(work in progress)
Democracy - the ability of voters to determine who will make up the government that will rule over them - is taken as the moral right of government to rule.
But when a party takes government with less than a majority of votes, that is minority rule.
Alberta has had a provincial election every four years or so since 1905.
Most adult Canadian citizens in Alberta have the vote.
But still many are saying that is not enough.
And I say they have a point
- about half the votes cast in each election are ignored and elect no one.
- many majority governments that have held power in Alberta history have been supported by votes cast by only a mere minority.
Meanwhile we can look at most European countries, most countries in Latin America, and many countries in Africa and Asia and see national governments elected by voters proportionally.
Where states or provincial governments are in use, many are elected by P.R.
Many cities in thes countries also use P.R. to elect their city councils.
And even in our own past, we can see when P.R. elected governments in Alberta fairly and a large proportion of the votes were used to elect the members.
For 30 years, MLAs in Edmonton and Calgary were elected using the Single Transferable Vote system, a form of P.R.
Medicine Hat MLAs were elected through STV as well in 1926.
City councillors in Edmonton, Calgary and Lethbridge also were elected by STV for varying lengths of time.
The following timeline presents the conditions that led to the adoption of STV at the city and provincial levels, and the abysmal democratic record since the cancellation of STV in the 1950-1971 period.
The use of FPTP in provincial elections since 1956 has meant majority governments elected by only a minority of votes cast, and the most-popular party taking a portion of the seats that is usually 20 percent or more larger than its due share, with smaller paretis being under-represented or having no representation at all.
From 1956 to 2015 - a span of 60 years - the leading party - the Social Credit party, then the Conservative party - used its massive windfall of seats as proof of its popularity, disregarding that in some cases more voters voted for other parties than voted for the party in power.
The use of STV in Edmonton and Calgary in provincial elections from 1924 to 1956 did not prevent minority rule, nor did it prevent the seat windfall accruing to the party leading in the polls in each election - United Farmers and Social Credit.
But it does show how such a fair-vote system if extended across the province would ensure a level of representation to each party in line with their vote share -- proportional representation -- and a high level of effective votes - votes actually used to elect someone.
The history of Alberta shows the need for such change and how it was achieved, at least partially, under the UFA in 1924.
=====
1905 -- Alberta, formerly a part of the North-West Territories, changes to being a province.
The province of Alberta is composed of the old district of Alberta and parts of the old districts of Athabasca, Saskatchewan and Assiniboia.
Since coming into Canada in 1870 and since the beginning of representative government in the old Northwest, voters there had voted for MPs, NWT Territorial Assembly members, mayors and city councils. (see Montopedia blog "Early Elections in Alberta")
These elections had been held using single-winner First Past The Post or Block Voting in districts that elected as many as six members - where each voter could cast as many as six votes each.
Thus it was that the first Alberta provincial election in 1905 also used single-winner First Past The Post.
It is interesting to note that the size of the 25 single-member districts used in 1905 would make credible multi-member districts today when about three times the number of MLAs are elected in Alberta compared to back in 1905.
(That a province of the size of Alberta, now with 4M inhabitants and 1.9M votes cast in the typical election, has only 87 MLAs when back in 1905 25,000 votes were cast to elect 25 MLAs.
Surely the present democratic gap is partly due to the large number of voters who are expected to be represented by the same member, the artificial single-member districts that slice and dice the electorate, and the unthinking mythology that each MLA can represent all the people living in the district, even if they voted against that member when running for the seat.
(As we look at Alberta historical elections, we see how many Albertans grew dissatisfied with FPTP and switched, at least in Edmonton and Calgary to using a system of fair voting where each member only had to represent those who shared their political views, and larger districts were used where voters had liberty to vote among a wide choice of parties and candidates, and where 80 percent or of so of the votes cast were actually used to elect someone.)
1905 - first provincial election.
More than 5 percent of votes were cast for other parties than the two old-line parties - Liberals and Conservatives. None of these third-party candidates were elected.
All MLAs were elected by single-winner winner-take-all FPTP.
Province of Alberta was split into 25 districts.
Edmonton and Calgary were city-wide districts, each electing one MLA.
The rest of the province was covered by 23 districts.
Lethbridge and Medicine Hat were districts that covered much more than the eponymous cities.
Oddly, districts along the C&E Railway were stacked like pancakes. As Hunt pointed out (see 1921), as transportation was much easier N-S, it did not make sense for the districts to be so long E-W while being so thin N-S.
