Canada's First Past the Post system creates various un-proportionality and other negative aspects. FPTP causes unstable minority government, made worse by parties' hope for a lucky break, the loss of valuable members of House of Commons and the exaggeration of regionalism.
All this was known a full hundred years ago.
Stability
Electoral reformer Ronald Hooper noted in 1922 that if STV had been in use in the 1921 federal election, the resulting government would have been more stable.
Many say proportional representation creates unstable governments, but when minority governments are created – and they are increasingly being created even under First past the post – they are more stable under pro-rep than under FPTP.
Ronald Hooper, a Winnipeg authority on proportional representation, explained why this was a hundred years ago.
Under FPTP, a slight difference of votes can make a large difference in who wins seats. The see-saw effect of FPTP was demonstrated in the federal elections as held in Alberta during and after WWI. The Conservative-dominated Union government of Borden rigged the 1917 federal election to ensure that it would be re-elected to a majority of the seats.
Alberta was no exception - Edmonton MP Frank Oliver lost his seat -- not because he was not popular with Edmonton voters but by the way government officials distributed the soldier vote, or so the story goes. Only one Liberal won a seat in Alberta.
The next election, after the leash was taken off, Alberta voters elected no Conservatives, and no Liberals either. Labour and United Farmer candidates took every Alberta seat, with just 64 percent of the votes. Farmers were elected in other provinces as well (under the name Progressives), and the Liberals, the largest single party, took less than a majority of the seats. The election, held using mostly single-member districts, yielded a narrowly-majority government. (The government's lead in seats was so narrow that by the end of its time in office it was a minority government.) In 1925, this government was followed a short-lived minority government. Due to the rise of a third party, a minority government was followed by another minority government.
Thus twice in a row, FPTP did not fulfill its most vaunted purpose – stable majority government.
Due to the Liberals' minority position, Farmers and Labour MPs held the balance of power and used it to force the start of a federal pension plan. They were unable to pass electoral reform though.
In 1922 Ronald Hooper said he did not expect the government to survive more than two years (in reality it lasted to 1925).
If STV had been in use in the 1921 election, Hooper believed, the government would actually be more stable - there would be little expectation that a new election would yield a different result. Under FPTP, a party in the House of Commons may cause the government to fall prematurely, hoping to get lucky -- another election would probably yield a very different result. (Such happens in modern times as well - Trudeau brought down his government in 2022, hoping for luck in an an early election.)
Loss of valuable members of government just due to district voters
As well, the leader of the Conservative party was defeated in his district as were 10 of his cabinet ministers. Thus, the new government could not call on them as opposition members to share their wisdom.
Regionalism exaggerated by FPTP
Frank Oliver, former Liberal cabinet minister running in Edmonton, also was not elected. The 1921 election followed a recurring pattern in several ways. Alberta elected no Liberals, so the province was not represented in the federal cabinet until a by-election or the next election allowed a change. It exaggerated the political complexion of different sections of the country. Quebec, PEI and Nova Scotia elected all Liberals. Alberta elected all UFA and Labour candidates. In all these provinces a very considerable percentage of votes went to minority parties and these voters now have no representation.
Montreal elected 12 Liberal MPs, while under STV, nine Liberals and three Conservatives would likely have been elected.
Toronto elected nine Conservatives while under STV five Conservatives and four Liberals would likely have been elected.
40 to 50 MPs were elected with just a minority of the votes in their districts.
"Clearly we ought not to retain a system of election that so threatens the unity of Canada as to give whole cities and whole provinces over to one political creed," Hooper summed up.
Hooper's views were presented in the January 1922 Proportional Representation Review (available on-line).
Ronald Hooper was a reeve of St. James, an out-lying community of Winnipeg and a vocal advocate of STV.
A couple years before he wrote the article quoted above, he had made himself well enough known as an expert on electoral reform that he was contacted when the administration of Winnipeg was wondering how to break down the social barriers that had been erected during the bloody Great Strike of 1919. Hooper said STV would not give any party an unfair advantage but instead would ensure that each of the warring factions of society - Labour and Capital - would receive its fair share of representation. This was good enough for the authorities, and in early 1920 Winnipeg brought in STV for its city elections and to elect its MLAs.
These systems would be in place for decades.
====================
What is STV?
From a 1902 reform magazine: "Thinking it well to have in every number something by way of a brief explanation of proportional voting, I repeat in this number the following. Proportional representation means the use of a reasonable and scientific system of voting instead of the present stupid, unfair and inefficient procedure. Methods: There are several systems by which the principle of proportional representation may be given effect to. Large electoral districts, each electing several members, are a necessary feature. The "quota" plan is usually employed. It means that a quota of the votes elects one representative. To arrive at the quota, the number of valid votes cast is divided by the number of seats to be filled. For instance in a seven-member district any one-seventh of the voters could elect one representative and the other six-sevenths could not interfere with their choice. The three principal systems of proportional representation are the Free List as used in Switzerland and Belgium [party-list pro-rep], the Hare system as used in Tasmania [STV], and the Gove System as advocated in Massachusetts. The Preferential Vote [Alternative Voting/Instant Run-off Voting] -- This is used in the election of single officers such as a mayor. It is not strictly a form of pro-rep but is akin thereto, and uses part of the same voting methods. The object of preferential voting is to encourage the free nomination of candidates and to obtain always a clear majority at one balloting, no matter how many candidates are nominated." (From the Proportional Representation Review Dec. 1902, p. 77) (Hathi Trust online resource, page 81/180) Thanks for reading. Check out my blog "list of Montopedia blogs concerning electoral reform" to find other blogs on this important subject. ----------------------------------- This year: *Alberta is celebrating 150 years in Confederation 1870-2020 *100th Anniversary of STV first being used to elect legislators in Canada Winnipeg MLAs first elected through STV in 1920 ==============================================================
Comments