Opinions on municipal STV
From Proportional Representation Review, April 1924 (p. 52-85)
"STV has fared worse in BC than anywhere else in Canada and U.S. Eight municipalities adopted STV. Public-spirited citizens had neither the time nor the resources to combat the misinformation that began to spread as soon as the system was in use.... STV has spread rapidly through the U.S. and Canada since it was first adopted in Ashtabula in 1915 and Calgary in 1917, and nowhere outside of BC have the people voted to do away with it." (Proportional Representation Review, April 1924, p. 54)
Six BC municipalities had abandoned STV by 1924, although actually only in Victoria did voters vote it away. Mostly it was discontinued without public vote.
As of early 1924 no city outside of BC had dispensed with STV.
Garfield King stated that the two essentials for securing good results under STV were
1. a thorough campaign of education, preferably repeated year after year
2. an active agency or agencies to persuade capable candidates to stand for election and to put their merits before the voters....
Replies were received from working-class leaders in Kalamazoo, Ashtabula, Vancouver, Victoria, Regina, and Saskatoon. Without exception they were favourable to P.R., some enthusiastically so.
Those who do not think that labor or other important groups should be represented are likely to be opposed to P.R., but most people, it is probably safe to say, do not object to the representation of minority groups provided, as under P.R., there is no danger of their domination. They do object to the political machine control which almost inevitably characterizes plurality elections and welcome the opportunity that P.R. gives them to do something for themselves, once the opportunity is explained.
(Proportional Representation Review, April 1924, p. 56:
every city except Cleveland used some form of plurality voting prior to STV -- multi-member city-wide at-large elections or single-member wards
In every case except Cleveland the method of election previously used was some form of plurality voting. Whether the plurality principle was applied at large or, as in most cases, to single-member wards, does not seem to have made much difference as to whether P.R. is considered superior. [What system was used in Cleveland elections pre-STV is unknown.]
P.R. shares with the ward system one important advantage over plurality voting at large (the "block vote") in that it allows important neighbourhood minorities to secure separate representation if they wish to. It shares with the plurality vote at-large important advantages over the ward system in that it gives every voter a wide variety of choice and does not force him to be represented by one of his neighbours if he prefers someone else.
Thirty-six of the fifty-six replies indicate a belief that P.R. is an improvement over the system used previously, only nine that it is not so good. Five think it makes no great difference and the other six either are non-committal or reserve judgment.
Fourteen of the seventeen replies received from P.R. cities in the United States indicate that P.R. is an improvement, nine of them in emphatic terms.
Question 5. Is there any movement on foot to abolish it? If so, what motives seem to be behind it?
Sooner or later an attempt to abolish P.R. may be expected wherever it is adopted. The plurality system creates its vested interests which cannot be expected to surrender their power to the people at large without a fight to the finish. Their success or failure depends on the degree with which the general public realizes the significance of the change.
In Vancouver and Victoria politicians succeeded in persuading the people to go back to the old system by popular vote.
In Ashtabula and Boulder they tried to do so but failed.
In West Hartford, after failure to recapture the local government by means of P.R., they succeeded in getting the state legislature to abolish it against the expressed wishes of the West Hartford people.
In Sacramento and Kalamazoo, after losing control of the local governments under P.R., they went to court and succeeded in getting the new system declared unconstitutional, but similar attempts in Cleveland were unsuccessful.
In most of the P.R. cities there has been talk among the opponents of P.R. of attempting to abolish it. The opposition to P.R. usually comes from persons who hope to obtain personal advantage from a return to the old system and persons who have been the victims of deliberate or ignorant misrepresentations. There are some, however, who object on principle to a system which does not allow the largest organized group to elect its entire slate.
Question 6. Have any practical difficulties been encountered in the use of P R. either by the voters or by the officials?
In none of the many P.R. elections conducted in the United States and Canada has there been any practical difficulty in counting the ballots. There has usually been some increase in the number of ballots spoiled, as might be expected after any change in the method of voting, but the great mass of the voters have found it just as easy to express their wishes by figures as by crosses. Many have found it easier, because under P.R. they do not have to consider the relative chances of the candidates. Official figures for spoiled ballots are given for every city so far as we have been able to secure them. Ballots termed invalid usually include blanks.
Question 7. How well is proportional representation generally understood?
In most places the general understanding of P.R. is not all that might be desired. The average voter understands well enough how to cast his ballot but is curious about what happens to it afterward. The significance and practical effect of P.R. is much more widely understood, however, than the details of its operation In most places, particularly in Canada, where the P.R. movement has been less organized than in the United States, there is great need of further educational work.
Question 8. What effect, if any, has P.R. apparently had on the interest shown in elections ?
It is evident that a system of election that makes nearly every vote count should, if thoroughly understood, result in a very general interest and participation in elections. In some cities, notably in Regina, North Battleford, and Calgary, the introduction of P.R. has, as a matter of fact, been followed by a notable increase in the size of the vote. In most places, however, the significance of P.R. is not yet well enough understood to make any considerable change. Official figures are given for every city for which we could obtain them. In some cases many voters have shown a new interest not indicated by the number of votes cast.
Question 9. What effect, if any, has P.R. apparently had on the temper in which elections are contested?
There is considerable evidence of a tendency of P.R. to lessen mud-slinging and substitute good feeling in election contests. Under P.R. no important element is in danger of being excluded, and it is to the advantage of every candidate not to alienate the supporters of other candidates by unjust attack, since he may possibly benefit by their second or later choices. In places where good temper has prevailed even under the old system, P.R. has naturally had little effect in this respect.
Question 10. What effect, if any, has it apparently had on the general attitude of the community toward its local government?
There is evidence of a general tendency to increased confidence and interest in local government under P.R. because of the new elements that are given representation. In some places, however, the change has not been marked enough to be noticeable.
Question 11. What effect, if any, has it apparently had on racial, religious, or sectional feeling?
Critics of P.R. have frequently maintained that if voters were free to group themselves for representation on any basis they pleased racial and religious units would take the place of the ward units based on geography, with the result that race and religion would become dominant political issues and intensify existing antagonisms. The evidence does not bear out this contention. Race and religion have played some part in the selection of representatives, as they have under other systems, but nowhere have they become the principal issues. The principal effect of P.R. on racial and religious groups has been to give them the satisfaction of knowing that their enemies will never be able to monopolize the local government. In many places the introduction of P.R. has had no noticeable effect on racial, religious, or sectional feeling.
Question 12. Have certain sections of your community been favoured by the voters above others in their selection of members under P.R., or have the members usually been well distributed geographically?
The proponents of the ward system have consistently objected to P.R. on the ground that it might leave some sections of the community without any representatives familiar with their local problems. P.R. allows voters to choose their representatives outside their immediate neighbourhood if they wish and many undoubtedly have done so, but the replies indicate that the members elected under P.R. have in nearly all cases been well distributed in their places of residence.
