
Sheppard, Rice 3,728
Election of councillors:
Proportional Representation achieved through STV
Five councillors elected at-large (whole city as single district)
the five elected were to serve two-year terms
Two seats had to be filled by southside candidates
each voter cast only a single vote to elect
voter marked first preference and back-up preferences if voter wanted to.
Votes transferred if found to be un-needed due to recipient being elected with surplus or recipient eliminated due to being least-popular candidate.
(bold = elected. ss = southside)
five to be elected
Valid votes: 9443
Quota: 1574
Clarke, Joseph A. 2,296
Collisson, James 2,009
Werner, Will ss? 1,030
Gibbs, Lionel Labour 802
Knott, Daniel A. Labour 707
Rendall, Archie 632
Grant, A.C. [Charles H.] 619
Herlihy, James Labour 480
McCreath, Robert Labour 460
Pallot, Herbert Labour 341
McBain, Miss Gertrude* 67
(Pallot was Communist Party member active in Labour Party.)
*Gertrude McBain had formerly been a cafe keeper in the town of Westlock (EB, Oct. 1, 1919). Nothing in the press about her being in Edmonton before 1923.
Elected:
Clarke, Joseph A. 2-year term
Collisson, James 2-year term
Werner, Will 2-year term
Gibbs, Lionel Labour 2-year term
Knott, Daniel A. Labour ? 2-year term
Citizens' Government League (CGA) had threatened to appeal Gibbs' election on a mere quibble, Labour party leaders later said. (Edmonton Bulletin, Dec. 20, 1926)
Continuing members
Bury, Ambrose
Douglas, James M. ss
Duggan, Joseph J. ss
East, James Labour
Findlay, James W. Labour
Under STV, Labour's fortunes rose. They held four of the 11 seats on council after the 1924 election.
Clarke and Collisson did not serve out their two-year terms. They resigned in early December 1925 to run for mayor.
Public School Trustees:
3 to be elected
Valid votes: 9734
Quota: 2434
First Count
Adair, Joseph W. 2,767
Bishop, Mrs. Thyrza 2,351
Roper, Elmer E. Labour 1,401
Johnston, Thomas J. 1,379
Young, George 955
Williams, J.W.H. 587
Lawrence, A.R. 294
Elected:
Adair, Joseph W. 2-year term
Bishop, Mrs. Thyrza 2-year term
Johnston, Thomas J. 2-year term
Continuing members
Barnes, Samuel
Bellamy, Ralph
Crang, Dr. Frank
MacPherson, Dr. F.S.
Separate School Trustees:
First Count
Barry, Charles 339
Dunne, Patrick 193
E.H. Esch 133
Carrigan, Harry D. ss 74
Carrigan elected due to southside guarantee.
Elected
Barry, Charles 2-year term
Dunne, Patrick 2-year term
Carrigan, Harry D. ss 2-year term
Continuing members
Crossland, R.
Jenvrin, Paul
Magee, Thomas
Picard, J.H.
=======================
1925
Eligible Voters: 35,343
Votes Cast: 15,304
Voter Turnout: 43 percent (47 percent according to EB, Oct. 13, 1926)
Mayor:
Six candidates running so voters marked back-up preferences in accordance with Alternative Voting.
Valid votes: 15,286 Majority required to win: 7644
First Count
Blatchford, Kenneth 8,463
Collisson, James 2,301
Clarke, Joseph A. 2,098
Sheppard, Rice 1,445
Adair, Joseph W. 948
McBain, Miss Gertrude 31 (first woman to run for mayor*)
Blatchford received majority of the votes in the first count (55 percent) so no transfers were conducted.
*Oddly enough no women ran for aldermanic seats during Edmonton's use of STV.
Election of Councillors:
Proportional Representation achieved through STV
7 councillors elected at-large (whole city as single district)
The first five elected were to be elected to two-year terms, the last two to only a one-year term.
Two seats (for two-year terms) had to be filled by southside candidates
each voter cast only a single vote to elect
voter marked first preference and back-up preferences.
Votes transferred if found to be un-needed due to recipient being elected with surplus or recipient eliminated due to being least-popular candidate.
