Here's a clear and damning look at the existing system in use in the old days. Note tht nothing has changed. This should be a clarion call for PR.
it is such a continuing theme - You can drop in whatever modern dates you want and the article would still work.
Let's stop the craziness!
====================================
From Winnipeg Tribune, March 10, 1916
"Fair representation necessary"
(reprinted from the Ottawa Citizen)
"Monopoly of representation is largely responsible for the way the McBride and Bowser government has been free to pilfer and squander the substance of the people of BC. The 1912 provincial elections resulted in the return of 40 Conservatives, 2 Socialists and no Liberal representatives. Of course only two members in opposition were not enough to keep check on the numerous transactions of the provincial administrations.
Proportional representation is the need of BC as elsewhere in Canada. Instead of McBride and Bowser having almost a complete monopoly, under Proportional Representation there would have been a strong opposition elected in 1912 - the government would possibly have had 28 instead of 40 representatives and the opposition made up of 14 members instead of only two elected.
Vancouver city returns in 1912 illustrate how the minority is deprived of representation. Under a Block Voting system, with each voters having five votes, all five Conservative candidates were elected, while the minority secured no representation, though there were five Liberal candidates and Five Socialists and one Independent standing for election in the district.
Under Proportional representation, there would be no objection to Vancouver city having sixteen candidates to choose from for the purpose of electing five members. The proportional method of voting known as STV would have assured the minority of at least one, and possibly two representatives, among the five. Instead of the voters having five votes as at present, under PR each voter would have one vote and one vote only. But in addition to voting by marking the figure against the candidate the elector liked best, he would have the privilege of marking second, third and subsequent choices.
Thus in Vancouver there would have been no splitting of votes between Liberal and Socialist and Independent candidates. Under Proportional representation, all votes would be used and not wasted, and all considerable minorities would be assured of fair representation in the legislature."
The original article published in an Ottawa newspaper shows the advanced level of thinking in that city. Its voters were the first in Canada to vote in favour of change to PR system. But the Ontario government stopped it by not giving that city the power to make the change.
Later in the year that this article was reprinted in the Winnipeg newspaper, Calgarians voted to make the change. Residents of Nelson and other BC cities also adopted the change in 1917.
But it was only a few years later that Vancouver, which the article singles out for having a terribly-unbalanced election system, finally dropped its Block Voting and adopted STV.
Dennis Pilon has written an in-depth history of the course of PR in BC. And I leave it to him to explain why Vancouver, after dropping its unbalanced Block Voting, then quickly went and dropped STV after just a short trial
See Pilon, "The Drive for Proportional representation in BC, 1917-1923" (1994) online
=============================================
Comments