Question 13. Has P.R. aided or has it hindered in the solution of the community's problems?
By bringing together in the legislative body the chosen leaders of all the important elements in the community P.R. has in some cases very materially aided in the solution of the community's problems. In other cases it has not yet made any very noticeable difference except that the legislative body is able to act with the confidence of a larger proportion of the community.
Question 14. Has P.R. had any important effects not covered by the foregoing problems?In a number of places P.R. has resulted in the candidacy and election of citizens of greater ability and higher standing than were ordinarily elected under the old system.
Question 15. Would you recommend the use of P.R. to other cities?
A good majority of the correspondents are ready to recommend the use of P.R. to other cities. Two of the most trustworthy, however, say they should hesitate to do so if a satisfactory amount of educational work and civic activity could not be assured.
---------------------------------------
We present below significant excerpts of the replies and other material received. The quotations are in most cases condensed, and abbreviated answers to the questionnaire have been put into sentence form.
The P.R. League wishes to express its gratitude to all those who have cooperated with it in this undertaking....
CANADA
Winnipeg, Manitoba
Population (1921) 179,087.
P.R. was prescribed for the election of the ten Winnipeg members of the Manitoba Legislature by act of the Legislature in the spring of 1920.
The city's members have now been elected twice by P.R., from the city at large.
Formerly all members were elected by plurality vote from single-member districts.
On March 15, 1920, the Winnipeg City Council adopted P. R for future elections of its members.
The action was subsequently ratified by the Manitoba Legislature.
Councilmen had previously been elected by plurality vole from single-member districts. Under P.R. the city is divided into three districts electing six aldermen each, three each year for a term of two years.
Four municipal elections have been held under P.R.As in most of the Canadian P. R cities, the P.R. (single transferable vote) rules are also applied as a majority system to the election of mayor.
Total vote for Winnipeg members of Provincial Legislature under P.R.: 1920, 48,246; 1922, 45,078.
Invalid ballots: 1920, 819, 1.7%; 1922, 750,1.66%.
Total valid vote for mayor
under plurality system : 1917, 14,031 ; 1918,13,349: 1919, 28,192;
under single transferable vote: 1920, 29,649; 1922, 28,992.
Total valid vote for council under P.R. 1921, 20,915.
No record of invalid ballots kept except in the first election of mayor by single transferable vote, 1920, when the number was 2,077, or 6.5% of the total vote cast.
No direct replies received.
E. J. McMurray, member of Canadian House of Representatives for North Winnipeg, speaking against P.R. in a debate in the House, February 19, 1923: "They [some of those elected by P. R] are men with eccentric ideas, men with ideas that are hobbies with them, and very often men with these ideas are men of marked intelligence and good character, but the point I am making is that the man with a hobby will be elected. . . . Furthermore, pro-rep is absolutely opposed to the party system. There is no control over the candidate. . . .
We would have ambitious men who have not the sanction of the party crowding themselves into the position of candidates."
William Irvine, MP for East Calgary, which has used P.R. longer than any other Canadian city, replied to this argument as follows:
"But McMurray seems to me to want to deny the right of considerable numbers of people in a constituency to run after a fad if they want to. He prefers that they should run after his fad; that he should be allowed to state to the electorate what the real issue is and when he has done that, to get them all to follow him. That is perfectly democratic; that is perfectly in line, as he sees it, with the British system of constitutional government. But to allow Tom, Dick, and Harry to say what they think the issue is, that would never do at all, because if you did that, you might not elect the Tories! That is very clear reasoning, and I am in sympathy with the hon. gentlemen's position, but not with his point of view."
J.S. Woodsworth, MP for Centre Winnipeg, [another city that was using STV for its city elections] speaking in the same debate:
"For some time we have had proportional representation in Winnipeg, both in our provincial and in our municipal affairs, and my judgment would be, in so far as I have talked with considerable numbers of men in all the different parties, that proportional representation has worked well in that city, and to my knowledge there is no movement whatever, in either branch of public life, to return to the old method. ...
I quite agree that it requires some patience in order to master the actual counting cf the ballots, but so far as the ordinary elector is concerned there is no difficulty whatever; as a matter of fact, in our last federal election we had to go to a very considerable amount of trouble in getting the ordinary electors to understand that they had to revert to the elder method of marking a cross.
Under proportional representation the ordinary elector goes in and simply marks his ballot, one, two, three, and so on, in order of preference. So far as voting is concerned,the system is simplicity itself, and it is always a very easy matter to arrange for an expert staff to count the ballots."
-------------------------------------------------------
A.E. Parker, editor of Canadian Finance, writing in the Winnipeg Free Press Evening Bulletin of July 26, 1922, in regard to the 1922 P.R. elections of Winnipeg members of the provincial legislature, for which he was chairman of the Board of Supervisors in charge of the count:
"There is a very decided lack of knowledge among the general public hi this respect and as is usual this lack of knowledge has created a certain amount of criticism of P.R. which would not have been' heard if the exact working of the system had been more generally understood. ... It would be interesting to briefly deal with the main objections which have been advanced against proportional representation."
Objection No. 1.—It takes too long to find out who is elected.
Answer.—Members of our Legislature are appointed to serve us for three or four years and to deal with the expenditure of many millions of dollars cf public money. Surely it is no hardship to take two or three days to ascertain who are the people's choices."
(The official report of the Board of Supervisors says: "The actual time taken in completing the counting was thirty-five working hours. The staff handled during the counting and transferring the equivalent of 74,507 ballots, and every step taken was double-checked." The staff was composed of three experienced supervisors and sixty-two sorters.)
Objection No. 2.—The system is too complicated. The people will not bother to vote.
Answer.—The Winnipeg elections brought out 45,000 voters out of a total of 61,736 persons entitled to vote, a much higher percentage than was usual under the old system.
Objection No. 3.—There will be thousands of ballots spoiled.
Answer.—In the 1920 elections there were less than 2 percent of the ballots spoiled and this year the percentage was even smaller, a record that compares favorably with the old system."
-----------------------------------
Fred Axford, Clerk of the Executive Council of Manitoba, December 1, 1922: "The people of Winnipeg seem satisfied with the system and results. No proposition to return to the old system of election would be received with favor."
S. J. Farmer, mayor of Winnipeg, in a letter published January 1924 by the Boston Charter Revision Commission: "[P.R.] has proved very successful and even with a considerable proportion of foreign-speaking people included in our population the percentage of spoiled ballots has been very small."
John T. Haig, elected to the Legislature by P.R. to represent the Conservative minority, in a letter published January 1924 by the Boston Charter Revision Commission: "The system is quite workable and readily understood by any elector. . . . Machines have no chance under proportional representation."
Charles J. Brown, City Clerk, writing in regard to the 1922 municipal election, the third under P.R.: "The result showed that our citizens are becoming more and more familiar with this method of voting, for the spoiled ballots were less numerous than on either of the former occasions. The voting and the counting proceeded in an orderly manner, and no hitches occurred."