The main Central Alberta districts - Red Deer, Lacombe, Ponoka, Wetaskiwin and Leduc - could have been made into one roughly-square multi-seat district, and still that 5-seat district would have been smaller than four or five of the larger single-member districts - Athabasca, Peace River, St. Albert, Stony Plain, and perhaps Medicine Hat.
With fair voting (STV or even just SNTV) in the district, the degree of representation would have been much larger than was accomplished in those five single-member districts - in Red Deer, John T. Moore was elected with less than half the votes cast in the district, for example.
The vote tallies of winning candidates in central Alberta ranged from 612 (Lacombe) to 375 (Ponoka). The successful candidate in Ponoka received fewer votes than the losing candidate in Lacombe, Leduc, and Red Deer.
But with fair voting, the candidates in Central Alberta would be compared to each other and the most-popular elected, instead of five of the most-popular eight being elected.
The 1905 election was the last election until 1959 that all MLAs were elected through FPTP.
Some Albertans say Rutherford gerrymandered the districts and got majority government because of that, but actually his Liberal party did get a majority of votes across the province so did deserve majority government.
But yes, Rutherford's Liberals did receive far more seats than was their due share.
58 percent of the vote -- 88 percent of the seats
(FPTP's windfall of seats to most-popular party)
===
General 1909-1959
From 1909 to 1959, every elections saw two or more MLAs elected in multi-seat districts.
For the first bit, multi-seat districts used Block voting;
from 1926 to 1956, multi-seat districts used STV.
From 1909 to 1921, multi-seat districts had just two seats.
1921 saw block voting used in 5-seat districts in Edmonton and Calgary.
from 1926 to 1959, STV was used in multi-seat districts in Edmonton and Calgary, with DM ranging from 5 to 7 in each city.
In 1926 election, Medicine Hat used STV in two-seat district. But from 1930 on, it was re-districted and dropped down to just one MLA.
===
1909 - Edmonton and Calgary MLAs elected in multi-seat city -wide districts (two-seat districts)
Block voting used - each voter had two votes.
(when Block Voting used, it is likely that a single party will take all the seats.
Edmonton elected two Liberals in 1909.
Calgary elected a Conservative and a Liberal.
==========================
From 1913 to 1926, use of ranked votes and STV gradually expanded across Alberta.
Lethbridge was first place in Alberta to use ranked votes.
When Calgary combined ranked votes with at-large city-wide elections, that city was first place in Alberta to use proportional representation.
These moves helped open the door to STV in provincial elections, in two main cities and the use of IRV across the province.
Outline of steps to STV in Alberta elections, 1913-1926
Lethbridge was first city in Canada/U.S. to adopt Alternative Voting for election of its city administration. P.R. Review, Oct. 1914 noted this, saying AV is "quite a different thing from P.R. but is of interest to many proportionalists."
Lethbridge city elections - Lethbridge disbanded its city council. Its board of commissioners was elected through ranked ballots (Alternative Voting), starting in 1913.
Calgary city STV starting in 1917
STV set up for provincial referendum on Prohibition in 1923, to choose best of four options. (One - government sale of liquor and bars - won with majority on the first count.)
Edmonton city STV starting in 1923
Alberta provincial STV adopted in 1924 -
Edmonton and Calgary elected five MLAs each, in city-wide districts
Medicine Hat elected two MLAs, in district that covered the city plus much
surrounding countryside.
First use of STV in provincial general election in 1926.
(Lethbridge, which had started the process, finally brought in STV for its city elections in 1928.)
===========
HISTORIC NOTE:
Around 1914 many North American cities switched, or considered switching, to the Commission Plan or Commission-Manager Plan of civic government. These plans concentrated power in just a few hands (the Board of Commissioners, sometimes with a Manager) sometimes with no city council at all. Under a strict Commission Plan, the new powerful commissioners were elected, and to have democratic accountability, Pro-Rep was often a component of the new system.
(At the same time, many cities were considering adopting Direct Legislation (Initiative, Referendum and Recall) as well.
Lethbridge made the switch in January 1914, dismantling its city council altogether. The Commissioners were elected by IRV. (see GGG, April 15, 1914)
Edmonton considered the switch to Elective Commission in 1913/1914.
The Clean Government League published Elective Commission -- The Business Plan of Municipal Government in 1913.