(bold = elected. ss = southside)
7 open seats
Valid votes: 14,842
Quota: 1856
Douglas, James (ss) 3,587
East, James Labour 2,839
Sloane, A.C. 1,541
Keillor, Frederick A. (ss) 1,273
Findlay, James W. Labour 1,071
Tighe, R.D. 1,028
Robson, Charles G. 988
Farmilo, Alf Labour 855
Gimby, C.W. 728
Herlihy, James Labour 552
Thompson, E.J. Labour 380
(Bold means elected in the end after vote transfers.)
Douglas and East elected on First Count.
Elected councillors:
Douglas, James (ss) 2-year term
East, James Labour 2-year term
Sloane, A.C. 2-year term
Keillor, Fred A. (ss) 2-year term
Findlay, James W. Labour 2-year term
Robson, Charles G. 1-year term
Farmilo, Alf Labour 1-year term
Continuing members
Gibbs, Lionel Labour
Knott, Daniel Labour
Werner, Will ss
The charge was later made that STV made a mistake by giving Labour so many seats. It was said that Labour received only 6,000 votes but after 1925 had five of the 10 seats on council. (This was partly result of the staggered elections in use, not STV.)
The perceived over-representation of Labour led the Civic Government Association (made up of professional and business men) to run a mayoralty candidate in the next election, and to generally run more organized campaigns in future city elections.
CGA president N.A. Kilburn noted that "Labour holds its voting strength pretty steady. Labour candidates in the 1925 city election secured 3500 votes on the first count, and Labour candidates in the provincial election in 1926 held practically the same 3,500 on the 15th Count." (Edmonton Bulletin, Oct. 13, 1926)
James Douglas did not serve out two-year term. He resigned December 2, 1926
Public School Trustees:
Valid votes: 14,443
Quota: 2889
Bellamy, Thomas 3,478
Crang, Frank Labour 2,832
MacPherson, F.S. 2,825
Roper, Elmer E. Labour 2,658
Bell, Mrs. D.T. (Sophie N.)* 1,503
McBain, W.W. 1,147
*Sophie Bell was president of the Housewives' League of Edmonton in 1918 (Edmonton Bulletin, Nov. 29, 1918)
Elected:
Bellamy, Thomas 2-year term
Crang, Frank Labour 2-year term
McPherson, Dr. F.S. 2-year term
Roper, Elmer E. Labour 2-year term
Continuing members:
Adair, Joseph
Bishop, Mrs. Thyrza
Johnston, Thomas
Separate School Trustees:
Crossland, Robert 382
Magee, Thomas 371
Gariepy, Wilfred 365
Ryan, Andrew 336
(Perhaps there were unsuccessful candidates, for otherwise why hold elections?)
Elected:
Crossland, Robert 2-year term
Magee, Thomas 2-year term
Gariepy, Wilfred 2-year term
Ryan, Andrew 2-year term
Continuing members:
Barry, Charles
Carrigan, Edward
Dunne, Patrick
====================
Question:
Are you in favour of the Mayor holding office for the term of two years?
For: 7,251 Against: 8,945 DEFEATED
====================================
Analysis at the time
Hoag and Hallet 1926 book Proportional Representation has this to say: looking at Edmonton's 1925 city election First-choice members members votes elected in proportion to first-choice votes Civic Government League 9165 4 4.3 Labour 5689 3 2.7 The correspondence between first-choice votes and members elected in such a table as this is significant evidence of the accuracy of the voting system only to the extent that the voters divided on party lines. Where, as in Cleveland, many of them disregard party lines, the correspondence on a party basis is less close but the representation secured by PR corresponds no less closely to the wishes of the voters. (p. 226) I do not like to call them first-choice votes but instead prefer the term first preferences. each voter just has one vote in STV but where it goes is determined by the preferences they mark. under STV, transfers can cross party lines, so measurement of party-proportionality may not capture the general voter satisfaction produced by an STV election...
=========================
Between Edmonton's 1925 and 1926 city elections, Edmonton voters had participated in the first Alberta general election to use STV to elect MLAs in Edmonton, Calgary and Medicine Hat and Alternative Voting to elect the other MLAs.