Winnipeg Free Press, editorial, June 11, 1923: "There is little doubt that St. James [a suburb of Winnipeg that had just adopted P.R.] will find P.R. a satisfactory method of electing the people's representatives."
Winnipeg Tribune, editorial, June 12, 1923 : "So far as the P.R. election method is concerned, there is no reason to doubt that St. James'experience will be equally as happy as Winnipeg's has been ever since this method was adopted in 1920."See also the account of the first Winnipeg P.R. election and Winnipeg opinions in regard to it in the P.R. Review for October 1920, accounts of other Winnipeg P.R. elections by A. E. Parker in the P.R. Reviews for January 1921 and October 1922, and an article on the adoption of P.R. in the Review for April 1920.
St. James, Manitoba
Population (1922) 12,099.
Situated on the western boundary of Winnipeg.
Adopted P.R. by popular vote of 1,161 to 511, June 9, 1923.
City manager plan adopted at same election.
Ward system in use previously.
A brief account of the first P.R. election, held November 30, 1923, will be found on page 51.
Calgary, Alberta
Population (1921) 63,305.
Adopted P.R. for council, public school board, and hospital board December 11, 1916, by popular vote of 2,840 to 1,374.
P.R. elections have been held every year since 1917.
Total vote under plurality system: 1912, 5,254; 1913, 5,313; 1914, 7,097; 1916 (for council), 4,591.
Total vote for council under P.R.: 1917, 5,367; 1918, 7,069; 1919, 7,401; 1920, 8,461; 1921, 9,505; 1922, 13,483.
Invalid ballots,
under plurality system:
1912, 964, 18.3%;
1913, 147,2.8%;
1914, 201, 2.8%;
1916, 317, 6.9%;
under P.R.:
1917, 178, 3.1%;
1918,643, 9.1%;
1919, 575, 7.8%;
1920, 541, 6.4%;
1921, 409, 4.3%;
1922, 476, 3.5%.
No direct replies received.
J.M. Miller, City Clerk, in the Edmonton Journal of December 8, 1922
"All who are familiar with the system of counting will admit that at first it appears involved and intricate, but in consequence of the method of voting and rules governing the count and transfers of votes the system has afforded, a very much fairer expression of the view of the electorate than did the old majority system of election. ...
It also gives electors a wider freedom in the choice of representatives. It gives the representatives in degree greater independence from pressure of small classes of constituents. It ensures to considerable groups or electors of any particular line of thought representation by their ablest and most trusted members.The above are my views after five years of personal experience in connection with the application of the principles of the system."
Alderman F. J. White, in a letter published January 1924 by the Boston Charter Revision Commission: "Voting [under P.R.] is simplicity itself. . . .
After some six years' experience with elections under P.R.I believe that the aims of the Proportional Representation Society are amply carried out :
1. To reproduce the opinions of the electors in public bodies in their true proportion.
2. To secure that the majority of electors shall rule and all considerable minorities shall be heard.
3. To give electors a wider freedom in the choice of candidates.
4. To give representatives, greater independence from pressure of constituents.
5. To ensure the parties' representation by their ablest and most trusted members.
We have never had better councils than under the system of proportional representation... Whether or not proportional representation is responsible is a matter of opinion, but the fact remains that since this! system has been introduced the vote at the annual municipal elections has steadily increased.
It is some encouragement for a man to get out and vote knowing, while he feels that he is not amongst the majority, that the minority representative for whom he wishes to vote can be elected under P.R. provided his supporters cast a total of votes equalling one quota ; whereas under the old system he would be inclined to say, 'Well, I'm in the minority, it is no use for me bothering my head about going to vote.' "
P. Turner Bone, in a letter published January 1924 by the Boston Charter Commission : "On the whole, the system may be said to be working fairly well, although it receives considerable adverse criticism, mostly through ignorance... The system is perfectly workable, and is not in any way complicated for the voter. ... Its effect is to elect the most capable candidates in each party and there would appear to be an improvement in the quality of the candidates."
Calgary Herald, editorial, December 12, 1922: "Calgary's experience with it [P.R.] has been so satisfactory that we are in no doubt of the success of it in Edmonton and we can indeed congratulate our northern neighbour upon joining the, cities that have adopted the system which best reproduces the political preferences of the voters."
See also opinions in the P.R. Review for January 1919 and April 1920 and articles in the Reviews for January 1917, April 1919, January 1921, and January 1923.
Edmonton, Alberta
Population (1921) 58,821.
Adopted P.R. for council December 11,1922, by popular vote of 5,664 to 3,075.
System previously used was plurality vote at large with a special provision, which has been retained under P.R.,for a minimum representation for Strathcona.
Edmonton's adoption of P. R described in the P.R. Review for January 1923. See other blog for info on this.
Regina, Saskatchewan
Population (1921) 34,432.
Adopted P.R. for council' and school board December 13, 1920, by popular* vote of 1,414 to 824.
Plurality vote at large previously used.
Total vote for council
under plurality system:
1919, 3,097;
1920, 2,717;
under P.R. :
1921, 4,303;
1922, 3,812.
Invalid vote,
under plurality system: 1919, 142, 4.6% ; 1920, 102, 3.8% ;
under P. R: 1921, 162, 3.8%; 1922, 162, 4.2%.
Synopsis of eight replies :
P.R. has apparently given representative results (two dissenting opinions analyzed below) and enabled some voters to secure representation who were not able to secure it under the old system.There is, however, no such marked division of the community into distinct groups as would make the representative character of the results stand outwith striking effect. Public opinion in regard to P. R is divided. There has been some talk of an attempt to abolish it, partly due to lack of understanding and partly to a belief) that a majority should be: able to elect all the members, but any such attempt would probably meet with strenuous opposition. P.R. is not generally well understood. The size of the vote shows an increased interest in elections under P.R. Most of the correspondents think that P.R. has not as yet made any noticeable' change in the temper in which elections are contested, racial, religious, or sectional feeling, the geographical distribution of elected members, the attitude of the community toward its local government, or the solution of the community's problems.
Mr. Merlin thinks P.R. has removed the domination of one section or class over all others "which prevailed under the old system," has brought about a better mutual understanding! among the community's diverse elements, and has been of distinct advantage in solving some of the community's problems.
Mr. Blain believes it has increased enmity and been generally disadvantageous.
Five of the eight correspondents are prepared to recommend P.R. to other cities. Two are opposed.
City Clerk George Beach does not feel free to express his personal opinion on account of his position as chief election officer.
H. E. Sampion, K.C, Crown Prosecutor, June 8, 1923 : "P, R. affords an opportunity for the election of nominees of classes or cliques where the nominee could not be elected on general vote of the electorate. (In other words, it gives representation to minorities.)
The former system in Regina, in my opinion, was a better method of expressing the popular will."
W. M. Blain, Barrister, May 27, 1923 : "P.R. has not given our city results that I consider truly representative. Certain classes by voting solidly elect more than their proportion."
