Looking at other campaigns we have hints of what might work.
In London, Ontario when the city switched to preferential balloting (Alternative Voting) in 2018, the city clerk held 163 mock elections and model demonstrations to educate voters and others on the switch.
Australia's great Single Transferable Voting advocate Catherine Helen Spence also had done so many model elections that she had it down pat. Her description of the holding of such was included in her submission to a collection of pro-rep essays organized by well-known Canadian scientist Sandford Fleming in 1892. (see other blog on that.) She came through Canada in the 1890s but did not stop in Edmonton.
John D. Hunt and W.D. Spence gave many talks on STV in Edmonton and other Alberta places in the 1920s. This helped educate voters and officials so it was not seen as new, strange and scary. The COVID of course makes that sort of thing more difficult today.
Lady Franklin. like the pro-rep campaign, had an uphill battle to keep the fire going under her campaign to organize searches for her husband's expedition to the North-West Passage. According to the latest issue of Canada's History magazine (formerly the Beaver magazine), she used statues and public memorials to keep her husband's memory in the public mind.
Public memorials could mean honouring anniversaries of significant dates in the progress of electoral reform.
The first time ranked ballots was used in Canada in a government election was Dec. 8, 1913 when voters cast ranked ballots to elect Lethbridge's mayor and two commissioners. Alternative Voting was used. (Lethbridge had no city council at that time.)
The first time Single Transferable Voting was used in Canada in a government election was Dec. 10, 1917 when voters cast ranked ballots to elect Calgary's city councillors. Its mayor and a commissioner were elected using Alternative Voting.
The first time ranked ballots were used at the provincial level in Canada was June 29, 1920 when under the STV system Winnipeg voters cast ranked ballots to elect 10 MLAs, each to represent the district of Winnipeg.
The first time ranked ballots was used in Alberta at the provincial level was October 27, 1924 when voters cast ranked ballots to elect an Edmonton MLA in a by-election. Four candidates competed and, due to the use of Alternative Voting, the vote went to a third count before a candidate had a majority of the votes.
The first time ranked ballots was used in Alberta in a general provincial election was June 28, 1926.
Edmonton and Calgary elected five MLAs each. Each city voter cast only one transferable vote, under the Single Transferable Voting system.
Medicine Hat elected two MLAs. Each Medicine Hat voter cast only one transferable vote, under the Single Transferable Voting system.
In all other districts, one MLA was elected. Each voter there also cast one transferable vote, under the Alternative Voting system.
Thus ranked ballots were used across the whole province in the 1926 Alberta election.
Manitoba used ranked ballots across that province in the general election of June 28, 1927. Each voter in the districts outside Winnipeg cast a transferable vote under the Alternative Voting system. STV was used in Winnipeg (as it would be until 1953).
These occasions could all be the grounds for memorials, for noticed anniversaries. June 28 seems a likely commemorative date. June 28 this year was the 100th anniversary of the first provincial election in Canada to use STV. But the exact date has now passed us. Five years from now will be the 105th anniversary.
Next year will be the 100th anniversary of a government elected on a promise to implement electoral reform - a government that would fulfill the promise. I am referring to the election of the United Farmers of Alberta.
Three years from now will be the 110th anniversary of the first time that preferential balloting was used in a city election in Canada.
Four years from now will be the 100th anniversary of the first time preferential balloting was used at the provincial level in Alberta.
Six years from now will be the 100th anniversary of the first Alberta general election to use STV and AV.
Perhaps we can work up to a proper honouring of these occasions!
There is a good choice to be the subject of a statue.
The hero of Alberta's switch to provincial STV in 1924 was John D. Hunt. As early as 1917, he wrote books on the need for electoral reform. His Dawn of a New Patriotism was once a classic of reform polemics in Alberta but now is lost to public memory. Even surviving copies are rare. He spoke to the Chamber of Commerce and other groups on the need for electoral reform. He was clerk of the legislative council and was responsible for organizing elections. This put him in a place where otherwise an official might have obstructed the change.
This compares to the city clerk in London Ontario, Cathy Saunders, who spoke to the city council in 2017 opposing the switch at least for then, saying the time to make the switch was too short before the upcoming 2018 election. Despite this reluctance, she worked hard and made the election a success.
In other places the opposition of the city clerk ensured the defeat of a city's pro-rep experience. In Edmonton the city clerk opposed the system and his mis-handling of the Edmonton municipal election in 1926 caused sentiment to switch against STV and bring about its end at the city level there.
So let's erect a statue of John D. Hunt at the Legislature where he worked and based his STV campaign. Or a park in his name would be good. But not one located out in the suburbs. Parks can be created within parks. Such is the Native-themed INEW Art Park within Queen Elizabeth Park. Perhaps a political-themed art park could be created on the legislative grounds or nearby, perhaps on Jasper Avenue, to bear his name.
Writings on the subject are also important. Once I have my research done to my satisfaction I plan to publish a book on the subject. Meantime this blogsite is my attempt to help mould public sentiment.
Involvement in the local Fair Vote group is also valuable.