In December 1913, mayoral candidate William McNamara campaigned for the Commission Plan and was elected mayor. (GGG, Jan. 21, 1914, p. 9)
Following the election the city swirled with discussion of the commission form of city government.
(see Edmonton Bulletin, Feb. 10, 1914, p. 10; Nov. 28, 1914, p. 1; June 17, 1914, p. 5)
Various ballots designs were considered - STV or IRV using number ranking or columns, Bucklin, weighted Bucklin, a Bucklin-IRV hybrid. The "Edmonton Ballot" was devised to combine IRV for commissioners and IRV for mayor. (Edmonton Capital, August 24, 1914)
A new city constitution was hammered out, including IRV for election of commissioners, and a confirming referendum scheduled for Dec. 1914.
In December 1914, most of the voters voted against Commision government. (see Edmonton Bulletin, Dec. 15, 1914)
(Voters also deep-sixed Commission form of government in votes held in 1920, 1921, and 1926.)
see Montopedia blog: "1913/1914 Edmonton almost switched to Elective Commission Plan...."
=====
1917 WWI Special Ballot - Alberta Soldiers and Nurses vote
Block Voting - each voter had two votes.
One Nurse ran in the election - Roberta McAdams. She was the only woman in the contest.
McAdams capitalized on the voting system by telling soldiers to "give one vote to the man they liked and give the other vote to the Sister" (she was serving as a Nursing Sister).
Many soldiers did give McAdams their second vote, and she was elected.
She and Louise McKinney (elected through FPTP in the rural district of Claresholm) were the first women elected in the British Empire. This was the first election where women could vote and run as candidates.
(The Armed Forces vote was the only district in Alberta that did not use FPTP.)
The Army vote Block voting succeeded in producing mixed representation.
Gender balance -- a man and a women.
The soldiers' MLAs were elected without party labels, on non-partisan basis, and in the Legislature, both supported the labour-oriented Non-Partisan League (that elected McKinney and Weir) and the nascent United Farmers of Alberta.
1917 federal election - Borden's Union government re-elected, in part on promise not to conscript farmers and those working on farms.
Springtime 1918 the Borden government broke its promise, imposing conscription on many working in agriculture.
It is said this breaking of faith, in addition to other factors, caused many Albertans to not vote for Conservatives nor for Liberals in the next next federal election (1921).
(Jim Miller thesis)
1921 John D. Hunt, secretary of the Legislative Council, researched pro-rep.
(Hunt had been the author of a pro-PR book - The Dawn of a New Patriotism.)
The Liberal government shelved his report (and all copies now have vanished).
A synopsis of his report was published by the UFA. It described the disproportional misrepresentation produced by FPTP already clear after four provincial elections) and expressed the need to bring in "proportional representation in grouped constituencies" (STV).
The Liberal government was against proportional representation, but bent to the extent of establishing multi-seat city-wide districts in Edmonton, Calgary and Medicine Hat (but then adopted Block Voting in those districts, not P.R.)
1921 election -- - Change of government (the first time that Alberta experienced a government change.)
The United Farmers of Alberta replaced Liberals as party in government.
The UFA had campaigned on a promise of electoral reform - STV - as much as possible.
Unlike the Liberals, the UFA did not think they knew every thing. The UFA believed that each major group in society should have their due share of seats in the Legislature.
The concept of "Group Government" was described in a book written by Calgary Labour MP William Irvine.
Electoral system/districting:
Edmonton and Calgary MLAs elected in multi-seat city -wide districts (five-seat districts)
Block voting used - each voter had five votes.
In Edmonton, the five Liberal candidates took all five seats even though they received only about a third of votes cast.
In Calgary, Labour, Liberal and two Independent MLAs (including iconoclast Bob Edwards) were elected.
The solid five-name Liberal and Conservative slates were supported only partially.
The shattered voting pattern might reflect Calgarian's experience of voting under STV in city elections. (STV had been used since 1917 in Calgary city elections.)
(Edmonton used STV to elect city councillors from 1923 to 1927.)
1921 federal election -
All Alberta seats went to UFA or Labour candidates.
Liberal and Conservative voters in Alberta were denied any federal representation at all.
Was this fair? No, but it was no more unfair than how Farmer and Labour candidates had been denied representation in general elections since the first Alberta MP was elected back in 1884.