(A "class" might of course see more of its candidates elected than its own votes could elect unaided if numbers of others voted for its candidates or did not vote at all. None of the other correspondents mention such a condition in Regina.)
G.F. Blair, City Solicitor, May 24, 1923: "P.R. has not made any material change in the make-up of our legislative bodies. It contemplates group representation, and the groups, with the possible exception of labor, are not yet sufficiently defined. Personally, I would recommend its use to other cities."
L.A. Thornton, City Commissioner, April 3, 1923 : "We have never in this city had our elections conducted on party lines, and since the abolition of the ward system a good many years ago the elections have not been contested on sectional lines. Accordingly the main objections which proportional representation claims to remove were not very apparent with us at any time. I believe that as time goes on its application here should warrant a more satisfactory representation than we formerly enjoyed, in as much as the longer we use the system the better we will be able to understand its real use."
George Beach, City Clerk, January 9, 1923 : "Some sixteen High School students acted as sorters and checkers [for the second P.R. election]. Commissioner Thornton, City Solicitor Blair, the Supervisors, and I were well satisfied with their work and the smoothness with which the count was carried out."
Regina Trades and Labour Council, reply submitted by a special committee, March 31, 1923, through A.E. Conrad, Secretary : "P.R. has given our community legislative bodies which we consider truly representative.The results' have been practically the same as those under the old system. As trade unionists we would recommend its use to other cities."
Alderman M.J. Coldwell [CCF], May 31, 1923: "I believe that it [P.R.] has resulted in electing to council men of quite varied but representative ideas.It would seem that if the system is used again at the next municipal elections, when some of the retiring members who were elected under the first P.R. vote will probably seek re-election, it should tend to encourage freer expressions of opinion by the various aldermen. This because members of,council realize that a well-organized minority cannot elect or defeat the entire council, which was always a possibility under the former system."
Alderman G.H. Merlin, June 3, 1923 : "This system, in my opinion, has merits that should commend it to every person who is desirous of electing a legislative body which is truly representative of all the diverse interests of the community. An elector who represents a large minority told me a few days ago that his group was able to get representation on a civic body that they had not! been able to get under the old system. After looking at the matter from all angles it would seem that, P.R. is the best method yet evolved for getting a true expression of the general public's opinion in the selection of the municipal council. I also believe it has a tendency to a better calibre of candidates who stand for election."
(See also the statements about the first P.R. elections in Regina and other Saskatchewan cities in the P.R. Review for January 1922.)
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
Population (1921) 25,739.
Adopted P.R. for council and three school boards December 13, 1920, by popular vote of 1,039 to 651.
P.R. elections have been held annually, beginning in 1921.
Ward system in use for council elections before adoption of P.R.
Invalid ballots for all offices
under plurality system:
1918, 1.9%; 1919,4.5%;
1920, 2.6%;
under P.R. :
1921, 7.37 pc ;
1922, 6.6 p.c.. We do not have separate figures for council elections.
Synopsis of six replies: P.R. has apparently given representative results. The only complaint against it from any of the correspondents is on the ground that it does not allow the majority to elect an entire slate. Five of the six replies speak of P.R. as successful. Public opinion is divided.There has been talk of trying to abolish P.R., apparently due to ignorance coupled with a dislike on the part of some for the representation of minorities. P.R. is not well understood generally but at least a part of the electorate have shown an increased interest in elections since its adoption.
P.R. has had no noticeable effect on the temper in which elections are contested or on racial, religious, or sectional feeling.
Mr. Brunskill believes the people have displayed rather more interest under P.R. in the solution of the community's problems by its representative bodies. The members elected to the council by P.R. have been very well distributed geographically.
J.A. Snell, Superintendent of the Saskatoon School District, March 28, 1923: "P.R. was used at the December civic elections here in 1921 and 1922 and each time produced several 'surprises,' On the two school boards the three members of the old boards were seeking re-election and any elector who wished to see all the old board members re-elected could not possibly say so. He had not a proper opportunity to vote for the three vacancies but only for one of them. It would appear that the P.R. system may secure representation of several minority parties, but it by no means expresses the will of the majority of the electors."
Saskatoon Daily Star, editorial, December 12, 1922 (sent by Mr. Snell): "The vote in yesterday's civic election, cut down by unfavorable weather and the fact that there was no contest for the mayoralty, was still large enough, to indicate wide interest in the government of the city. ... In voting for high school trustees the citizens expressed their view without uncertainty. . . . He could say so very easily by giving the members of the old board his first three choices, but of course he could not be sure of seeing all three members' re-elected if a large minority wanted someone else. If more than a quarter of the voters voted for the entire old board, one of them (the most popular) would be sure to be re-elected. If more than two-quarters (a majority) voted for them, two would be re-elected. If more than three quarters voted for them, they would all be re-elected.
Labor is entitled to the representation on the school board which it has secured in Mr. Brunskill's victory."
W.E. Brunskill, labor member of the Public School Board, April 1,1923: "Organized labor is favorable to P.R. and takes more interest in elections than under the old method."
Mayor McConnell, January 19, 1923: "In so far as I am personally concerned, I should say that this system is working out satisfactorily. The average rate-payer is, however, more or less skeptical about its value."
M.C. Tomlinson, City Clerk, January 19, 1923 : "While there are those who do not favor the new system yet there was a great interest shown in the recent December elections and one heard on every side, 'I think the city has a very fine council this year.' The whole proceeding, from the actual marking of the ballots to the carrying out of the voters' wishes as expressed on the ballots, worked very satisfactorily."
J.W. Headley, teacher of mathematics at the Provincial Normal School, January, 1923: "I think it is excellent. I think it is fair because unless there is an overwhelming preponderance against any board at least one member of that board has a strong chance of being returned, thus assisting in continuity."
Saskatoon Phoenix, editorial (exact date not known, received January, 1923): "Proportional representation, so far as the voter is concerned, is simple yet presents many advantages. It enables his vote to count exactly as he wants it to count."
December 14, 1921 : "In the opinion of city officials the vote proves the claim for P.R. made by its advocates, that it gives representation to every group in a community."
Saskatoon Daily Star, editorial, December IS, 1921 : "The test given the preferential [P.R.] ballot as applied to municipal affairs here on Monday was thorough, and results were excellent. Whether or not one feels that the best candidates were selected, close examination of the tabulated state of returns indicates very clearly that the will of the people was expressed thoroughly in the new System — and that is what ballots are for... It can easily be shown that elections under proportional representation are not subject to manipulation and gerrymandering."
Mr. Kirkpatrick, investment banker, in a letter published January 1924 by the Boston Charter Revision Commission: "The system has been practicable, readily workable; although new to this community very little confusion arose. . . . There has been and is a difference of opinion in this regard [as to whether the results of P.R. are encouraging so far as the election of capable and honest men to office is concerned], but the writer's opinion is that such is the case. . . .
