Only PR ensures majority power rests on majority of voters -- Edmonton FPTP elections versus Wellington STV city elections
- Tom Monto
- 2 days ago
- 8 min read
Updated: 22 hours ago
Edmonton (Alberta, Canada) elects its city councillors using First Past The Post in 12 separate single-member wards. (This has been the process just in last five elections. prior to 2010 Edmonton never used single-member wards.)
This system sees different councillors elected by different number of votes. That range could allow a small minority of voters to elect a majority of city councillors and wield power. And minority power is what we don't want in elections.
Some cities use election systems that are more fair than FPTP. Instant-Runoff Voting ensures that each councillor will be elected by a majority of votes cast in the ward. However use of single-member wards means that there is varying number of votes in each district. and also varying numbers of exhausted votes means some members are elected with even less than the half figure that the system is said to guarantee.
Proportional representation is used by some cities. in North America that means Single Transferable Voting. each voter has one vote, and councillors are elected in multi-member wards or city-wide districts.
City-wide districts means there is not the variance caused by dividing the electorate into separate discrete wards. All candidates face the same quota as quasi-threshold for election. Each councillor needs about the same number of votes to be elected. That fairness means that the majority that wields power on council is elected by majority of voters (or at least a majority of voters that cast a valid vote).
At least I thought that would be case but actually the "fulcrum of majority rule" in the chamber is determined by just the votes used to elect the members so what we really can hope to see is that the majority that holds power in the chamber is elected by a majority of the effective votes.
Cambridge Mass. uses city-wide districting in its city elections to elect its nine councillors by STV. About 90 percent of its valid votes were effective votes. And such was the fairness (equal vote tallies for almost all winners), due in part to the city-wide districting, that the five councillors needed for majority would be composed by no fewer than 55 percent of the effective votes. (math shown below)
Even if city-wide districting is not used, even the use of multi-member wards and STV's use of quota (to secure election for many and to determine surplus votes for transfer purposes) means less variance from successful candidate to candidate.
An example of this is Wellington (New South Wales, New Zealand). As stats below show, Wellington uses six districts and that produces some variance of vote tallies among elected candidates. But having only six districts to elect the 15 councillors (and five of them being multi-member wards) and each district (with one exception) having a similar ratio of voters to member means that there is only limited variance, and importantly that if the group that wields power in the council (a minimum 8 of the 15 seats) is composed of the least-popular candidates, still that group would represent the sentiment of a majority of voters (or at least a majority of voters who voted in the last election).
FPTP means many wards and large difference between vote tallies of successful candidates.
Even under Instant-Runoff Voting (RCV), there are just as many districts as FPTP and the quasi-threshold of 50 percent (based on the varying district vote) does not create perfect equivalency from candidate to candidate. Due to differences from ward to ward (population, voter turnout rate, rate of exhausted votes), you see range in successful candidate's vote tallies in each city each time. that range would allow a mere minority of voters to elect a majority of city councillors and wield power. And minority power is what we don't want in elections.
But STV-PR means more fairness - less variance from elected candidate to elected candidate, and the majority that wields power will reflect views of majority of voters.
=======
This is what we hope to accomplish in our city elections
1. high voter turnout -- more than two-thirds preferably
2. high proportion of votes used to elect someone
3. majority of members elected by majority of votes cast.
Decisions in council passed by majority of members.
If elections work right, the majority of members wielding power should be elected by majority of effective votes
That is for Edmonton, any group of seven members should have been elected with a majority of the votes used to elect any one of the members.
This means even the seven least-popular members should have more votes than the five who oppose them.
The 2025 Edmonton city election in review
But we see that in the 2025 Edmonton election, the seven councillors elected with the least fewest votes were elected with just 43,618 votes, which is fewer than half of the 88,000 used to elect the members overall, which is only 43 percent of the 206,799 voters who voted, which itself was less than a third of eligible voters.
The 43,618 votes is only 21 percent of the 206,799 voters who voted. Thus, if the 43,618 voters elect one cohesive block, it would have power and the other 79 percent of voters who voted could see no one elected or their elected member on the minority side of the city council chamber.
The 43,618 voters tht could potentially elect a majority are only 21 percent of the 206,799 voters who voted, and they are only 6.4 percent of the city's eligible voters.
=================
Under best conditions, the majority of members that pass motions in council should represent the majority of voters who vote, or at least the majority of voters who elect the members.
Due to the way Edmonton’s 2025 election converted votes to seats, a majority of seats on council could be assembled by councillors elected with a combined total just 43,618 votes, which is only 21 percent of the 206,799 voters who voted, which itself was less than a third of eligible voters.
Whereas in cities where every vote counts and is used to elect someone, the majority on council is elected by majority of voters.
But that is utopian. About the best that can be expected is that 80 to 90 percent of voters are used to elect someone.
Whereas in cities where fair voting is used, the majority on council is elected by a majority of the effective votes. But as a large proportion of votes are used to elect someone (at least 80 percent) and a large proportion of eligible voters vote (at least two-thirds), the majority on council is guaranteed to be elected by no fewer than about 26 percent of eligible voters.
This may seem very low but is a massive increase over the potential majority in Edmonton city hall that could be elected by just 6.4 percent of eligible voters. Heck, in Edmonton elections, only a bit more than 26 percent of eligible voters even vote while in other cities, 26 percent of votes actually elect members that could compose the ruling majority in city hall.
