Across USA and Canada, STV was used for the first time in a government election in Ashtabula in 1915. Later Cleveland, Cincinnati, Hamilton and Toledo also began to use STV.
The last STV election held in Ohio was in 1960.
Adoption No. of DM Date of last Repeal votes
STV elections STV election held (bold=STV defeat)
Ashtabula 1915 8 7 1930 1920, 1926, 1926
Cleveland 1921 5 5-7 1931 1925, 27, 28, 1931, 1935?
(4 districts)
Hamilton 1926 7 1960 1929, 33, 33, 1944, 1960
Cincinnati 1925 16 9 1955 1936, 39, 47, 1954, 1957
Toledo 1935 8 9 1949 1935, 37, 45, 1946, 1949
Kathleen Barber's book Proportional Representation and Election Reform in Ohio discusses the use of STV in city elections in Ohio.
End of STV
We see that some cities saw valiant PR-defenders hold off the attack until final defeat.
In Cleveland, well-financed opponents of PR sponsored five repeal referendums in the first ten years of STV, with voters voting down a return to X voting four times. Finally in fifth vote, the majority voted to sink STV after about 10 years of use.
In Hamilton, too, STV was sustained in four votes but died on the fifth.
Hamilton voted STV out in 1962.
In Cincinnati it was voted out in 1957.
======
For more info on adoption of PR in U.S. cities, see
THE LOST LEFT OF PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION
Aidan Calvelli
this 60-page essay covers use of STV in local governments in U.S. 1915-[2015?]
==============================================
Notes on use of STV in Ashtabula, Cleveland, Hamilton, Cincinnati, Toledo,
with relevant citations in the Barber book:
============================
Ashtabula
seven elected at-large in each election,
elected members then named the mayor and the city manager.
replaced by block voting (Kathleen, p. 85)
Barber notes: Ashtabula -- STV framework p. 85 political setting p. 88, info table p. 92 end of PR p. 94-
see also Montopedia blog
========================================
Cleveland City council
most-populous city in U.S. to adopt STV up to that time, being fifth-largest in the whole U.S.A.
four wards, each electing 5-7 members (Barber, p. 123)
1923 under STV 106,000 votes were cast for council.
86,000 were used to elect winners.
In previous election (1921), 154,000 voters voted. 130,000 valid votes were cast in the aldermanic contests (each member elected in a separate district) and only 60,000 votes were used to elect someone.
(In 1921 mayor was elected by ranked ballots - likely through the Bucklin system - and an Independent candidate was elected after secondary preferences were counted.)
Cleveland's STV adopted prior to the 1923 election
multi-member wards of varying number of seats.
25 members were elected in four districts
- one district of five seats; one district of six; two districts of seven.
Districts had different number of members as they were unequal in population - the prime objective in laying out the districts was to have districts of social and economic homogeneity, not equality of population.
(from Maxey, "Cleveland Election and the New Charter" American Political Science Review, Feb 1922.
Barber notes -- political setting p. 118, adoption p. 21, info table p. 125
impact of transfers p. 142
effective voting p. 152
=============================================
Hamilton
7 elected at-large
had STV elections 1926 to 1960
Barber notes:
features of Hamilton's STV p. 228
repeal votes p. 231
info table 216
===================
Cincinnatti
had STV elections 1925 to 1955
elections held each odd-numbered year
1925 first black elected in Cincinnatti's history due to adoption of STV.