Unfortunately the polling day probably in December 1922] was the coldest and stormiest of the winter and in spite of that fact a heavy vote was polled. The writer was not favorably disposed to the new system, perhaps not for any valid reason but the dislike of a change, but is now quite favorably, disposed toward it."
Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan
Population (1921) 19,285.
Adopted P.R. for council, school board, and hospital board December 13, 1920, by popular vote of 2,287 to 678.
Three elections of the council have been held under P.R. Ward system used for council elections previously.
Total vote for council
under plurality vote, 1919—2,399; 1920—3,274;
under P.R., 1921-4,062; 1922—3,093.
Invalid ballots under ward system,
1919—99, 4.1%; 1920—160, 4.9%;
under P.R.,
1921—232, 5.7% ; 1922—186, 6%.
Synopsis of five replies :—
P.R. has given thoroughly representative results, at least so far as the lists of candidates permitted. Alderman Fletcher says fears that labor would elect more than its recognized share of the council under P.R. have proved groundless: it has elected three out of ten.
Public opinion appears to be on the whole favorable to P.R., but with some opposition due to lack of comprehension. P.R. is not very thoroughly understood by most. The members elected by P.R. have been well distributed geographically.
P.R. has had no noticeable effect on racial or religious feeling. Some think it has not affected materially the interest in elections, the temper in which elections are contested, sectional feeling, the general attitude of the community toward its local government, or the solution of the community's problems; others think it has been beneficial in each of these respects.
Alderman Fletcher, Dr. Smith, and Dr. Wardell recommend P.R. to other cities, and Mr. Craven also thinks well of the system. Mayor Dunn does not recommend it.
Mayor W.J. Dunn, June 21, 1923 : "I think P.R. has given our city legislative bodies which are truly representative. I think the old system, however, was equally satisfactory."
Dan Craven, City Clerk, January 10, 1923: "Personally, I think the system is a good one and the representation we have secured under this system has been representative of the various parties in the city."
Dr. R.H. Smith, physician, June 1, 1923: "This method of election has been in vogue in this city for two years and has in my opinion worked very satisfactorily. The result here has been to give labor its just representation on the aldermanic board [council]. Otherwise the men appear to have been chosen in accordance with merit regardless of geographical location or religious sentiment. I think I can say that I have no hesitation in recommending P.R. for general use in municipal elections, but I am not convinced that it would work satisfactorily in parliamentary affairs."
Dr. W.H. Wardell, physician and surgeon, June 5, 1923: "P.R. is eminently better than the cut-throat murder plan of election. It has changed the temper in which elections are contested from insanity to sanity. I think it has tended to confidence in the local government and stimulated a little thought on public affairs."
Harold Fletcher, Alderman, June 13, 1923: "The by-law adopting proportional representation for the city of Moose Jaw was introduced by myself and consequently I am deeply interested in this form of electing members to public office Proportional representation has given our city much more representative bodies than the old ward system. Men who are asking the electors for their support today realize that each voter is a factor and as a result every public representative is endeavoring to look after the whole of the city instead of any one particular section. The public generally approve of this method of electing their representatives and take a more personal interest not only in the elections but also in the acts of the people who represent them.
The only ones who express dissatisfaction are disgruntled party politicians and certain cliques who see in this a curtailment of their power.P.R. has removed the baneful influence of the party politician and ward boss and the city is getting real service from those elected. It has opened the way for the man of independent spirit to get elected without the aid of intrigue and shady practices and is a sure way of getting government by the majority and representation of the minority. I feel sure that when the people of the world get to understand how far they have been bamboozled by the old system of elections and are fully alive to the true benefits of proportional representation as applied to responsible government and democracy in its best sense, they will take a keener interest in their citizenship and be willing to assume the responsibility which such citizenship imposes. The system works out very well indeed and is far superior to any other method of electing representatives."
Mrs. Alberta Gieier (who was asked by the P.R. League to investigate a report of a repeal movement), January 25, 1923: "I called on Mr. Thomas Miller, editor of the Moose Jaw Daily Times. He said, 'I do not think there has been or is being any petition circulated in opposition to proportional representation.' He then consulted files and stated that there had been some talk of doing so but now that the system is better understood the opposition is inactive. The only objections seem to be expense and time in counting ballots."
H. J. Schull, solicitor, statement published January 1924 by the Boston Charter Revision Commission: "There is nothing complicated about the system so far as the electorate is concerned... I can say that it fairly interprets the wish or choice of the electors, provided 'plumping' [voting only a first choice] is done away with; and if it accomplishes that, it would seem that it has accomplished everything that an election can be expected to accomplish."
North Battleford, Saskatchewan
Population (1921) 4,108.
Adopted P.R. for council elections December 31, 1920, by popular vote of 315 to 62. Three P.R. elections have been held.
Total vote for council
under plurality system, 1920—395;
under P.R.,1921—712; 1922—637.
Invalid ballots
under plurality system, 1920—20, 5.1% ;
under P.R.,1921—15, 2.1%; 1922—28, 4.4%.
The only reply received was the following:
H.W. Dixon, City Clerk; January 16, 1923: "We have just had our second election under the Hare system and have again secured a splendid council. I am satisfied that the system gives us a much more representative council than the old system and we have never had better councils than the last two — elected by P.R. A large number of people are still a little prejudiced against it, as they regard the count as a mysterious proceeding that they can never hope to fathom, but I feel that the bulk of the people are very satisfied with the results obtained. Several of our prominent citizens are strongly opposed to the system, particularly after the last election. I personally think, however, that this opposition arises from the fact that these men were very desirous of getting certain candidates elected and undertook to advise a large number of their friends how to vote so as to ensure this, with the result that the candidate they thought was weak headed the poll and their other candidates were also elected, but one of them—and one of the best— narrowly escaped defeat. This narrow escape was blamed on the system, whereas I think myself it was due to the impression that there was no necessity to vote for this candidate as he was sure to head the poll. I have always advised people not to try to influence voters in a P.R. election as they would be pretty sure to get some surprising results.
What these men regard as a fault in the system is probably a demonstration of its merits, showing that a small group cannot pull the vote the way they want it. On the whole I think the majority of the people are satisfied although I would not be surprised to see an agitation to abolish it before the next election. We have found absolutely no difficulty in the count. In both elections everything worked smoothly and without a single hitch."
South Vancouver, British Columbia
Population approximately 36,000.
Area 14 square miles.
Adopted P.R. January 19, 1918, by popular vote of 1,095 to 390.
Ward system in use previously.
From 1918 to 1922 the municipality was under Government administration.
P.R. councils were elected in January 1922, 1923, and 1924.
Total vote for council under ward system
1916 — 2910, 25% of 11,458 on voters' lists;
1917 — 1402 (no contest in 2 of the 7 wards, vote for Reeve 1801, 15% of 11,750 on voters' list);
1918 — 1,595* (no contest in 1 ward, vote for Reeve 1760, 14% of 12,146 on voters' list) ;
under P.R.,
1922 — 2000, 12% of 16,618 on voters' list ;
1923 — 2,960, 18% of 16,468 on voters' list.
