top of page
Tom Monto

STV in Canadian cities as described in 1930

Updated: Nov 19, 2020

Joseph P. Harris

"Practical Workings of proportional representation in the U.S. and Canada"

National Municipal Review, 19 (5) May 1930 (pages 337-383)


Harris said that in municipal government the problem facing municipalities was securing a system of representation that will produce satisfactory city councils. This was achievable through a form of proportional representative, Single Transferable Voting (STV) as proven by the cities who had adopted it.


In 1930 when Harris wrote this article, STV had been used in 20 Canadian municipalities in about 90 elections. [Yes, 90!]


At that time three Canadian cities had used STV for more than 10 years, two being the substantial cities of Calgary and Winnipeg. The other was West Vancouver (which was that year using it for the last time.)

A fourth place, St. James, Manitoba, was also using STV and had used it since 1923.


The following extracts from Harris's article elaborate on these topics.

(My comments in square brackets.)


Harris wrote:

A council to be satisfactory must be representative, must consist of at least a few outstanding leaders in the life of the city, must maintain at least a fair level of ability among its members.


Even where party is not used, without STV "some large part of the body of citizens is without representation in the city council." (p. 338)


Problems with ward elections (a city is divided into many single-member districts and each voter given one non-transferable vote) [this is the system used today in Edmonton city elections]

- fills our municipal councils with mediocre members, sometimes corrupt

- lowers the prestige of membership in the councils

- creates and fosters a narrow provincialism with petty politics, wirepulling and logrolling in the council

- inadequately represents the various groups in the city.


Problems with at-large elections (a city is taken as a single district, multiple councillors elected at one time, and each voter given as many votes as the number of positions to be filled)

- places undue premium on those known across city

- discourages candidacy of leaders of minority groups

- candidates must campaign across city at great expense

- each voter may cast as many votes as there are open seats although voters may have little info about more than 3 or 4 candidates.


=======================================

Harris provided useful info on the history of the use of STV in Canada. [I have tweeked some of his info in light of what I have learned, my source of information being greater in this age of computers since his was then.]]


Alberta passed enabling legislation permitting cities to adopt pro-rep in 1916

BC passed enabling legislation in 1917

Sask and Manitoba passed enabling legislation in 1920


20 Western Canadian municipalities had adopted STV prior to 1930.

[None have adopted STV since 1930, except Saskatoon 1938-1942.]

Six were using it as of 1931.

13 had decided to drop it.

South Vancouver had used it from 1923 until its amalgamation with Vancouver in 1929. (p. 365)


Most of the Canadian municipalities that adopted STV were small in population.

Only Calgary and Winnipeg, Edmonton, Regina and Vancouver exceeded population of 50,000 at time of adoption of STV.


Those that dropped STV did so due to:

- complexity

- delay in the count

- failure on the part of the citizens to understand the system

- perhaps most importantly, because it was felt that the system did not make any marked difference in the personnel of the council. (p. 366)

- because certain minority groups secured representation to the council- in some case perhaps due to opposition from politicians who found the system unsuited to their needs. But Harris disputed this saying that the willingness to adopt STV in the first place indicates the absence of machine politics.


Most of the Canadian cities that adopted STV did not have the city manager plan. Only St. James, Manitoba and Lethbridge had the city manager plan. [When Lethbridge adopted STV in 1929, it switched to the city manager plan. Earlier (1913) it had brought in Alternative Voting when it disbanded its city council and switched to the pure city government by commissioners plan.


In the U.S., STV was invariably adopted with the manager plan. STV was seen in many cities as part of the manager plan and not a separate reform. (p. 367)


WORKING OF STV


Effectiveness of the vote [STV produces a large proportion of Effective Votes]


Under STV about 80 percent of the votes are effective - that is, help to elect candidates


Under ward and at-large elections, ordinarily only from 50 to 60 percent are cast for winning candidates and approx. 40 percent are wasted on losing candidates.(Examination of FPTP elections of city councillors in NY revealed that in 23 years an average of only 54 percent of the vote were cast for winning candidates. (p. 369))

[In the last Edmonton city election, of the votes cast for councillor candidates, more were wasted than used to elect winning candidates.]


To be sure, in computing the percent of effective votes under STV, all ballots that help elect some candidate are counted as effective regardless of whether it's the first or some other choice. Many are in fact first preferences, with many being second preferences. The exact amount of effective is concealed in the number of exhausted votes, some of which despite being thought to be disregarded, in fact saw one or more of their choices marked there previously elected.


The amount of effective votes under FPTP is very similar to the amount in the first count of STV.


The difference is "the multiplicity of choices and the alternative vote" [AKA minority representation?] That is, the percentage of effective votes may be the same under both systems but in FPTP it is centred on one person, while in STV it is spread over many, reflecting STV's production of mixed representation.