In each city using STV, a mixed representation of multiple parties had been elected.
In the rural single-member districts, a candidate had to receive a majority of votes in the First Count or accumulated it through vote transfers thereafter. So although the system was not proportional, it did ensure that majority of voters were satisfied with local result.
Edmonton's five MLAs elected in 1926 belonged to four different parties, reflecting the sentiment of the city voters.
PR expert Hallett observed the 1926 election. He claimed that the STV election in Edmonton was fair and that a full Conservative slate would likely have been elected if the election had been held using FPTP.
The Edmonton Journal, in those days a newspaper by and for Conservatives, ruminated on Hallett's claim that a full Conservative slate would likely have been elected if the election had been held using FPTP. Journal writers compared the fact that the Conservative candidates received more votes than any other party but only two seats out of five. Under FPTP with careful gerrymandering the Conservatives might have won all five seats. Perhaps it was this grievance and the stated wish for power through any means that pushed the newspaper to work to overturn STV, if not at the provincial level then at the city level.
The 1926 city election held a few months after the provincial election used STV. The city election did not go as well as the provincial election had been. The results of the city election were challenged, with businessman W.W. McBain appealing the election of Labour's Herlihy to the school board.
The Journal backed McBain's claim and backed the campaign for STV's discontinuance that followed.
Businessmen held a majority on city council and pushed through the authorization of a referendum on STV in conjunction with the 1927 city election. Voters in the wealthier sections of the city flocked to vote, and overall a majority of votes cast were in favour of discontinuing STV.
The 1927 election was the last city election held using STV.
=========================================
1926 Monday, Dec. 13, 1926
Eligible Voters: 35,726
Ballots Cast: 12,720
Voter Turnout: 36 percent
Weather was cold. Cars driving people to vote were taking long time in their runs. Many cars did not turn up. Women in particular were not going to vote - due to concerns about leaving fires going in homes while no one was home, men being at work. Mondays were always bad days to get women to vote - by tradition, Monday was laundry day.
Low turnout in the advance polls, held on Friday and Saturday previous. (EB, Dec. 13, 1926)
Mayor:
More than two candidates so voters marked back-up preferences in accordance with Alternative Voting.
Valid votes: 12,693
Majority of valid votes: 6347
First Count
Bury, Ambrose 4816
Knott, Daniel Labour 2944
Werner, Will 2388
Clarke, Joseph 1727
Douglas, James 571
Sheppard, Rice 247
No one won a majority of the votes in the first count so the lowest-ranking candidates were eliminated and their votes had their second choices distributed.
Bury won in the end:
Bury 6827
Knott 4176
1690 exhausted votes.
This was the only mayoralty election during Edmonton's STV period when no candidate won a majority of the votes in the first round and vote transfers under Alternative Voting were used to determine the winner.
However the legal firm of Cassidy and Macdonald launched a challenge of Bury's election, although on what grounds is not known. The Labour Party told the press that it was taking no part in the attempted unseating. (Edmonton Bulletin, Dec. 20, 1926)
J.J. Duggan's name had been listed as a candidate months before the election but apparently he had withdrawn. (Edmonton Bulletin, Oct. 9, 1926)
Unsuccessful candidate Joe Clarke challenged Bury's election. Clarke said Bury had not been eligible to run as he was not listed on the assessor's roll. Bury though said that his legal firm did pay taxes and he helped cover that so was a taxpayer. Apparently that was enough. (By comparison, on another occasion two leftists were prevented from running as candidates because they were determined to be in business with the city because they were receiving unemployment relief from the city.) (EB, Dec. 17, 1926)
Election of councillors:
Proportional Representation achieved through STV
Six councillors elected at-large (whole city as single district)
The first five elected were to be elected to two-year terms, the last to only a one-year term.
Two seats had to be filled by southside candidates. The southside guarantee of two spots on council led to a swerve in the pursuit of proportionality.
each voter cast only a single vote to elect
voter marked first preference and back-up preferences.
