By 1893, there had already been decades of disappointing FPTP elections. Canadian MP Richard Cartwright had spoken of it in the HofC, and PR organizations and "majority rule" groups had been formed in many places.
Even experiments had been done using alternative systems but not yet quite "proper" PR (as I see it anyway):
Toronto MLAs were elected through Limited Voting in 1886 and 1890.
Cumulative Voting and Bucklin Voting were used prior to first use of "proper" PR in North America in 1913.
(Hoag and Hallett PR (1926) recounts how the U.S. electoral reform movement was plagued through the 1800s with inability to decide on what system would replace FPTP and by un-productive experiments with limited voting, cumulative voting and Bucklin voting (or perhaps not Bucklin Voting - this might have come later)
But Robert Tyson (Tyson of Canada) helped move the movement forward in 1900 when at a conference of social and political activists, he won approval for PR and for STV in particular.
He became editor of the PR Review and one of the leaders of the PR League (U.S./also Canada)
Even then it took took more than a decade for the first city in North America to adopt it - that city was an accidental recipient of some lobbying and public education. A lucky combination of eager seed and ready ground provoked this first breakthrough in Ashtabula, Ohiol
PR first used in North America in 1913 in Ashtabula (Ohio). This was STV-PR.
(But even in 1910s Bucklin Voting was put into use (in Cleveland and other places) and then discarded. Cleveland though did not give up on PR but moved to become one of the first large cities in the U.S. to adopt STV.
Another non-FPTP alternative, Cumulative Voting, was in use in Illinois starting in 1870 and hung on until the regression to FPTP in Illinois in 1980.
first Canadian city -- Calgary -- got STV in 1917.
18 more Canadian cities got STV within the following five years.
STV was put into use at the provincial level in two provinces.
Manitoba got STV and used it to elect 10 of its MLAs starting in 1920.
Alberta got STV and used it to elect 12 of its MLAs in 1926.
Many cities dropped STV by 1924.
These changes are chronicled and analyzed in the pages of the Proportional Representation Review that are available for viewing - the issues of 1893 to 1924.
Other advances and defeats that were not chronicled in the available pages of the Proportional Representation Review:
Lethbridge belatedly adopted STV in 1928.
Saskatoon had it off and on from 1920s until 1942.
Winnipeg used STV to elect its councillors and MLAs from 1920 to 1953 and for its councillors but not MLAs until late 1960s.
Calgary used STV to elect its councillors (starting in 1917) and MLAs (starting in 1924) and used it without break to 1956 for MLAs, and for its councillors but not MLAs until 1961 and again in 1971.
Edmonton used STV to elect its councillors (starting in 1923) and MLAs (starting in 1924) and used it without break to 1956 for MLAs, and for its councillors just until 1927.
Edmonton's rejection of STV for city elections was reported in the pages of Proportional Representation Review.
STV's rejection stemmed from
- underlying desire of Business for more seats (although the right-wing initially took a hit after the return to non-proportional Block Voting) ,
- to an official's foul-up with his application of a city charter clause guaranteeing seats for the southside (Old Strathcona) in the 1926 election, and
- to STV producing a supposed large number of spoiled votes.
A big reason for dropping STV was the way the elections were analyzed. Spoiled votes were recorded and widely reported on, but the number of votes that were not used to elect anyone were not recorded nor reported on.
Thus the fact that STV elections in Edmonton were hampered by perhaps 6 percent spoiled votes while spoiled votes had been less under FPTP was much ballyhooed,
while it was not commonly noticed or reported that under Block Voting usually less than half of votes cast, sometimes less than a third of votes cast, elect anyone, while under STV, 80 to 90 percent of valid votes were actually used to elect someone.
(This un-balanced reporting, which not coincidentally serves the purposes of the powers that be, is still seen today. The dis-proportional misrepresentation of FPTP is overlooked or actively swept under the rug, while the pretend terrors of PR are inflated and shone a spotlight on.)
The adoption of STV and its successful use in these cities is described in the pages of the Proportional Representation Review of the time. And the early defeats for STV as well.
=============================================
Comments