Barber notes -- info table p. 172,
effective votes p. 191-2
90 percent of voters in Cincinnati when STV was used (1925-1955) saw their first choice elected or their vote used to elect a secondary preference, with about 60-74 percent of voters seeing their first choice elected, even if their vote was not used to elect that person, it being transferred on as a surplus vote. (Barber, p. 191)
=====================================
Toledo
1934 Toledo voters voted for STV-PR and city manager plan.
8 elections held using STV, various STV systems
election held bi-annually,
1934 majority of voters supported nine elected at-large using STV
(the Central Labour Union opposed at-large districting Barber, p. 244)
STV-repeal votes held in 1935, 1937, 1945, 1946, 1949 (STV rejected)
1935, 1937 STV-repeal votes -- voters opposed change to 21 members elected by plurality in wards (proposed wards likely single-member)
1945 STV-repeal votes -- voters opposed change to 9 members elected at-large by plurality
1946 STV-repeal votes -- voters opposed change to 21 members elected by plurality in wards (proposed wardssingle-member)
1949 majority of voters supported change to elected mayor, 21 elected at-large [by plurality/Block voting], with a primary to reduce candidates to 18 (Barber, p. 244)
Black Toledoans were only identifiable group of voters who voted for PR. (p. 257)
===
City Manager League, the reform movement in favour of food government, city manager-small council scheme, ran candidatesin PR elections.
benefitted from PR
electing a majority of seats in first two PR elections, five in 1935, 8 in 1937,
It elected 4 in 1939, only two of which were incumbents (Barber, p. 247)
but was able to get support from a fifth councillor (who had himself been endorsed by the CML in 1937)
the five-member block secured election of a CML man for mayor.
1941 CML reconstituted itself as the Toledo Municipal League (TML).
evidence of growing complacency. and flight of middle class out to suburbs. (p. 255)
Over next several years, "union and party leaders succeeded in casting PR as alien and strange whereas its defence was generalized as "good government" in 1937, conceded to be merely a "lesser evil" than its alternative in 1945, and in 1946 was detached from connection with the city-manager plan." (Barber, p. 255)
1943 election of three new members produced a diverse city council that was representative of most areas of the city. (Barber, p. 248, 250)
Political Action Committee of the CIO launched a STV-repeal campaign calling for election of nine councillors at-large through block voting with no primary.
voter feared that under such a system it was likely the elected members would be elected with the support of just a small segment of society. (Barber, p. 250)
1945 first black councillor elected in Toledo, under PR (p. 256)
1946 STV repeal campaign called for change to elected mayor and 21 councillors elected in single-member wards. (Barber, p. 250)
1947 Democratic Party won a majority of seats on council for the first time. (Barber, p. 251)
two[?] consecutive Democratic majorities, Democrat machine turned against PR. (Barber, p. 251-2)
1949 Republicans and Democrats both oppose PR.
when attractive alternative offered - nine elected at-large by Block voting - majority of voters support it.
plurality/at-large election system was mislabelled as "Popular Voting" (p. 253)
65 percent of voters voted for it.
Turnout low during PR period
-WWII
-no elected mayor
-lack of candidates making it competitive and interesting.
this was due to
--at-large campaigning was expensive
--threshold to be elected was seen as significant. Barber said it was up to candidates to decide if getting 10 percent of the vote city-wide (the usual amount needed to win under at-large PR) was easier than getting 40 to 50 percent of the vote in a ward.
===========
Winners and losers -- what difference does PR make? p. 262
Barber notes
info tables:
p. 244, 254,
voter turnout info table 259
characteristics of councillors under PR p. 264-265
STV contest results -- who won and how p. 268
STV vote tallies and transfers p. 272-273
STV-repeal votes p. 245
votes wasted under plurality p. 249
"Conflict and Consensus in the Operation of Government" p. 276-
Summary and Conclusion (p. 279-
PR adopted in Toledo after PR had been cancelled in Ashtablula and Cleveland. (p. 279)
PR did not lead to unstable factionalism or governmental gridlock (p. 261)
minority groups did not have sophistication and organization best able to take advantage of PR, thus "PR was wasted on the U.S. of the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s." (p. 251)
'future PR campaigns must look to partisan minorities who are shut out by Winner take all contests, and minority goups too spread out to benefit from FPTP and not numerous enough to benefit from Block Voting.' (Barber, p. 281)
=====================================================================
Comments