Votes transferred if found to be un-needed due to recipient being elected with surplus or recipient eliminated due to being least-popular candidate.
(bold = elected. ss = southside)
Six to be elected, two must be southsiders
Valid Votes: 12,293 (or so)
Quota: 1757 (EB, Dec. 14, 1926)
Both the Civic Government Association (CGA) and Labour put forward five-member slates in this election. Obviously they put five as the maximum number of seats they could win and wanted to concentrate their votes on just five.
First Count (best guess based on conflicting secondary sources)
Gibbs, Lionel* Labour 2107
Farmilo, Alf Labour 1510
Robson, Charles Independent 1458
Baker, Herbert CGA 1287
Tighe, Robert Dolphin CGA 1107
Hazlett, George CGA ss 1009
Muir, Robert CGA 980
Grant, Charles CGA 840
Willson, N.C. (Norman) 657
Dineen, Lionel Labour ss 555
Thompson, Edward James Labou 402
Owen, Edwin Evart Labour 379
*Gibbs was a sitting MLA, but as the city council position was unpaid, it was thought that his position on city council if elected "would in no way conflict with legislative duties" and that both jobs were possible for a single person. (Edmonton Bulletin, Oct. 9, 1926)
Elected:
Gibbs, Lionel Labour 2-year term
Farmilo, Alf Labour 2-year term
Robson, Charles 2-year term
Hazlett, George 2-year term
Baker, Herbert 2-year term
Dineen, Lionel Labour ss 1-year term
(Although Tighe received more initial votes (although not enough to capture a seat), Dineen won (probably) due to the southside guarantee. Both Hazlett and Dineen were declared elected because of guarantee of two southside seats. Hazlett had more votes at that point than Dineen so was given two-year term, and Dineen just the one-year term. The decision to award Dineen only the one-year term was questioned, but Hunt said that Hazlett had had more votes than Dineen in both the first count and the last count so the decision seemed to him to be democratic. (letter Hunt to Hallett, Dec. 18, 1926, PAA 71.138, file 126)
Elected were three Labour and three business (Civic Government Association)
The council being pretty much evenly divided, Labour had a majority of seats on the Legislation and Bylaws Committee and CGA had a majority on the Finance Committee. (City of Edmonton, History of City Council, p. 32)
Continuing members
East, James Labour
Findlay, James W. Labour
Keillor, Frederick
Sloane, A.C.
Public School Trustees:
three to be elected, one southsider to be elected
Quota: 2774 (EB, Dec. 14, 1926)
Barnes, Samuel Labour 3741
Bishop, Mrs. Thyrza CGA 2,776
Lake, D.B. 1,833
McBain, William Wilfred CGA ss 1,528
Herlihy, James Labour ss 1,127
G. Teviotdale 480
Barnes elected on first count.
Bishop declared elected.
Teviotdale eliminated. Transfer of her surplus votes made Herlihy's vote tally exceed that of McBain. As only one seat was empty at this point, and it was guaranteed for a southsider, Herlihy, the leading southside candidate, was declared elected.
Elected:
Barnes, Samuel Labour 2-year term
Bishop, Mrs. Thyrza CGA 2-year term
Herlihy, James Labour 2-year term
These trustees joined the continuing members - two CGA (Dr. F.S. MacPherson, Ralph Bellamy) and two Labour (Dr. Frank Crang, Elmer Roper). Thus the election of the two Labour trustees gave Labour a majority on the public school board.
This meant it was important for CGA to challenge Herlihy's election if it could.
CGA officials - President N.A. Kilburn, McBain, Lake, Tighe and W.W, Prevey - appealed Herlihy's election within a couple days of the announcement of the election result. (Edmonton Bulletin, Dec. 16, 1926, p. 7)
The appeal was based on the charge that immediately when Bishop was elected, all northside candidates were taken out of the picture but they should have had their votes transferred, if marked to a southside candidate. McBain figured that if Lake's votes had been transferred, he would have picked up enough vote transfers to overtake Herlihy.