(Farmer and Labour MPs began to call for PR in the 1920s, and CCF and NDP MPs continued to call for PR about each generation ever since.)
(see Montopedia blog: "Timeline of Canadian electoral reform")
1923 - Cancel-Prohibition referendum was held.
IRV was used, but no vote transfers necessary -- replacement of Prohibition with government liquor stores and private beerhalls received majority of votes on 1st Count.
1924 - Alberta Legislature passed legislation establishing the use of Single Transferable Voting, a form of proportional representation, in Edmonton, Calgary and Medicine Hat.
All other districts were to use single-winner majoritarian Instant-Runoff Voting (at the time called Alternative Voting).
(This was the first time a jurisdiction in Canada and the U.S. elected all its members through a non-plurality non-X-voting electoral system, other than Illinois's use of semi-proportional Cumuatlvie Votong starting in 1872.)
Such a hybrid system did not require any redistricting - the mixture of multi-member districts and single-member districts established by the Liberal government in 1921 could just carry on.
The difference was that henceforth, and for the next 30 years, voters in Alberta elections woud cast ranked ballots. And the way the votes were counted was not quite as simple - but far more fair - than under the FPTP/Block voting system used previously.
===
General note:
The governments elected between 1924 and the end of the use of STV/IRV were better balanced and satisfied more voters than governments elected prior to 1924 or after 1956, as we will see.
===
1926 - Edmonton and Calgary MLAs elected in multi-seat city -wide districts (the five-seat districts previously established by the Liberal government prior to the 1921 election).
STV-PR used - each voter had one vote (but could mark back-up preferences).
UFA received one Edmonton seat dependably in 1926 and 1930.
Labour received one Edmonton seat dependably in 1926 and 1930.
Medicine Hat elected two MLAs using STV
STV-PR used - each voter had one vote (but could mark back-up preferences).
Instant-Runoff Voting used in districts outside Edmonton, Calgary and Medicine Hat.
This was first election in Canda and U.S., where every MLA was elected using non-plurality electoral methods. (FPTP and Block Voting being plurality methods)
1926's first use of STV in an Alberta provincial election showed the diversity produced by STV, a diversity that reflected votes as cast.
In Edmonton, MLAs of four different parties were elected - UFA, Conservative, Liberals, and a Labour.
In Calgary, a variety of MLAs also were elected - Conservative, Liberals, Labour and an Independent-Labour.
(Not all elections would elect representatives of four parties, but all the times that STV was used to elect Edmonton and Calgary MLAs, the elected representatives reflected the way votes were cast.
Labour and CCF/NDP saw representatives elected in Edmonton and Calgary almost every time under STV.
1926 -– CLP's Lionel Gibbs elected in Edmonton; DLP's Fred White and Independent-Labour candidate Robert Parkyn elected in Calgary.
Use of STV to elect Edmonton MLAs produced election of Labour/CCF MLA every election from 1926 to 1958, excepting 1935 and 1940.
In Calgary under STV, Labour/CCF elected in 1926, 1930, 1944 and 1948.
After change to First Past the Post in 1956, next time CCF/NDP elected in Edmonton not until 1982; in Calgary not until 1986.)
(1928 --with the ambient excitement about STV, Lethbridge switched to STV in its city elections. But after just one election, cancelled STV.)
1930 - Edmonton and Calgary MLAs elected in multi-seat city -wide districts (six-seat districts)
STV-PR used - each voter had one vote (but could mark back-up preferences).
1935 election - - Change of government (only the second time that Alberta experienced a government change.)
Edmonton and Calgary MLAs elected in multi-seat city -wide districts (six-seat districts)
STV-PR used - each voter had one vote (but could mark back-up preferences).
UFA had dropped in popularity. STV and IRV reflected that reality -- they won no seats.
But actually UFA received 11 percent of votes so were due 6 seats but got none.
Labour with 2 percent of the vote was due one or two seats but got none.
Social Credit were particularly strong in rural areas. They replaced the UFA as the main political party for farmers.
SC candidates took 50 of the 51 seats outside Edmonton and Calgary. This was far more than its due share.
seats outside Edm/Calgary actually should have been split 30 SC to 20 non-SC (Cons., Libs, UFA), while in the election SC took 50 , leaving just 1 seat to the 90,000 non-SC voters.
Sure under IRV, each MLA was elected by majority of votes in the district,
but a mere majority in each district gives far more seats than fair to the leading party.