In 1923 under P.R. there were 2714 valid ballots for council, 2587 for Reeve (the chief administrative official). In all the plurality elections recorded and in the first election under P.R. there were more ballots cast for Reeve.
Invalid ballots for council
under ward system,
1916—66, 2.3% of total vote;
1917—21. 1.5%;
1918—28, 1.8%;
under P.R.,
1922—141, 7.1%;
1923—246, 8.3%.
Effective ballots (those cast for successful candidates) for council
under ward system,
1916—1596, 56% of valid vote;
1917—855, 62%; 1918—965, 62%;
under P.R.,
1922—1547, 83%;
1923—2459, 91%.
Two replies received. The essential parts of both are quoted below.
S.T. Frost, September 8, 1923 : "In elections where candidates are run by groups or parties, the P.R. system is undoubtedly the fairest method of electing, as each group has an opportunity to obtain representation according to voting strength. But in municipal elections, where all candidates are for the municipality and none are for a party or section of the municipality, to my mind P.R. has disadvantages. In the first place, if seven councillors are to be elected, the rate-payer can only vote for one candidate effectively, instead of having a voice in the election of the entire seven.*
In the second place, it is generally assumed that a man highly respected and esteemed for his ability in all sections of a district will receive a goodly number of No. 1 votes. Therefore, when another good man, not so well known, is running in the same locality as the other, the tendency is to give the least popular man the No. 1 vote and the most popular No. 2, in order that both may be elected. The result has been in South Vancouver that the really desirable man has gone down to defeat and less desirable men have been elected. The only safe rule to follow, therefore, is to always give a No. 1 vote to first choice candidates and not trust to others doing so. The unexpected results mentioned are the principal cause of dissatisfaction with the P.R. system and have been the main-spring behind suggestions to go back to the former system of election by majority vote.**
===========
*It is not possible for all the voters to have an effective voice in the election of the entire seven. It is possible for practically all to have an effective vote for one. If each voter were given seven votes of equal value, a plurality could elect all seven, to the exclusion of any minorities there might be. Under the ward system, as under P.R., the South Vancouver voter was restricted to a single vote, but without the privilege he has under P.R. of expressing alternative choices and with much less chance of making his one vote count. See the percentages of effective ballots above.
===============================
**In other words, if voters try to beat the system by not expressing their real will on the ballot, they will be disappointed by the results, of course.
===================================
W.L. Woodford, Acting Clerk of the Municipal Court, August 7 and 23, 1923: "We have had no objection registered to the [P.R.] system of election in South Vancouver to date. Under the conditions of our recent elections it is not possible to answer the questionnaire with any degree of intelligence [because of the light vote]. In my opinion P.R. to reach its proper sphere of action must be placed before service clubs and associations in a clear and concise manner, as the fundamental action of this method of election is to foster community service in its widest application through municipalities and cities to the betterment of the state.
West Vancouver, British Columbia
Population approximately 4,500.
Area 32 square miles.
District council adopted P.R. in 1917.
Ward system used previously.
Total vote for council under P.R., 1921—303, about 14% of the qualified electors; invalid ballots—10, 3.3% of total vote. [about 2000 registered voters]
Two replies received.
J.A. Ollason, Clerk of the Municipal Court, January 11 and February 1, 1923 : "There is no definite opinion either way in West Vancouver regarding 'P.R.' Having adopted it we retain it, but I have never heard any expression of opinion as to its advantages or disadvantages. My opinion of P.R. is that the business of electing a 'slate' is rendered impossible under its rules.A well-organized election committee in this district decides, let us say, on the candidates for Reeve and councillors they mean to elect. By confining their efforts to securing votes for the Reeve and one or possibly two of the councillors, they may make fairly certain of success. But to so manipulate the first choices at their disposal as to secure the election of all four councillors, which was a comparatively easy matter by the old method of voting, simply cannot be done under 'P.R.' As returning officer for this district since the introduction of the method I find that each recurring election is more easily and satisfactorily handled."
George Hay, former reeve, May 1923: "P.R. has given our community legislative bodies that I consider truly representative. It is an improvement over the ward system which we had formerly. There is some talk from politicians of abolishing it, due to the desire to 'frame' elections, but it is generally considered fair and equitable. No practical difficulties have been encountered in the use of P.R. either by the voters or by the officials. It is fairly well understood and has apparently been responsible for a more general interest in elections. The members elected under P.R. have been well distributed geographically. P.R. has aided in the solution of the community's problems and I would recommend its use to other municipalities."
Vancouver Daily World, West Vancouver dispatch, January 17, 1921 :"The result of the election [of the West Vancouver council] gives very fair representation, as the extreme West End will have Mr. Forsyth, the Central portion or Dundarave will have Mr. Kinney, also Mr. Jackman, who, although in Ward III, is on the boundary line; while Mr. Yates can fairly be said to represent the eastern section. . .
Under the supervision of Mr. Garfield King, of Vancouver, the mysteries of an election under the 'P.R.' system were explained in the presence of a large number of rate-payers, who one and all, as they grasped the significance of the system, expressed satisfaction with the way it worked."
An account of the first P.R. elections in British Columbia (West Vancouver, New Westminster, Nelson, and Mission) by Garfield A. King of Vancouver will be found in the P.R. Review for April, 1918.
Vancouver, British Columbia
Population (1921) 117,217.
Adopted P.R. for council, school board, and park board, January 8, 1920, by popular vote of 6,044 to 2,790.
Prior to adoption of P.R. Vancouver had tried plurality vote both at large and, more recently, in single-member wards.
P.R. was abolished June 16, 1923, after three trials, by popular vote of 3,809 to 1,705. Ward system now in force.
Total vote for council:
under P.R.,
January 1921—6,310;
January 1922—11,140;
December 1922—10,913;
under ward system,
December 1923—11,307 (no contest in 2 wards out of 8, vote for mayor 13,859).
Invalid ballots for council
under P.R.,
January 1921—172, 2.7%;
January 1922—803, 72% ;
December 1922—741, 7.3% ;
under ward system,
December 1923—198, 1.8%.
Effective ballots (those which counted for successful candidates) for council:
under P.R. 1921—5,458, 88.9% of valid vote
under ward system 1923—5,521, 49.7% of valid vote.
We have no figures for effective ballots in other elections.
Synopsis of ten replies:
P.R. apparently gave representative results so far as the candidates and the interest of the electorate permitted. The results as a whole were not strikingly different from those of the old system,but labor received increased representation on the council and school board,and an alderman (member of council) of long standing was replaced by a leading business man. The general public is apathetic toward P.R., as evidenced by the smallness of the vote on the question of its abolition. Some politicians are actively opposed. P.R. is not at all well understood generally.