The Labour Party approved of the City Clerk's decision to declare the election of Herlihy and labelled the CGA's appeal as poor sportsmanship. (EB, Dec. 20, 1926)
John D. Hunt, local authority on the STV system, spoke in support of the appeal, saying "the principle of the system is that the eliminated candidates shall continue to have their choices carried on until the required number of members have been elected." (EB, Dec. 16, 1926)
When it came before a judge, the judge ruled that the appeal was correct. Herlihy was forced out of his seat and McBain was put on the school board.
However after the judgement, the Edmonton Journal published a letter that Hallett had written earlier to Hunt in which he had stated his opinion on the appeal, an opinion that differed from the judge's later ruling. But published when it was, after the judge had made his ruling, it seemed to be questioning the judge's ruling.
Edmonton Journal, Jan. 22, 1927:
The Journal quoted Hallett's leaked letter which he said the City Clerk had applied the election regulations in the only way he could so had not transferred Lake's votes and accordingly had awarded the seat to Herlihy.
Hallett wrote that nowhere in the election regulations does it say that as soon as all the northside candidates are elected, all the remaining northside candidates should be eliminated and their votes transferred.
Hallett wrote that in September 1922 he had recommended to Colonel Weaver and John D. Hunt (Alberta's PR expert) the following should be written into the regulations
"that if at any time the number of elected candidates from the city outside of Strathcona reaches the number of ___ (the maximum number allowed in the city outside Strathcona), all the remaining candidates from the city outside of Strathcona shall at once be declared defeated, regardless of the size of their vote, and all their ballots transferred to the remaining Strathcona candidate marked on them as the next choice, [if any]."
If the change had been made, Hallett said, the present difficulty would not have arisen.
By publishing the letter, the Journal showed that it had changed its stance vis a vis STV.
During the Liberal government era - that is, before the 1921 provincial election - the Journal had called for STV. But now STV in Edmonton city elections meant that the city's business people, the Journal's natural friends, were hard-pressed to maintain their dominance.
The confusion of Herlihy's election arose because of the southside's quasi-ward status. It was said that if there were two separate districts, southside representation would be assured without the special guarantee. (But wards were not brought in until much later.)
Instead of adopting wards, it was eventually thought best by many just to drop STV.
And the confusion caused a tear in the STV movement.
Hunt was not impressed that a copy of a personal letter addressed to him had been shared out. He said its publication, coming when it did, gave the impression that Hallett was directly criticizing the judge's ruling. Hallett learned that the election regulations were not as he had thought and that he now believed that the City Clerk had indeed mishandled the election.
Hunt was so miffed that he wrote "I have come to the conclusion that the less I have do with PR in the future, the less trouble I will have."
Hallett tried to smooth the waters. He wrote Hunt to say that he knew him to be "too sincere a believer in the fundamental importance of PR to let this occurrence diminish for long your zeal for the cause."
Within a couple weeks of the letter's publication, a petition for the repeal of STV was circulating in the city and had already been signed by more than a thousand voters.
Hunt wrote pessimistically that if STV went to a vote, it would sink.
"The people do not understand its advantages. As a matter of fact alot of them never will understand owing to their political affiliations and the prejudices in favour of party. "
Hallet wrote back that he too was "often tempted to share Hunt's disgust with the stupidity of people who work actively against their own interests as do most of those who oppose STV, but I keep on working just the same because I know that if our opponents are successful, the innocent will suffer with the guilty." (letter dated July 5, 1927)
Humphreys, the secretary of the British Pro-Rep Society, wrote encouragingly to Hunt. He said the goal of the cause was "to satisfy the growing demand for an electoral system that will free us from the gamble and the injustice of our existing electoral methods."
In September the city council debated holding a referendum on discontinuing STV.
Labour councillors, holding an impressive five seats, in part due to STV, opposed the change and opposed even the holding of a referendum on the change. They fought all they could, even calling for a re-wording to say the vote would be on maintaining STV, not scraping it. (Their reasoning apparently was that people were more willing to vote YES than NO.)
But they fought to no avail.
Where necessary, the mayor weighed in to make a majority on council opposed to STV. With his support the business councillors rolled over the Labour opposition.