And under STV the percentage of effective votes increases in counts following the first count due to the multiplicity of choices and the transferable votes, while under FPTP there are no subsequent counts in which the percentage of effective votes could increase.


The effective vote in the first count is the percentage of the first count votes that were marked for those who would eventually win in the election, not those placed with candidates elected in the first count itself.


In a sampling of U.S. STV municipal elections held in 1929, the percentage of effective votes in the first count ranged from 40 to 61 percent, with the percentage of effective votes rising not at all or as much as 12 percent as later preferences were revealed following eliminations. (p. 368)


Proportionalists claim rightly that the system results in a maximum percentage of votes being used to help elect some candidate, with a minimum wastage of votes. (p. 370)


STV generally sees about 20 percent more effective votes than under any other system.

Put another way, four out of five voters under STV see their vote used to elect a candidate for whom they have a choice, while under FPTP, with a preliminary primary [however that works], only three voters out of five see their vote help to elect someone.


Under Block Voting, also, only three out of every five votes are effective (the winners receive about 60 percent of the votes), but since each voter casts his ballot for a number of candidates, in all probability a much larger proportion of the voters vote for one or more of the winning candidates.


A large percent of effective votes under STV means

- elections cannot be manipulated

- the persons elected are representative in the sense that their election was desired by the voters

- that majority rule is assured

- that every substantial minority is represented.


Large percentage of ineffective votes under FPTP may means that the council is not truly representative.

A party or some other group of votes may be under represented or not represented at all.But large number of ineffective votes may not mean that a large group of like-minded voters are necessarily unrepresented. Successive choices decrease in importance.


[I think Harris means here that the distinction between the fourth and fifth ranked choice may not be too important]


Does P.R. secure a more representative council?

Harris writes that many see representation being the creation of a "true sample" or "small map" of the entire population.But he says he believes that "members of city council are not, or should not be, elected primarily to represent a group or section of the city but rather to have charge of the public affairs of the city. They should be voted for because of their ability, experience, and integrity rather than their membership in a particular race, religion, party, group belief or disbelief in prohibition, or their stand on other particular public questions."...


If a true sample of small map of the population is really desired, some ingenious lottery would be vastly superior to any system of popular elections.


But vaguely councils do need to be representative. It is not desirable that council be only filled with mediocre persons generally labelled "politicians," nor that they be filled entirely with businessmen and the city government controlled by the wealthier groups.

Every large section or group of the population should have representatives of their own choosing in the council, and the system of election should enable and encourage each group to elect its real leaders. The practical experience of P.R. shows that it does this more effectively than other methods of representation."


[In short, I think what he is saying is that STV elects representatives chosen by the voters, not necessarily those that reflect or are sampling of the voters themselves.]


Does it increase racial and religious voting?

Proportionalists say STV ameliorates such voting because it guarantees each group a representative, while opponents say STV will deepen that kind of voting. Harris points out that at one time or another voting along those lines is seen in various cities whether they have STV or not.

The composition of city council varies little by religious or racial categories before or after adoption of STV. In some cities race seems to have played little role where the voter has some other good basis for voting.

Racial voting is more extensive in Cleveland than in Cincinnati because of larger percent of foreign born and also because the larger city council in Cleveland - 25 members - facilitates the voting of small racial groups as a block.


But observers say that race and religion have little to do with the action of the members of the council after they are elected and that racial and religious alignments are forgotten.


In Ashtabula, Catholics were unable to elect a single representative in the council in the 10 years prior to adoption of STV adoption but in every election since have elected a member each time.


Does STV elect radicals?

In several Canadian cities, organized labor has used STV as means of securing representation in council. Much of the opposition to STV in many cities arose from this fact. But in Calgary and Winnipeg the labour and conservative members work together quite harmoniously. [Both these cities kept STV (or Alternative Voting) until the 1970s.]


Are better councilmen elected?


Harris wrote : "Calgary has found STV a means of electing to its council the industrial, business, professional and labour leaders of the community. All factions are highly pleased and attribute the high quality of the council to STV. In Winnipeg it has made little difference to the council. Other Canadian cities have abandoned STV because they saw no difference and thought the system was not worth the trouble."


In Calgary and other cities where STV has been success, "there exists a nonpartisan organization dedicated to the task of drafting capable candidates to stand for election and securing their election. Under STV such as organization is assured of representation in council according to its strength. It does not have to go into each ward and select a candidate agreeable to the dominant political group of that particular ward.

It does not have to dicker with the party organization, though it may fuse with them.

It does not have to wage its battle in the partisan primary of any party.

It may pick outstanding citizens to run for council and give them some assurance that they will be elected.

Even a perfect election system cannot elect capable men to the council unless capable men stand for election.