Effective votes -- under IRV just a bit more than half the votes were used to elect the winners.
While under STV, about 80 to 90 percent of the votes are used to elect someone. That extra 30 percent of effective votes is where the proportionality comes in.
SC votes Edmonton 10,000 votes
Calgary 18,000 votes
outside Edm/Calgary 130,000 votes
non-SC votes Edmonton 28,000 votes
Calgary 24,000 votes
outside Edm/Calgary 90,000 votes
The SC party took just more than half the votes across the province.
1940 election -
Edmonton and Calgary MLAs elected in multi-seat city -wide districts (five-seat districts)
STV-PR used - each voter had one vote (but could mark back-up preferences).
pretty much a two-party struggle between Social Credit and anti-SC forces (People's League, Unity League)
Edmonton's five seats were divided between SC (2) and People's League (3).
CCF received 4200 votes but that was well below quota (7291).
Calgary's five seats were divided between SC (2) and People's League (3).
CCF received about 4200 votes but that was well below quota (7653).
1942 by-election conducted using IRV
Elmer Roper received the most votes in first Count but not a majority.
He held his lead until the end when he had accumulated a majority of votes cast, by receiving transferred votes from the less-popular candidates who were eliminated.
1944 - Edmonton and Calgary MLAs elected in multi-seat city-wide districts (five-seat districts)
STV-PR used - each voter had one vote (but could mark back-up preferences).
outside Edmonton and Calgary, MLAs were elected by Instant-Runoff Voting (IRV).
This single-winner majoritarian sytem produces results very much as would be expected under FPTP - the CCF elected no MLAs under IRV.
Altogether CCF received almost 25 percent of the vote but only two seats - those two were elected in Edmonton and Calgary, where STV produced appropriate minority representation.
Armed Forces Vote
-- elected three MLAs, each elected by a separate service - Army, Navy, Airforce.
these were separate districts from the others. FPTP.
Army representative received only 18 percent of the vote, but that was enough to be elected. (this was record low percentage for a successful candidate - 82 percent of votes were not used to elect anyone in the district.)
1946 - oil discovered at Leduc No. 1. Prosperity came to Alberta.
(If CCF had had had 25 percent of the MLAs in the legislature, which was its due share, the later progress of Alberta wold have been much different.
But instead the Social Credit (and the Conservatives later) brought in social services only as much as needed to avoid CCF/NDP success, opposed public healthcare and other federal social programs, denied union rights to Alberta workers, and gave control of most of our oilfields to U.S. corporations.)
1948 election - Edmonton and Calgary MLAs elected in multi-seat city -wide districts (five-seat districts)
STV-PR used - each voter had one vote (but could mark back-up preferences).
Because multiple MLAs were elected in Edmonton, the leaders of the three main political parties all ran in the same contest.
Thus, an all-candidates' forum in Edmonton was actually a leaders' debate.
1952 election
Edmonton and Calgary MLAs elected in multi-seat city -wide districts
(Edmonton seven-seat district; Calgary six-seat district)
STV-PR used - each voter had one vote (but could mark back-up preferences).
1955 election
(IRV's windfall of seats to the most-popular party)
Edmonton and Calgary MLAs elected in multi-seat city -wide districts
(Edmonton seven-seat district; Calgary six-seat district)
STV-PR used - each voter had one vote (but could mark back-up preferences).
supporters of non-SC parties began to use their back-up preferences as proportionalists recommend - if not able to elect anyone of the preferred party, then they should be used to elect like-minded candidates of other parties.
The SC saw the loss of four seats where an SC candidate was leading in the 1st Count but then due to vote transfers among the non-SC parties, was denied the seat.
The SC government, sensing the growth of an anti-SC "coalition," cancelled STV, the following year.
(By submerging the growing disssatisfacton with the SC government, the change away from STV and IRV likely helped extend the government's time in power.)
1956 - end of STV in Edmonton and Calgary.
following the cancellation of STV (and IRV) and its replacement by FPTP, no CCF or NDP would be elected in Edmonton for 26 years, no CCF or NDP in Calgary for 30 years.
But each time the CCF or NDP received 5-10 percent of the votes cast in Edmonton and Calgary or more.
1959 election - The Social Credit party received less than half the votes cast in the election.
But the party received a majority of seats in the Legislature.