Finally in a six to five vote, council voted to hold a referendum in conjunction with the upcoming 1927 election.
This led to more acrimony and criticism of how STV was applied in Edmonton civic elections.
Separate School Trustees:
All seats filled by acclamation
Carrigan, Harry D. 2-year term
Pilon, Joseph 2-year term
Trainor, Walter 2-year term
Continuing members:
Crossland, R.
Gariepy, Charles
Magee, T.S.
Ryan, A.J.
========================================
1927 Edmonton City election
Eligible Voters: 37,106
Ballots Cast: 12,907
Voter Turnout: 35 percent
Mayor:
Voters marked back-up preferences in accordance with Alternative Voting
Bury, Ambrose 7,483
Knott, Daniel Labour 4,406
Clarke, Joseph A. 958
Pfeim, J. 80 (also went by name Hehsdorfer (Tingley, Heart of a City, p. 88)
Bury received majority of the votes in the first count (58 percent) so no transfers were conducted.
Election of councillors:
Proportional Representation achieved through STV
Five councillors elected at-large (whole city as single district)
the first five elected were to be elected to two-year terms, the last to only a one-year term.
Two seats had to be filled by southside candidates
each voter cast only a single vote to elect
voter marked first preference, and back-up preferences if he or she wanted to
Votes transferred if found to be un-needed due to recipient being elected with surplus or recipient eliminated due to being least-popular candidate.
(bold = elected. ss = southside)
five to be elected
Quota: approx. 2151
First Count
Bellamy, Ralph CGA 2,193
Sloane, A.C. CGA 1,951
East, James Labour 1,922
Bowen, John Campbell CGA? 1,514
Dineen, Lionel Labour 1,227
Findlay, James Labour 914
Pelton, G.V. CGA? 784
Rehwinkel, Professor CGA? 550
Herlihy, James Labour 485
Thompson, E.J. Labour? 375
Elected:
Bellamy, Ralph 2-year term
Sloane, A.C. 2-year term
East, James Labour 2-year term
Bowen, John Campbell 2-year term
Dineen, Lionel Labour 2-year term
(Bowen did not serve out his two-year term. He resigned after one year to run for mayor.)
Continuing members
Baker, Herbert
Farmilo, Alf Labour
Gibbs, Lionel Labour
Hazlett, George
Robson, Charles
=======================================
Public School Trustees:
Cushing, Arthur T. 2,458
Ottewell, Albert E. 2,457
Crang, Frank 2,020
Roper, Elmer E. 2,005
Bell, Mrs. D.T. (Sophie N.) 1,416
Ogilvie, J.H. 1,123
Elected:
Cushing, Arthur T. 2-year term
Ottewell, Albert E. 2-year term
Crang, Frank Labour 2-year term
Roper, Elmer E. Labour 2-year term
Continuing members
Barnes, S.A.G.
Bishop, Mrs. E.T.
Herlihy, James Labour
Separate School Trustees:
First Count
Crossland, Robert 330
Gariepy, Charles 323
Magee, T.S. 315
Tansey, B.J. 218
Naubert, J.R. 90
Elected:
Crossland, Robert 2-year term
Gariepy, Charles 2-year term
Magee, T.S. 2-year term
Tansey, B.J. 2-year term
Continuing members
Carrigan, E.A.
Pilon, J.O.
Trainor, W.D.
Questions:
To authorize the Council to fix the Assessment of improvements for industrial establishments.
For: 2,224 Against: 1,038 APPROVED
To abolish the Proportional Representation System of electing mayor and aldermen.
For: 6,695 Against: 5,473 APPROVED
Voters thus voted to cease the use of STV. This was the last year the STV Proportional representation system was used in city elections.
The Alberta Labour News blamed STV's defeat on the low turn-out in by Labour Party supporters. The low turn-out was perhaps due to activist fatigue after a federal election and a municipal election in 1925 and provincial, federal and municipal elections in 1926.
It was also hypothesized that the technical objections to the referendum raised by the Labour councillors had turned off voters.
Edmonton returned to Block Voting. With six seats open in 1928, each voter could cast up to six votes. The votes count ballooned to 78,000 votes being cast.