STV prevents the politician from controlling the nominations for public office and opens the way through a nonpartisan organization of citizens, for the outstanding citizen to be brought into the race." (p. 375)


Does transfer of votes change the results?

Calgary in the five STV elections from 1924 to 1928 the six or seven most popular candidates (depending on the number to be elected) in the first count were elected, with no change from vote transfers.


Thus the same result may come from a system of Limited Voting with every voter being permitted to vote for one candidate only, and the candidate with the most votes being elected.


This questions the necessity for the elaborate count under PR, the expression of numerous choices by the voter and the transferable vote though it is not an argument for the ward or block systems. (p. 377) [The Limited Vote system would retain both the multi-member districts and the single vote used under STV.]


There have been many instances where the front leaders in the first count did not win. One or two moved up from lower ranks many times in STV city elections in the U.S. and in Canada.


And too it should be borne in mind that in such a Limited Vote system the voter may not place his single choice with the same person whom he honours in the STV election. Voters would feel compelled to measure the chances of success of their first choice and might vote for a different candidate believing that their favourite did not need their vote or stood no chance of election. The transferable vote relieves the voter of guessing about the strength of his favourite candidate.


STV's positive effects

Everywhere councils under STV have been more truly representative of the wishes of the voters. (p. 379)


STV will not revolutionize the political life of a city.


But STV will:

- facilitate the election of the real leaders of a city to city council

- works with absolute fairness to the various groups in the election- prevents the manipulation of the election

- guarantee minority representation as well as majority control, and

- most importantly, make it feasible for nonpartisan citizens interested in securing good government to form a civic organization that will draft capable candidates and secure their election.


No method of election can do other than choose from the candidates who stand, and if the candidates are unsatisfactory the council will be unsatisfactory.


in Calgary the Civic Government Association has been formed to make STV (and democracy) a success. [as counterpart to the Labour Party]


Calgary's instructions to voter commendable


We need to issue instructions to votes that will serve to reduce the number of invalid votes and to dispel fear that voters may not fill out ballot properly. The method to do so in Calgary is to print on the ballot itself a sample ballot in small type with fictitious names marked with numbers instead of crosses. [Harris approved of this means of instructing the voter.]


The sample marked ballot used in Calgary is written like this:

"MARK YOUR BALLOT IN THIS MANNER.

Mark your first choice with a number 1, your second choice with a number 2, and so on. You may vote as many choices as you desire.

DO NOT USE AN X MARK.

DO NOT USE ANY NUMBER TWICE.


The marked ballot should show as many choices as there are positions to be filled." [This is to set the example for the voters to do at least that many choices.]


A SMALL COUNCIL ADVOCATED (p. 382)

[as compared to the large councils of 20 to 40 members that some U.S. cities had at that time.


[Western Canadian cities did not have large councils like that, in fact they more often stream-lined their city government, with power sometimes even devolving on to the backs of a commission board of only three people.]


Use of districts or wards unsatisfactory

Election of representatives in districts [instead of at-large] under STV has not worked satisfactorily in Cleveland and in Winnipeg. Publicity is not efficient under district STV elections as voters are only interested in the candidate in their own district but much advertising is city-wide.


But use of wards means choice of candidates available to voters is greatly restricted.

Elected councillors regard themselves as representatives of a particular district.

The district system makes it difficult for a civic organization to organize a strong slate of candidates and to secure effective publicity.


Use of large at-large councils unsatisfactory [some like Cleveland's had more than 24 councillors]

But a large council elected at-large through STV has serious defects.


A large council elected using STV facilitates racial voting. [Harris I think meant no more by this than that voters would vote based on skin colour with no thought to quality of candidate.]


[A small council elected at-large is the sweet spot.]

The election of a smaller number of councillors [10-14 councillors] makes racial voting more difficult. Harris said with a small council the candidates must have the backing of more than a single ethnic group and thus cannot be elected with only the support of a single racial or ethnic voting block. (p. 383)


-------------------------------------------------------------------

STV referendums in Canada (Harris, p. 367)

Ten Canadian municipalities held referendums to adopt STV. All resulted in Yes vote.

(Ten others adopted STV without referendum.)


Of the ten "referendum" municipalities, all but three held referendums on its discontinuation by 1930. All but two of the referendum went against STV. Regina and Saskatoon took two tries to reject STV after their citizens defended STV in their first reject-STV votes. (Saskatoon would be only city to adopt STV after 1930, and the only city to adopt STV after once discontinuing it.)


Due to the adverse referendum results and other cities discarding STV without a vote, only three major cities - Calgary, Winnipeg and St. Boniface - and three smaller Manitoba municipalities - continued to use STV after 1930. They continued to use it into the 1970s (although Calgary mostly used Alternative Voting after 1960).

