Party labels in city elections - why not? Because of FPTP. Without FPTP, labels would be a help (Alberta Views)

Regarding the use of party labels in big-city elections, I want to share a small newspaper article from 1902 that in my opinion, describes how the single-winner First Past The Post election system that we use is flawed, how use of party labels will not be an improvement, and how proportional representation instead would improve how we elect city councils.

"The present plan of electing members of Parliament [and MLAs and city councillors] in single-member districts disenfranchises nearly half the voters at every election and gives undue power to party organizations, including a practical monopoly of nominations. It is so erratic in its operation as to sometimes allow a minority of the voters to elect a majority of the representatives. It encourages gerrymandering; it nourishes party hatred."

The adoption of party labels in city elections in Edmonton and Calgary will not by itself produce fairness, But if it does make our democracy deficit worse, it is not the fault of party labels but the fault of the election system we are using. Party labels merely mean that candidates define themselves and voters are able to judge candidates' positions. This should be a good thing, but in FPTP, party labels means that parties have power over nomination and parties by definition will exert some party discipline over councillors' behavior in city hall.

However under a fair proportional system such as STV -- where city councillors are elected at-large (city-wide district) or in multi-member wards, and where each voter has just one transferable vote (STV) -- party labels would both facilitate fair, balanced representation and could be used to measure exactly how proportional our city elections would then be. 

STV in Edmonton and Calgary at-large would allow any candidate to be elected if he or she could collect about 7 percent of the votes cast. Thus, party control would be weakened under STV. 

Party labels are now objectionable only because under FPTP they will be no improvement and are expected to make parties powerful and harm democratic accountability.

(A shortened form of this was published as a letter to the editor in Alberta Views March 2025)