A more militant approach could be called for. Reading of the struggle of Blacks in South Africa I see reference to non-violent campaign for the Defiance of Unjust Laws (1952). This somewhat subtle approach, as compared to acts of violence, was necessary to avoid fomenting government brutality as had happened earlier at small provocation. In Canada a subtle approach is necessary because most people don't clearly see the injustice of our elections and the adverse effects of government elected through them. Polls tell us that most people vaguely feel that elections are not working properly, though. But to take radical action would not be effective for the cause.
In South Africa the Defiance of Unjust Laws, 10 months in duration, included demonstrations, blacks entering white-only establishments, causing mass arrests leading to mass imprisonments. This drew international attention, and the U.N. intelligently recognized that the apartheid system itself was a threat to peace.
What exact form a Canadian campaign for the "Defiance of Unjust Elections" is not clear to me. Perhaps others have ideas...
Government support for electoral reform
A party with reliable support for electoral reform achieving power of course is pivotal. The United Farmers of Alberta promised electoral reform in its election campaign of 1921 and three years later fulfilled its promise. The United Farmers of Ontario promised electoral reform in its election campaign of 1919 and never did fulfill its promise.
Why the difference?
Ottawa had in 1916 been Canada's leading city of electoral reform but the Ontario government had prohibited it from reforming its municipal elections.
The Alberta government meanwhile had not prohibited cities from electoral reform, and Lethbridge brought in Alternative Voting in 1913, and Calgary was the first city in Canada to bring in STV in 1917. Successful from the start, Calgary kept STV and/or Alternative Voting until 1971. Perhaps that made the difference at the provincial level.
Many BC cities also brought in STV in 1917/1918 but soon abandoned it, which might explain why STV did not spread to the provincial level there - until the 1950s. And then what Alternative Voting revealed in the BC provincial election of 1953 - that CCF supporters would give their second choice to Social Credit candidates - turned CCF party officials against electoral reform, as Dennis Pilon states in his work on BC electoral reform. Many party leaders seem to believe that eventually they will benefit from unfairness, that eventually their party will be supremely rewarded for abuses it takes in the meantime under an uneven playing field, but I hope that soon party leaders will see the basic democracy and common courtesy of making the field as even as possible for all parties large and small.
Lobbying of a government opposed to electoral reform seems a more difficult battle. But perhaps out of partisan self-interest, if nothing else, it may be possible.
STV or other form of pro-rep is more fair to all parties than First past the post (but that means it has a negative effect on those who benefit from FPTP or other unfair systems).
But if a government thinks a drubbing is on the offing, it might be wiling to adopt a fair system in order to maintain some vestige of prestige in the face of an unfair shift of seats to its opponent.
Or it might bring in preferential voting for selfish partisan or ideological (right versus left) reasons. The BC government brought in a form of Alternative Voting in 1952 to receive an advantage through a voter-based Liberal-Conservative coalition effort. However, opposition candidates, not the coalition, received a majority of the votes in most of the districts. The strategy further failed when the coalition's own voters expressed their liberty by not choosing the other half of the coalition as the back-up preference but instead the Social Credit as the second choice. As well, CCF voters gave their back-up preferences to the SC candidate and not to the coalition government candidates. (See other blog on this election stating district examples.) Basically, the Liberal/Conservative coalition was not popular, Social Credit had wide general acceptability, and a SC minority government was elected.
An advantage derived from STV may shift even people elected under the old system.
Some "politicians." a term often used pejoratively, dislike the "dog and pony" show, the glad-handing and kissing of babies, as it used to be described - that is part of politics under FPTP.
Under FPTP a politician has to try to appeal to everyone, if not through his or her policies then through personality, the personal touch.
Under STV a candidate depends more on policy. If he or she has the active support of a substantial group that supports his or her policies, then he or she will be elected and there is nothing another candidate or group can do about it. This alters the tenor of campaigning - it is more policy-based, less antagonistic and can be more targeted to specific audiences.
Electoral reform at city level possible
Or sometimes a gap in the legislation might allow electoral reform if public will is there. Edmonton could legally switch to Single Non-Transferable Voting, I believe. The system is fairer than FPTP. It gives the mixed representation that STV gives, though without STV's refinement. SNTV depends on a voter casting only a single vote (which Edmonton does now) and multi-member districts (which almost all the municipalities in Alberta have now), so it seems perfectly legal. The provincial government, I believe, cannot ban Edmonton from adopting SNTV, although it could pass a law that did prohibit such a change - or could pass a law allowing a city to adopt whatever system it wanted. So government turn-over may be needed in the end, anyway.
Perhaps in these times of attack on symbols of past oppressions the public eye will descend on the injustices of our electoral system.
- how in districts minorities are represented while majorities are ignored.
- how a slight majority (or less) in the province as a whole receives a massive majority of the seats, although it is possible that under a fair system the opposition if amalgamated would have almost half the seats (or more). That is the kind of flexibility that true representative democracy means.
Having the vote is important but having effective votes are just as important.
Perhaps a lawsuit could be launched on the grounds that without effective representation our rights are being obstructed. Any lawyers out there willing to take on the case?
Thanks for reading.
=====================================
Comments