In almost all the actual STV elections in Alberta, vote transfers were not what produced most of the mixed, roughly-proportional representation elected. One or two candidates did change from the first-count leaders as compared to the end result. But most of the proportionality was produced in the simple use of multi-member districts and each voter casting just one vote.
This was seen as early as the first STV election of Edmonton MLAs. The representation elected in the 1926 Edmonton election was very different from the one-party sweep of Edmonton seats in 1921.
Most of this fairness was produced by 1926 election's use of the single vote cast in a multi-member district.
Only a couple of the leaders changed through vote transfers conducted during the vote count.
Transfers only added one new party to the mix, while nixing an independent candidate. The Independent candidate was among the leaders in the First Count but did not receive many transfers.
Labour candidate Lionel Gibbs accumulated transfers, passed the Independent's vote tally (so that he survived while the Independent candidate was eliminated) and hung on until the end to be elected.
Transfers also achieved better proportionality by taking one seat from the Liberals and giving it to a Conservative. The Conservative candidates together received about half again more First-Count votes than the Liberal candidates taken together. But the votes were spread over several candidates with only one among the front runners in the First Count. The transfers allowed the overall total support for the Conservatives to come together and to be seen in the election of two members.
The front runners were 1 Conservative, 1 UFA, 2 Liberals and 1 Independent-Liberal.
The successful candidates in the end were 2 Conservatives, 1 UFA, 1 Liberal and 1 Labour.
A mixed and very proportional result, as in all* STV elections!
* At least the result in all STV elections is mixed (consisting of candidates of different parties) if the number of members being elected is more than three - or no less than the number of major parties involved in the election.
Two seats would produce mixed representation if there are only two parties, with each party receiving no more than about 60 percent of the vote.
But two seats could be captured by one party if voter support is unbalanced more than 60-40.
Three seats could be captured by one party only if that party's supporters organize their back-up preferences along party lines and the party has the support of 75 percent of the voters - not often the case.
Four seats are not at all likely to be taken by one party. If any two candidates or parties had at least 20 percent of the vote, which is almost always the case, they each would elect at least one member, with at least one of them taking one or two more seats, producing mixed representation.
A party would likely have to have about 80 percent support in the district to take all four seats in a district.
Size (number of seats) does make a difference!
=================================================
Note the Calgary 1926 STV election was also fair.
STV elections offer range of candidates to voters. This is effect of multiple seats being contested at one time and the transferability of the votes so any candidate can run and be given its fair share of the vote without regard to unrepresentative results produced by vote splitting.
Information on the range of candidates that ran in Calgary's 1926 election can be found in the Glenbow file M-1157-52: "Provincial election. — 1926. — Consists of election results and analysis; articles on election issues; and broadsides for R.H. Parkyn (Labour), public meeting for Liberal candidates, F.C. Potts, anti-prohibition, William Laut, Captain J.T. Shaw, Liberals, and United Farmers of Alberta (UFA) party."
===================================================================
Comments