Despite the ability of one disciplined voting block to take all the seats under Block Voting, in 1928 a mixed bag won seats - three Labour, two CGA and one Independent (Rice Sheppard). Rice Sheppard had helped found the United Farmers of Alberta so perhaps his election, like that of Lymburn provincially, reflected the strength of the farmer vote in the city. Sheppard and Keillor were southsiders so that matter was attended to as part of usual count.
Labour's five candidates received about 40 percent of the vote and CGA's five received 37 percent. Neither party had a single very strong candidate who stole votes away from others on the slate. That is, there was no great surplus that wasted many votes.
The front runners, membership there being the only requirement to be elected under Block Voting, was a compact crowd vote-tally-wise, where Labour happened to be favoured.
All the front runners were of course elected, and the 38,000 votes cast for the other candidates were ignored. The system produced quick results - after the multitude of votes were counted - but did not ensure fair results as had been the case under STV.
Thanks for reading.
==================================================
The next election (1928 election) used Block voting.
For the aldermanic contest, 78,196 votes were cast by the 14,971 voters who voted.
This was alot of extra work compared to the roughly 12,000 votes cast in the aldermanic contest in 1927.
And there was no scientific fairness.
Four Labour were elected, but then in 1930 only one Labour was elected.
There was no consistency.
===============================
Reasons why Edmonton's STV experience was so short
The guarantee of two southside councillors muddied the 1926 election.
As we see here in my summary of the 1923 vote count:
In the 1923 election, 14 candidates ran for six empty council seats, all to represent one city-wide district.
When the votes were examined, one Labour and one business candidate were elected on first preferences by exceeding the minimum required to win a seat.
Transfers of their 2500 surplus votes then started the creation of formed consensuses.
This continued through the elimination of seven lowest-ranking candidates, and one more Labour and one more business candidate were elected by the end of the tenth count.
At the time a guarantee was in effect that at least two candidates resident in the southside would be elected.
At the end of the tenth count, all but two seats had been filled, with none so far going to southsiders. So the two southsiders with the largest totals were declared elected to fill the two remaining seats.
However when these seats were allocated, the remaining northside candidates were simply disregarded - their votes were thrown away. Many charged that as they had been eliminated, the back-up preferences marked on the ballots should have been consulted and the votes transferred to the first-ranking southside candidate on each ballot if so marked.
There was also an on-going campaign against the at-large system (perhaps with dis-empowered powers-that-be behind it trying to undercut STV). But wards were not formally put forward as an alternative to STV. And in fact it is possible to combine STV and wards by having multi-member wards and voters only casting single votes. But it seems distrust of the at-large system was used to undermine STV.
The practice under STV that voters cast only one vote accompanied by back-up preferences was always a hard one to sell when compared to Block Voting where voters could cast as many votes as the number of open seats. Some said they felt they were losing voting power by only having one vote, but others pointed out that it was better to have one vote that was effective than six that were diluted among everyone else's six votes and then often wasted.
There were many spoiled ballots in Edmonton STV elections, but that number seems to include many ballots where a section was left blank, such as a voter voting for mayor but not for city council or for mayor and city council but not for a school board. They should still have been used for the sections filled out properly but may not have been.
As well, the staggered elections reduced the effectiveness of proportionality. Only half the seats were up for election each year so in 1923 there were only six open seats on city council, and only four in each of the public and separate school boards.
The guaranteed southside representation further inhibited the election of labour or other minority representatives within this relatively small crop of representatives.
Thus for city council, a voting block of 14 percent (Droop quota when electing six members) was required to elect a councillor in the STV elections (excepting if additional seat(s) were empty due to resignations or death).
With two seats going to southside candidates, it meant proportionally perhaps 20 percent was required to elect a Northside candidate (although some of these votes could come from the Southside).
That is, it seems a Northside candidate that only had 19 percent of the vote could not get seat, at least theoretically. The portion would vary depending on whether a southside candidate was supported by many votes from northside voters - votes could go anywhere. The rule only ensured that two southside candidates were guaranteed seats.