St. Boniface, St. James, Transcona and St. Vital dropped it when they became part of Winnipeg about 1970.

At that time, Winnipeg and Calgary both dropped STV without referendum being conducted.


The referendums held before 1930 were actually all that would be held on city-level STV. No city has adopted STV since then, with or without a vote, except Saskatoon. (Sources say Saskatoon did not use referendum to adopt STV in 1938.)


Harris noted that STV had not fared well after adoption in Canada. Referendums held on its discontinuation in cities that used it usually resulted in a YES vote.


Harris gave a reason why referendum went against STV - the average voter does not understand the system and resents this.


ALBERTA STV Referendums

Calgary

referendum held in 1916 2840 voted in favour and only 1374 against its adoption.


Edmonton

referendum held in 1922 5664 voted in favour and only 3075 against its adoption.

referendum held in 1927 6695 voted against, and only 5473 in favour of its continuance.


Lethbridge

referendum held in 1928 (on city manager/STV city charter) [no numbers given in Harris]

referendum held in 1929 904 voted against, and only 230 in favour of continuance of STV.


BC STV Referendums

South Vancouver

referendum held in 1918 1095 voted in favour and only 390 against its adoption.

1929 annexed by Vancouver


West Vancouver adopted STV in 1917 no referendum

Used it for last time in 1930, ending it without referendum.


New Westminster adopted STV in 1917 no referendum

repealed STV in 1919 no referendum


Nelson

adopted STV in 1917 no referendum

repealed STV in 1919 no referendum


Port Coquitlam

adopted STV in 1917 [referendum possibly held, no numbers available]

repealed STV in 1919 no referendum


Mission City*

adopted STV in 1917 no referendum

repealed STV in 1921 no referendum

[*Harris says Mission City but my other sources say Mission RMD. Mission City was outside the Mission district municipality until 1969, says wikipedia.)


Victoria

referendum held in 1920 1296 voted in favour, and only 608 against STV

referendum held in 1921 2324 voted in favour of discontinuation, only 1143 against.


Vancouver

adopted STV in 1920 no referendum

repealed STV in 1923 no referendum


Saskatchewan STV Referendums

Regina

referendum held in 1920 1414 voted in favour and only 824 against its adoption. referendum held in 1923 2135 voted in favour and only 1954 against its continuance.

referendum held in 1926 1230 voted in favour, and only 781 against its cancellation.


Moose Jaw

referendum held in 1920 2287 voted in favour and only 678 against its adoption. referendum held in 1925 1552 voted against, and only 839 in favour of its continuance.


Saskatoon

referendum held in 1920 1039 voted in favour and only 651 against its adoption.

referendum held in 1923 2003 voted in favour and only 1965 against its adoption.

referendum held in 1926 3014 voted in favour and only 1202 against its cancellation.


North Battleford

referendum held in 1920 315 voted in favour and only 62 against its adoption.

referendum held in 1924 324 voted against, and only 218 in favour of its continuance.

Manitoba STV Referendums


Winnipeg 1920 no referendum (Harris, p. 367)


St. James

referendum held in 1923 1161 voted in favour and only 511 against its adoption. (Harris, p. 367)


Three other small Manitoba municipalities - St. Boniface, St. Vital and Transcona - also used STV from 1923 to 1970s.

--------------------------

Thanks for reading.

=============================================

What is STV?

From a 1902 reform magazine: "Thinking it well to have in every number something by way of a brief explanation of proportional voting, I repeat in this number the following. Proportional representation means the use of a reasonable and scientific system of voting instead of the present stupid, unfair and inefficient procedure. Methods: There are several systems by which the principle of proportional representation may be given effect to. Large electoral districts, each electing several members, are a necessary feature. The "quota" plan is usually employed. It means that a quota of the votes elects one representative. To arrive at the quota, the number of valid votes cast is divided by the number of seats to be filled. For instance in a seven-member district any one-seventh of the voters could elect one representative and the other six-sevenths could not interfere with their choice. The three principal systems of proportional representation are the Free List as used in Switzerland and Belgium [party-list pro-rep], the Hare system as used in Tasmania [STV], and the Gove System as advocated in Massachusetts. The Preferential Vote [Alternative Voting/Instant Run-off Voting] -- This is used in the election of single officers such as a mayor. It is not strictly a form of pro-rep but is akin thereto, and uses part of the same voting methods. The object of preferential voting is to encourage the free nomination of candidates and to obtain always a clear majority at one balloting, no matter how many candidates are nominated." (From the Proportional Representation Review Dec. 1902, p. 77) (Hathi Trust online resource, page 81/180) Thanks for reading. 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 ==============================================================

2 views

Recent Posts

See All

Commentaires


bottom of page