With First Past The Post winner-take-all elections in single-member districts, one party takes the seat in some Alberta districts over and over again. The voters who cast votes for others are constantly and continuously ignored.
Being constantly ignored, many stay home, partly causing the low turnout in today's elections in these "no-hope" districts. Or sometimes they narrow their choice on just a single opposition candidate, thus misrepresenting their actual sentiment. Or they vote just for the party that wins the seat without historic exception.
But only through shown inefficiency, by the presence of a massive number of Ineffective un-used, ignored votes, will our present electoral system be changed.
The accumulation of ineffective votes time after time becomes evidence of the inequality of the system, and hopefully will aid the push for reform.
Here is the election record in a couple of Alberta's "no-hope" districts:
Drayton Valley (including Drayton Valley; Drayton Valley-Calmar and Drayton Valley-Calmar)
and
Grande Prairie (including Grande Prairie (1944-1989); Grande Prairie-Smoky (1993-2015); Grande Prairie-Wapiti (1993-2015) and Grande Prairie (2019-).
--------------------------
Drayton Valley
1971 P-C 53 percent (turnout 68 percent)
1975 P-C 68 percent (turnout 63 percent)
1979 P-C 57 percent (turnout 66 percent) 2668 voters ignored
1982 P-C 67 percent (turnout 71 percent)
1986 P-C 61 percent (turnout 49.9 percent) 3389 voters ignored
1989 P-C 46 percent (turnout 56 percent) 5448 voters ignored
Drayton Valley - Calmar
1993 P-C 51 percent (turnout 61 percent) 5040 voters ignored
1997 P-C 61 percent (turnout 62 percent)
2001 P-C 68 percent (turnout 61 percent) 3546 voters ignored
2004 P-C 59 percent (turnout 46 percent)
2008 P-C 59 percent (turnout 48 percent) 4166 voters ignored
Drayton Valley - Devon
2012 P-C 52 percent (turnout 56 percent)
2015 Wildrose 37 percent (turnout 57 percent)
2019 UCP 71 percent (turnout 74 percent)
===============================================
Grande Prairie and the 1993-2015 districts of Grande Prairie Wapiti and Grande Prairie Smoky
The town of Grande Prairie (a city after 1958) was enclosed in a single district until 1993. Then it was split in half by the creation of the districts of Grande Prairie-Wapiti and Grande Prairie-Smoky.
From 1930 to 2019, with three exceptions, these districts elected just candidates of the ruling party. This includes 1935 and 1971 when it elected a candidate of the party that was elected government in that election.
Only in 1940 and 2015 did the district(s) elect a MLA that sat on the opposition side of the legislature.
In 1940, during the Social Credit era, the MLA was a member of a Conservative /Liberal anti-SC coalition.
In 2015, during the Notley NDP's turn in government, one district elected a Conservative, the other a Wildrose Party candidate.
However, Grande Prairie electing a government member really means nothing more than that, Alberta politics being what they are, Grande Prairie elected a UFA in 1930, a radical-reformist Social Credit candidate in 1935, then consistently elected rightist candidates in every election from 1940 to the present. In 1940, it meant an anti-SC Unity Movement candidate, then from 1944 to 1971 a rightist Social Credit candidate, then Progressive -Conservative/UCP candidates (and a Wildrose candidate in 2015) ever since.
Since 1955, Grande Prairie's rightist MLAs have been elected with and without majority support.
In all these elections, the voters that cast votes for others than the SC or PC/UCP/Wildrose candidate have been totally unrepresented.
And in 1971 a P-C was elected with only 43 percent of the vote - 57 percent of the voters in the district had no representation following this election.
Grande Prairie
From 1930 to 1955, elections were held using Alternative Voting (with ranked ballots and transferable votes). In these elections, a candidate had to have a majority of votes to win the seat.
1930 UFA elected by acclamation
1935 SC 37 percent (2741 votes) 4660 voters ignored (turnout 76 percent)
1940 Unity Movement 47 p.c. (1998 votes) 2230 voters ignored (turnout 48 percent)
1944 SC 56 percent (2366 votes) 1864 voters ignored (turnout 69 percent*)
1948 SC 62 percent (2952 votes) 1787 voters ignored (turnout 68 percent)
1952 P-C 62 percent (2967 votes) 1837 voters ignored (turnout 65 percent)
1955 SC 57 percent (3240 votes) 2396 voters ignored (turnout 71 percent)
(Grande Prairie became a city in 1958)
(Alternative Voting stopped being used in 1956.)
1959 SC 66 percent (4213 votes) 2207 voters ignored (turnout 66 percent)
1963 SC 73 percent (4763 votes) 1759 voters ignored (turnout 57 percent)
(lowest turnout during SC era)
1967 SC 56 percent (4847 votes) 3880 voters ignored (turnout 69 percent)
(P-C era began)
1971 P-C 43 percent (4553 votes) 6096 voters ignored (turnout 48 percent)
1975 P-C 61 percent (6466 votes) 4088 voters ignored (turnout 64 percent)
1979 P-C 50.3 percent (6313 votes) 6247 voters ignored (turnout 61 percent)
1982 P-C 58 percent (9555 votes) 6858 voters ignored (turnout 67 percent)
1986 P-C 62 percent ( 6239 votes) 3892 voters ignored (turnout 46 percent)
1989 P-C 53 percent (5319 votes) 4789 voters ignored (turnout 44 percent)
after 1989 election, creation of two new districts, each having rural areas and half of the city of Grande Prairie -- Grande Prairie-Wapiti and Grande Prairie-Smoky
Grande Prairie-Wapiti
1993 P-C 48 p.c. (4457 votes) 4822 voters ignored (turnout 57 percent)
1997 P-C 63 p.c. (5592 votes) 3250 voters ignored (turnout 47 percent)
2001 P-C 66 p.c. (5674 votes) 2988 voters ignored (turnout 44 percent)
2004 P-C 55 p.c. (4346 votes) 3546 voters ignored (turnout 37 percent)
2008 P-C 36 p.c. (5145 votes) 2569 voters ignored (turnout 29 percent)
(lowest turnout during P-C era)
2012 P-C 52 p.c. (6712 votes) 6287 voters ignored (turnout 43 percent)
2015 P-C 36 p.c. (6229 votes) 11,285 voters ignored (turnout 47 percent)
P-C MLA Wayne Drysdale did not seek re-election in 2019.