Its proponents have not had the time or the resources to conduct what they consider a satisfactory campaign of education. The impression that P.R. is difficult and complicated was widely circulated and probably some voters stayed away from the polls on that account. Otherwise P.R. had little effect on the interest shown in elections. Mr. Cowper says there were fewer personalities in campaigns under P.R. Others think P.R. made no difference in the temper of election contests. The members elected by P.R. were well distributed geographically except for some of the outlying districts. P.R. had no appreciable effect on racial or religious feeling, the attitude of the community towards its local government, or the solution of the community's problems.
A special effort was made to discover the reasons for opposition to P.R. Apparently the principal reason, aside from the natural opposition of ward politicians and others who experienced new difficulties in controlling elections, is a widespread impression that P.R. makes no important difference in the outcome and that therefore the additional time and expense required for the count are not justified. Lack of comprehension of the method of counting and greatly exaggerated reports of the numbers of spoiled ballots are important contributing factors. There is some opposition to the representation of geographically scattered minorities, which opponents of P.R. like to refer to as "cliques" even though the number of votes required for election under P.R. is greater than under the ward system.
Only two of the ten correspondents, Mr. Rogers and Mr. Ash, advise other cities not to adopt P.R.
Two, Mr. Neelands and Mr. Cowper, recommend it without qualification.
The attitudes of the other six are indicated below.
W.G. Rogers, former city official, April 3, 1923: "I have had over forty years' experience in municipal affairs, being clerk, auditor, councillor, and reeve, and I am convinced from my experience with P.R. that it lends itself to class and clique representation on elected bodies and that it can be juggled if deputies so desire. So confusing is the system, like gambling in choices, that the interest and enthusiasm usually experienced in elections is entirely gone. Only 25% attend the polls and 20%* of the ballots are spoiled.
City Clerk McQueen in 1920, without clerks, had the results of the election handed to the press two hours after the polls were closed and the news was soon broadcasted over Canada under our old system, but in 1921 under P.R., with a score of clerks, it took him several days to arrive at the results of the election and the costs exceeded the old system by $2,670.37."
William Ash, ward leader, April 13, 1923 : "It is not near so good as the way we were used to vote by a cross. I could tell you which or very near who would win — the ones that belonged to some lodge or some clique. I think if you put the eighteen names in an old hat and shook it up and took the first eight that came out you would do as good."
Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper, K.C., former member of the Dominion cabinet, June 12, 1923: "In spite of the lack of understanding on the part of a considerable number of voters, the results achieved have really been such as could be called fairly representative of the city, having regard to the candidates nominated. I think the city government under proportional representation has functioned as well as previous city governments, but no better. I personally consider proportional representation sound in theory, but still fear that, not being properly understood, a proportion of the electorate is unduly deprived of its voice."
F.A. McDiarmid, Parliamentary Agent, Union of BC Municipalities. April 6, 1923: "Proportional representation has given Vancouver legislative bodies that I consider truly representative. I do not think there is any difference between the effects of P.R. and the effects of the former system. An alderman who comes in and does good work is usually held as long as he wants to stay. He seems to have no more difficulty in being elected under the P.R. system than he had previously. P.R. is perhaps a trifle more costly but not enough to make any real difference."
========================================================
*For the three Vancouver elections before 1923 the average percentage of spoiled ballots was 5 3/4. This figure given by Mr. Rogers is so far from the truth as to suggest the possibility that he wrote in the heat of strong prejudice against the system.
=========================================================
Herbert O. Frind, formerly chairman of the Civic Bureau of the Board of Trade: "P.R. has not helped to bring out men trained for the purpose or representative of application of scientific administrative methods. Too few changes of personnel have taken place. If P.R. is really doing its work I am in favour of it, but I have not the proofs to endorse or reject."
J.S. Gordon, Municipal Inspector of Schools, March 23, 1923: "As far as I understand the situation, voting by the proportional representation method in our civic elections for the past two years has made little, if any, difference in the general results of the elections. The advocates of the system are well satisfied, however, with the experiment so far. One thing that makes the system unpopular is a suspicion that, in the transferring of votes, there is, danger of injustice being done; personally, I think the danger is very remote."
J.S. Cowper, Editor of the Vancouver World, April 4, 1923: "We have had as a result of P.R. a Labor alderman added to the council in 1922 who would not have been elected on a straight majority vote. By the 1923 election this man had made himself so useful on the council that he was elected at the head of the poll on the first ballot. P.R. has not aided or hindered noticeably in the solution of the city's problems."
George C. Cross, newspaper writer, March 31, 1923: "We have had three elections under the 'P.R.' system, and the only change in the personnel of the city council has been the substitution of a 'labor' man for one of the old stand-bys and of one of the leading business men of the city for an alderman who had served on the council for fourteen years. A large element in the community falls in with the cry set up by defeated candidates that 'P.R.' is more bother than it is worth. I have taken part in the counting on two occasions and have found that everything went like clockwork and that the returning officer's integrity could not be questioned. My personal opinion is that, in so far as 'P.R.' has given representation to a large portion of the community that was without it before, it has accomplished some good. There is a great need of further educational work regarding the system generally and the method of voting in particular. 'P.R.' has not yet made any appreciable change in the government of the city and should be given a few years further trial before being condemned or otherwise."
R.H. Neelands, President of the Vancouver Trades and Labour Council, March 27, 1923: "Proportional representation has given our city legislative bodies which I consider truly representative. I believe it is a better method of expressing the popular will than the plurality system which we had previously. Apparently ignorance of the system and disgruntled defeated candidates are responsible for the movement to abolish it."
Garfield A. King, barrister, leader for the adoption of P.R., March 20, 1923: "Generally speaking, our real problem is to provide adequate machinery to inform and educate the public from year to year, over and over again, how to use the ballot effectively. With this is involved the further problem how to organize the voters as voters, through the formation of 'voters' leagues.' These two things are vital, and I would hesitate to work for the adoption of P.R. in any large community unless these two necessities were guaranteed as well."
Dr. Robert Telford, physician, leader for the adoption of P.R., October 31, 1922: "Vancouver has had two elections under P.R. It has worked out well."
L.J. Ladner, member of the Canadian House of Commons for Vancouver South, debating in the House February 19, 1923, against the adoption of P.R. for parliamentary elections: "When you come to apply proportional representation to municipal government, much may be said in favour of the principle, and for my part I am rather disposed to accept the principle for municipal systems of government."
Garfield A. King, August 8, 1923: "I think your article [entitled "Vancouver Drops P.R." in the P.R. Review for July, 1923] sums up the situation perfectly. On the same day on which the P.R. vote was taken the electors of the city in their wisdom voted down Daylight Saving and also defeated seven or eight by-laws that, in the judgment of everybody interested in the city, were absolutely vital and necessary and which included provision for repairs to schools, new school buildings, water works extension, and much needed street work.
The franchise on these questions was exercised by a limited and very selfish group, and in view of the reactionary vote it cannot be said that the principle of P.R. has in any way been discredited. There is a general feeling of apology and shame for the spirit of reaction which is at the present time victorious."