Quota, the number of votes required to win a seat, was calculated by dividing the total votes by the number of open seats plus one. That is Droop quota.
Thus four seats could be filled by four candidaets, each having a little more than 20 percent of the vote, and slightly less than 20 percent of the vote could be wasted. This shows up badly compared to the provincial use of STV in Edmonton where five seats were filled by voting groups as small as 16 percent of the vote, or the provincial use of STV in Winnipeg (prior to 1949) where 9 percent of the vote was enough to elect one of the 10 city MLAs. There a Communist and two other labour parties were represented in the Legislature, as well as the larger Conservative and Liberal groupings.
So under Edmonton's STV, little actual minority representation was created despite the promises that had been made about STV's fine-grained proportionality and the extra work involved in the vote transfers.
It should be noted though that STV did not create more work in general compared to at-large Block Voting, Edmonton's default election system.
Block Voting meant counting up to six votes for each voter, while STV meant counting only one first-choice vote from each voter, then many less for each subsequent vote transfer, perhaps as few as only a few hundreds in each round.
So STV did not entail much if any additional counting. (The difference though was that STV counting was in different rounds, all but the first conducted had to be doneat the central election office, while Block Voting counting is done simultaneously at each of the different polling places.)
In 1922 Block Voting 53,000 votes were cast (by 11,000 voters voting).
in 1923 STV election 13,000 votes were cast (by 13,000 voters).
in 1923, the votes were gathered at the central office.
Then were 9 transfers. (The first two moved only 2500 votes, so altogether probably not more than 7,000 votes were transferred. This was less counting in total than under Block Voting.)
And always there were the dispossessed Business want-to-be politicians trying to bring back the system of Block Voting that had given Businessmen all or almost all the seats on council in past years.
Then came the 1926 schmozzle about SS guarantee or at least charges that the returning officer had made a mess of it even if he hadn't.
These factors resulted in pressure to hold a plebiscite in 1927 on returning to at-large Block Voting. A majority of voters went for change, and Edmonton's municipal STV passed into history.
it was replaced by Block Voting, and 78,000 votes were cast in 1928.
If transfers were the issue, STV could have been replaced by Single Non-Transferable Voting (SNTV). Still electing multiple councillors at-large and still each voter wields only one vote. The difference being that the vote is non-transferable - votes are wasted if not placed with winning candidates. This system would have provided mixed representation, roughly proportional, even without transfers and despite the waste, the waste of votes under SNTV being no larger than what happens under Block voting in many cases.
However voters casting multiple votes in at-large elections is taken as the norm so much that the term Block Voting is seldom seen. And Edmonton by instinct returned to Block Voting after STV's snubbing in the referendum.
(See my Montopedia blog on "Block Voting" for info on this oft-overlooked third system of district voting.)
If Edmonton had adopted SNTV, there would have been no way for any one group to take all the seats available in a city council election (unless it had support of 70-90 percent of the voters).
As it was, the voting blocks (Labour and business) were not solid, and it seems many gave votes to both Labour and business candidates. This could have been due to fact almost all those elected were former councillors with name recognition and several elected were sitting councillors going for re-election. Perhaps that trumped party lines.
Four Labour and two business candidates were elected in 1928. This was better than Labour had managed under STV.
If Labour is taken as a minority party, STV had not been actually that kind to it, despite the claim that the STV system nurtures minority representation:
in 1923 two Labour councillors were elected.
in 1924 two Labour councillors were elected.
in 1925 three Labour councillors were elected.
in 1926 two Labour councillors were elected.
in 1927 two Labour councillors were elected.
then in 1928 with the return of Block Voting, Labour elected four councillors!
(By the mid -1930s Labour was taking no seats at all.)
Of course, changing economics or other factors may have changed voting behaviour apart from the electoral system in use. (See my blog "Workers voting for workers" April 2020 for some remarks on this.)
Thanks for reading.
===========================
See also:
"1923 -Edmonton's first STV election"
I also go into some detail of Edmonton's experience with the Single Transferable Voting system of proportional representation in another Montopedia blog -"Change Edmonton elections today! STV and at-large elections now!"
==============================
Comments