Grande Prairie-Smoky
1993 P-C 55 p.c. (4942 votes) 4034 voters ignored (turnout 54 percent)
1997 P-C 65 p.c. (5753 votes) 3138 voters ignored (turnout 47 percent)
2001 P-C 68 p.c. (6241 votes) 2999 voters ignored (turnout 44 percent)
2004 P-C 56 p.c. (4369 votes) 3374 voters ignored (turnout 35 percent)
2008 P-C 59 p.c. (4769 votes) 3255 voters ignored (turnout 30 percent)
(lowest turnout during SC era)
2012 P-C 46 p.c. (5458 votes) 6461 voters ignored (turnout 43 percent)
2015 Wildrose 33 p.c. (5354 votes) 10,764 voters ignored (turnout 49 percent)
Wildrose MLA joined UCP when it was formed through merger of PC and WRP in 2017. He ran in Central Peace-Notley in 2019 and was elected as UCP MLA.
Grande Prairie (a new city-only district)
2019 UCP 63 p.c. (12,713 votes) 7461 voters ignored (turnout 64 percent)
Thus, in these districts 1935, 1940, 1971, 1993, 2008, 2012 and 2015 saw minority victories. The 1935 and 1971 were occasioned by the shift in overwhelming strength from one party to another as a new party formed government, at first just winning districts just by a small lead over the sitting politician/old government party then soon with overwhelming strength. The 1940 was occasioned by splintering of the electorate between support for the government and support for a conservative coalition party.
The minority election of a P-C candidate in GP-Wapiti in 1993 was occasioned by a strong showing by a Liberal candidate. (This was a year of good returns for Liberals (due to leader Lawrence Decore's promises of conservative-style deep budget cuts.) And perhaps it was due to a low voter turnout. That the district was new may also have loosened voting patterns.
2012 and 2015 was caused by splintering of conservative vote between PC and Wildrose, and with much support going to the NDP, which would form government in part due to the division of the right.
Overall in these elections from 1959 (the first not to guarantee majority support for elected MLA) to the present, 116,049 votes have been ignored.
This is a great number even spread over 24 elections.
An average of almost 5000 voters each time were ineffective.
This is a galling figure when the successful candidates are elected with vote tallies ranging from 4200 to 10,000.
====================================================
Overall was voter turnout affected by repeated election of rightest - usually government party - candidates?
Yes, that seems to have been the case.
During the SC era after 1944, the lowest turnout was 57 percent. This was in 1963, after five consecutive wins for SC candidates.
During the P-C era, after 1971, there were many elections where voters flocked away from the polling places.
from 1986 to 2015, turnout never was larger than 57 and even dropped to 29 percent in 2008 in GP-Wapiti/30 percent in GP-Smoky.
1982 had been the fourth consecutive election where a P-C was elected. It seems voter depression set in, both in GP-Wapiti and GP-Smoky. Conservative voters felt there was hardly any need to vote as their candidate was pretty much guaranteed victory, while those opposed saw their cause as futile.
Or perhaps the low turnout was partially caused by the unnatural splitting of the city between the two districts. (Perhaps many voters wanted to vote for candidates who they could not vote for because they happened to run in the other half of the city.)
The joining of the two halves into the new district of Grande Prairie saw voter turnout surge to 64 percent in 2019.
*Grande Prairie 1944 turnout of 69 percent is based on voters list of 1940. Standard references use fictitious number of 4328 as eligible voters in 1944, with no mention of why it was so much lower than the very similar-looking number (6328) used in 1940. I think it was a simple typo, which has now become accepted knowledge.
===========================================================
Thanks for reading.
Check out my blog "List of Montopedia blogs concerning electoral reform" to find other blogs on this important subject.
As well, please consider purchasing my booklet "When Canada Had Effective Voting" STV in Western Canada 1917-1971. 68-page overview of Canada's PR experience in the last century - the fight for proportional representation, the adoption of STV by 20 cities and two provincial governments in the 1920s, and STV's final use in a government election, in the 1971 Calgary city election. Available through AbeBooks.com or email me at montotom@yahoo.ca
---------------------------------------------------------------
This year is the:
* 100th Anniversary of United Farmers of Alberta party being elected on promise to bring in electoral reform, a promise fulfilled three years later.
* 50th anniversary of the last STV city election in Canada. Calgary elected 14 city councillors through STV, and then switched to FPTP for city elections. By that time, more than 54 years after the first STV city election, anyone old enough to have voted using X voting in a city election would have had to be 75 years old.
* 50th Anniversary of election of Lougheed's Progressive-Conservatives. With only 46 percent of the vote they took more than 60 percent of the seats. NDP received 11 percent of the vote but elected just one (Grant Notley), instead of the nine MLAs it was due.
====================================================
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.
========================================================
Comments