(See also articles dealing with Vancouver in the P.R. Review for April 1920, April 1921, and January 1923.)
Victoria, British Columbia
Population (1921) 38,727.
Adopted P.R. for council, school board, and police commissioners January 15, 1920, by popular vote of 1,296 to 608.
Used P.R. in one election, January, 1921.
Abolished P.R. later in 1921 by a close popular vote (we do not have the exact figures).
Total vote for council:
under plurality system,
1915—3,432, 38% of qualified voters;
1916—2,759, 32%; 1917—3,821, 42%;
1918 — 3,132, 35%; 1919—3,872, 41%; 1920—4,085, 42%;
under P.R., 1921 - 4,155.
Invalid ballots for council under P.R., 1921—154, 3.7% of total vote.
One reply received.
Alderman E.S. Woodward, March 31, 1923 : "I have been requested by the City Clerk of Victoria and by the Secretary of the Victoria Chamber of Commerce to reply to your questionnaire. P.R. was tried at one municipal election only. It gave a truly representative council. It was rendered unpopular by general misconception as to the powers conferred by the system on the returning officer. One of the two local dailies informed the public editorially that the returning officer could transfer votes as he desired without regard to the wish of the voters. Despite all attempts to contradict and refute this intentional falsehood on the part of the editor in question, the public still mistrusts the P.R. system. P.R. was adopted in Victoria as the result of the work of a small band of enthusiasts. Little serious opposition was encountered. The returning officer — William Scowcroft — only learned the system just prior to the election and had but a short time to train his staff. Nevertheless the election was conducted expeditiously and without a hitch from start to finish. The results were announced with almost as much promptitude as under the old system. There were few spoiled ballots and satisfaction was general. The papers, however, opposed it from the first and lost no opportunity of creating distrust. They announced the victory of a police commissioner because he led on the first count and then attributed his subsequent defeat to the discriminatory powers conferred by P.R. rules on the returning officer. The undersigned circulated a leaflet—at a cost he could not afford — in an attempt to expose the falsehood but all in vain. A subsequent plebiscite rejected the system. No further attempt has been made to reintroduce the system for financial reasons. The work of education has fallen too heavily upon a handful of willing workers. P.R. is immeasurably superior to all other systems."
William Scowcroft, returning officer, in a statement to the city council published by the Victoria Times, January 27, 1921 : "It should be plain to any man who has any knowledge of the P.R. system that votes are not utilized [as charged by the Victoria Daily Colonist] for the benefit of candidates who would not receive a vote at all if the individual who cast it were the deciding factor in the matter... The statements made were certainly misleading."
New Westminster, British Columbia:
Population (1921) 14,495.
Adopted P.R. by resolution of city council December 13, 1917.
Used P.R. for municipal elections of 1918 and 1919.
Abolished P.R. by resolution of city council May 26, 1919.
One reply received.
T.J. Thomas, City Clerk, March 23, 1923 : "During the years proportional representation was in force there was a marked falling off in the number of votes polled and dissatisfaction expressed as to the method of voting.It was found that no change would have resulted in the elected bodies of those years had the old system been adhered to* The system of electing aldermen to tho city council by a majority vote of all voters in the city is considered very satisfactory, and there has not been and there is not any demand to return to the proportional representation system."
See also an article in the P.R. Review for April 1918 and Mr. King's statement under Nelson below.
*The prevalent but false impression that a P.R. result can be compared with the result that would have been secured by plurality vote simply by comparing the final P.R. result with the P.R. count of first choices is apparently one of the major reasons for the failure to appreciate P.R. in BC municipalities. It is not possible to tell anything with certainty about a plurality result from a P.R. result sheet, since the first count under P.R. represents one vote for each voter instead of as many votes as there are members to be elected. Under P.R., therefore, no group can monopolize all the leading places even on the count of first choices. Moreover, many voters would vote differently if the vote were not transferable: they would not give their votes to favourites whose chances of election they thought doubtful if they did not have the privilege of adding alternative choices.
Nelson, British Columbia
Population (1921) 5,230.
Adopted P.R. in the fall of 1917 by action of the city council, and discarded it by similar action in 1919 after two trials.
No replies received.
Garfield A. King, of Vancouver, April 29, 1920: "Nelson and New Westminster city councils rescinded their resolutions of adoption in 1919, but no satisfactory explanation has ever been given for their act. No public bodies ever asked them to rescind. It was never asked by the public, and my requests for reasons, addressed to the officials in Nelson, have been unanswered.
Yet in both cities the action of the council in going back on P.R. was the subject of strong protest from various public bodies — particularly the soldier and labour organizations. My own view is that there are currents of political feeling mixed up with the action of these two councils, and that such action is traceable either to a desire on the part of the Conservative party to discredit a Liberal policy or else to a fear that P.R. might give to radical labour a representation they otherwise could not secure. I know this much, that so far as the people of the two cities in question are concerned there was never any expressed dissatisfaction with P.R." See also an article in the P.R. Review for January 1918.
Mission, British Columbia
Population approximately 3,500.
Area 81 square miles.
Adopted P.R. 1917.
Abolished it 1920 or 1921.
Both actions apparently taken by district council.
One reply received.
J.B. Barr, Clerk of the Municipal Court, January 16, 1923: "Being a small vote in a large area, the first count [the front-runners in the first count] has always been the same as the final count. This being the case, we abandoned the P.R. system two years ago."
[However, the first count of votes in STV ensures that the front-runners are mixed and proportional. The first (and only) count in FPTP and Block Voting does not ensure this.]
See also the article on British Columbia in the P.R. Review for April 1918.
Port Coquitlam, British Columbia
Population (1921) 2,148.
Adopted P.R. by popular vote in 1917.
Used P.R. for city council in two elections (the 1918 election being decided without a contest).
Abolished P.R. by action of council in 1921.
One reply received.
John Smith, City Clerk, January 12 and 24, 1923: "The chief reason for our discontinuance of P.R. was that it was slow and cumbersome in counting the ballots cast. I do not know of any other reason. The result, however, was that in the first election after it was done away with one man who certainly had a sufficient following to elect him under P.R. was not elected, proving that under P.R. a minority has a chance for representation.
I have never heard any complaints against the system except on account of the time it takes to declare the final results. It is possibly not so well adapted to small places like this, but for large places and for provincial and Dominion parliaments I believe that it is a great thing in that it will tend to do away with graft and that it entirely cuts out the chance of any one clique putting in all their men."
=======================================
=======================================
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) ======================================
Thanks for reading. Check out my blog "list of Montopedia blogs concerning electoral reform" to find other blogs on this important subject. ----------------------------------- This year: *Alberta is celebrating 150 years in Confederation 1870-2020 *100th Anniversary of STV first being used to elect legislators in Canada Winnipeg MLAs first elected through STV in 1920 ==============================================================
Comments