===========
Wellington, New Zealand uses a form of proportional representation to elect its city councillors. Due to this fairness, there is no way to compose a majority on council without having members elected with majority of votes. A majority of the 14 general ward councillors must be composed of members who have been elected with a majority of votes.
Here we see a comparison of the recent Edmonton election and the efficiency of city elections in Wellington, New Zealand, which uses a form of proportional representation to elect its city councillors.
Edmonton (2025) Wellington, NZ (2022 election)
Population 1M 215,000
Eligible voters 680,000 160,000
Turnout
Votes 207,000 73,067
Turnout % 30% 46%
Mayor FPTP Instant-Runoff Voting
Total turnout 79,000 73,067 (turnout 45%)
Valid votes 79,000 72,025
% of valid votes that elected a winner
38 percent 30,656 (43 percent of valid)
At end – 34,462 (47 percent of valid) (majority of votes still in play)
Councillors 12 through FPTP 15 through STV
Valid votes in five gen. wards 68,513
Total valid votes 70,289
% votes used to elect winners
88,000 (43% of 207,000) 47,846 (68% of 70,289 votes)
majority of councillors 7 8
votes needed to elect maj. 43,618 (21% of votes cast) 24,303 (33% of votes cast)*
votes needed to elect maj. 43,618 (21% of votes cast) 24,303 (34% of valid votes)*
of effective votes 49.6% 50.8%
of eligible voters 6% 25%
(*ignoring possibility of Maori ward member being in majority)
Of effective votes
EDMONTON
Total 43,618 to elect 7/12ths (58%) of councillors 49.6 percent of effective votes
WELLINGTON
Total 24,303 to elect 8/15ths (53%) of councillors 50.8 percent of effective votes
Successful candidates Range from least- to most-popular
5452 to 10,620 2812 to 4242
Ratio 1 to 1.94 1 to 1.5
Edmonton
Least-popular six - 37,000 votes
Most-popular six - 51,000 votes ratio of 1 to 1.38
Wellington
Least-popular 7 - 20,916 votes*
Most-popular 7 - 26,930 votes ratio 1 to 1.29
(*ignoring possibility of Maori ward member being in majority)
============================
Wellington
Quota is recalculated with each count that produces exhausted votes
Winners total starting Quota last quotas total
Takapu northern 9300 14,172 3543 final 3064 12,257
2nd last 3078 12,313
Least-popular successful candidate – 3088 (6180 to elect two cheapest)
Most-popular successful candidate - 3093
Wharangi 12,600 17,641 4410
Least-popular successful candidate – 4219
Pukinahinau 8466 12,972 3243
Least-popular successful candidate – 2812
Most-popular successful candidate - 2841
Motukarangi 9657 13,688 3422
Least-popular successful candidate – 3071
Most-popular successful candidate - 3387
Paekawakawa (2) 7858 12,710 4237
Least-popular successful candidate – 3929
STV subt 47,881 71183
STV % 67%
Maori 872 1884
TOTAL 73067
Bold districts contain the eight picked out for the possible least-popular majority.
Effective votes
Non-majority vote total in that cheapest maj. scheme 7/15 :
5 general wards:
Takapu (1) 3093
Wharangi (3) 12,600
Paekawakawa (2) 7850
Total (not including Maori ward member) 23,543
Maori valid votes 1776
Total effective including Maori non-maj 25,319 valid votes (electing 7 out of 15)
Total majority 24,303 (electing 8 out of 15)
Total effective votes : 49,622 47,846
Non effective votes (in 5 gen. wards?): 25,221
Total 74,843 (70,289 valid votes)
=============
5 general wards
Valid votes diff from total turnout
Takapu 13,578
Wharangi 17,110
Pukinahua 12,493
Motukarangi 13,098
Paekawakawa 12,234
Total valid votes 68,513
Maori ward 1776
Total total 70,289
==================================
Cambridge, Mass has used STV to elect its nine councillors since 1950s.
Although considerably smaller than Edmonton, its record of STV use shows what could happen in Edmonton if we adopted STV.
population 118,000
eligible voters unknown
turnout unknown
votes cast 23,512
valid votes 23,339
effective votes 20,920 (89.6% of valid votes)
votes needed to elect majority (5 of 9) 11,584 (49.6% of valid votes)
Total 11,584 to elect 5/9ths (56%) of councillors 55 percent of effective votes
================
Edmonton stats (evidence for findings presented above)
In the 2025 election, 88,000 votes -- less than half of the 207,000 votes -- were used to elect the councillor winners. 88,00 is actually only 43 percent of the voters who voted.
More than half the votes cast had no effect - the voters might as well have stayed home. And that doubtless affects voter turnout.
Under the winner-take-all system in one-seat ward, if a voter is not happy about who is elected, he or she had no other choice. But in a multi-seat ward, the voter would have a choice among the several councillors who would be elected in the ward. And would likely find a sympathetic ear among those elected even if the voter's own choice was not elected.
And the unequal vote tallies received by the successful candidates means that a majority could be composed just by members elected with only 21 percent of cast votes.
Wright 5452
Clarke 6177
Rutherford 6194
Stevenson 6269
Paquette 6453
Morgan 6406
Parmar 6667
Total 43,618 to elect 7/12ths of council
Less-popular six - 36,951
More-popular six - 51,049
Teng 6975
Janz
etc.
=====================================
(housekeeping:
Comments