The struggle for proportional representation seems to be somewhat similar to the struggle for votes for women in the 1910s.
An interesting list of reasons not to grant votes to women was compiled in 1913.
A similar list of reasons could be made of reasons not to have PR. Many of them contradict each other!
Anti-suffrage reasons (1913)
Why women should not have the vote
1. because they do not want it.
2. because they want it.
3. because they have never had it.
4. because they have it partially or locally
5. because they are the superior sex.
6. because they are the inferior sex.
7. because they would vote as their husbands want them to
8. because they would not vote as their husbands want them to...
(from Edmonton Bulletin, May 13, 1913) Despite such a long list of supposedly-strong reasons, Alberta women got the vote vote two years after this.
A similar list of self-contradicting reasons for PR would be something like this.
Why we should not have PR
because it would elect extremists
because it would not elect extremists (only moderates)
because it would give too much power to parties
because it would give too little power to parties
because voters would not like it
because voters would like it
because voters would not understand it
because voters would understand it.
because voters would vote differently
because voters would vote the same
because it would make a difference because it would make no difference because it would multiply the number of parties because it would not multiply the number of parties minorities would be represented minorities would not be represented results would be set in advance results would be unpredictable ...
But actually when Alberta and Manitoba used a district-level PR system (STV) in provincial elections 1920s to 1950s, there was a nice balance of continuity and difference compared to Block Voting or FPTP-single-member plurality.
The number of parties that ran candidates hardly increased under STV, SC did emerge but that was not due to PR, and its immediate and wide success was not due to PR. CCF did emerge but it merely replaced the Labour Party.
The number of parties represented did increase but that was only due to the system truly reflecting how city voters voted, something not done under Block Voting - or later under FPTP.
Under STV, a large percentage of votes were used to elect someone, something not done under Block Voting - or later under FPTP.
Voter Turn-out
Voters were not scared of voting under STV despite the complications caused by preferential voting. in fact, voter turn-out increased in Edmonton
1921 (Block Voting) 17,950 voted
1926 (PR-STV) 18,150 voted
1930 (PR-STV) 21,000 voted
1935 (PR-STV) 37,000 voted.
1940 (PR-STV) 44,000 voted.
1944 (PR-STV) 38,000 voted.
1948 (PR-STV) 46,000 voted. 1952 (PR-STV) 52,000 voted. 1955 (PR-STV) 77,000 voted. after change to FPTP-SMP 1959 (FPTP-SMP) 93,000 voted
Diversity of representation elected
1921 (Block Voting) one party elected (Liberal) 1926 (PR-STV) four parties elected (UFA, Conservative, Liberal, Labour) 1930 (PR-STV) four parties elected (UFA, Conservative, Liberal, Labour) 1935 (PR-STV) three parties elected (Social Credit, Conservative, Liberal) ... 1948 (PR-STV) three parties elected (Social Credit, Liberal, CCF) 1952 (PR-STV) four parties elected (Social Credit, Conservative, Liberal, CCF) 1955 (PR-STV) three parties elected (Social Credit, Conservative, Liberal) after change to FPTP-SMP 1959 (FPTP-SMP) one party elected (Social Credit) Large percentage of votes used to elect someone 1921 (Block Voting) unknown - somewhere between 5600 (31 percent) and 18,000 (100 percent). votes cast for Liberal candidates were equal to 28 percent more than number of voters who voted.) 1926 (PR-STV) 14,283 out of 18,000 valid votes -- 79 percent 1930 (PR-STV) 17,000 out of 21,000 valid votes -- 81 percent 1935 (PR-STV) 31000 out of 37000 valid votes -- 83 percent 1948 (PR-STV) 39.000 out of 46,000 valid votes -- 85 percent 1952 (PR-STV) 42,000 out of 52,000 valid votes -- 81 percent 1955 (PR-STV) 66,000 out of 77,000 valid votes -- 86 percent after change to FPTP-SMP 1959 (FPTP-SMP) 44,000 out of 93,000 votes cast -- 48 percent. So as Edmonton stats show, PR means more mixed representation that truly reflects how voters voted, more voters voting, and more votes used to elect someone (and therefore fewer wasted) - despite the supposed reasons that people dredge up to block adoption of PR.
Comments