56 percent of the vote -- 94 percent of the seats
(False-majority government) (FPTP's windfall of seats to most-popular party)
single-winner winner-take-all FPTP was used in Edmonton and Calgary. This was the first time since 1905 that FPTP would be used in every district in the province.
(In 1959, a voter in Edmonton or Calgary would have needed to be 63 years old to have ever voted using FPTP in a provincial election.)
FPTP produced disproportional misrepresentation.
Social Credit under Manning took every seat in Edmonton and all but one in Calgary, much more than its due share of seats in those cities.
Without STV, the elected opposition in the Legislature decreased from 39 percent (1955) to only 6 percent (1959).
But in 1959 still there was a sizable opposition vote - 44 percent of voters voted for parties other than Social Credit.
Those opposition voters were due 29 seats but only got two.
===
General note: from 1959 to the present (2024), each Alberta MLA was elected using single-winner winner-take-all First-past-the-post (single-member plurality).
===
1967 - The Social Credit party received less than half the votes cast in the election.
But the party received a majority of seats in the Legislature.
45 percent of the vote -- 85 percent of the seats
(False-majority government) (FPTP's windfall of seats to most-popular party)
(1971 - Calgary used STV For last time to elect its city councillors.)
1971 - Change of government (only the third time that Alberta experienced a government change.)
Lougheed's Conservatives took over from Social Credit.
The Conservative party, led by Peter Lougheed, received less than half the votes cast in the election.
But his party received a majority of seats in the Legislature.
45 percent of the vote -- 61 percent of the seats
(False-majority government) (FPTP's windfall of seats to most-popular party)
===
General note:
Time after time, they, like the SC government before them, received a windfall of about 20 seats, over and above their due share, in every election.
They would have majority governments even when they reeived less than half the votes cast in the elections.
===
Grant Notley was elected in Spirit River-Fairview, after deciding not to even try to be elected in Edmonton where gerrymandering denied NDP even one seat time after time (every election since the end of STV in 1956).
Even though elected in in a district in the Peace River area, he was a voice in the Legislature for NDP-ers everywhere in province.
(just it was too bad Edmonton NDP-ers did not have their own voice as would have been produced under Pro-Rep.)
1982 election - Ray Martin was elected in Edmonton, first NDP elected in Edmonton since 1959 despite NDP getting more than ten percent of the votes cast in Edmonton every election.
1986 election - NDP made very good showing taking 16 seats.
This included two NDP MLAs elected in Calgary. These were the first CCF/NDP MLAs elected in Calgary since the end of STV in 1956.
1993 - The Conservative party, led by Ralph Klein, said to be Alberta's "King Ralph", received less than half the votes cast in the election.
But his party received a majority of seats in the Legislature.
45 percent of the vote -- 61 percent of the seats
(False-majority government) (FPTP's windfall of seats to most-popular party)
2004 - The Conservative party, led by Ralph Klein, said to be Alberta's "King Ralph", received less than half the votes cast in the election.
But his party received a majority of seats in the Legislature.
47 percent of the vote -- 75 percent of the seats
(False-majority government) (FPTP's windfall of seats to most-popular party)
2008 election
2010 Edmonton city election
first time Edmonton city councillors elected in single-member wards
FPTP showed poor results same as being seen in provincial and federal elections.
2012 - The Conservative party, led by Alison Redford, received less than half the votes cast in the election. But her party received a majority of seats in the Legislature.
44 percent of the vote -- 70 percent of the seats
(False-majority government) (FPTP's windfall of seats to most-popular party)
54 percent Voter Turn-out, likely due to the predominance of safe seats for Conservatives. Likely many Liberals and NDP-ers just stayed home.
Even Conservatives may have stayed home - believing, usually correctly, that their vote was not necessary to see a Conservative MLA elected.
2015 election - Change of government (only the fourth time that Alberta experienced a government change.
Alberta political culture, and highly centralized economic base (agriculture, then oil) plus the use of FPTP (after 1959), meant that a party in power stays in power for decades until eventually the opposition turns from merely staying awa y from politics to being actively against the government (being so desparate for change that they will get out and vote even if they know there is only a remote chance their vote will actually count) - and change will come if at the same time the government supporters even turn away from the government - or dispirited simply stay home. As you can imagine the intricate constellation of conditions for government change don't happen very often.
The use of FPTP means that even when a majorty of voters vote against the government in power, the government is still maintained in power. Such happened in 1993 and 2004 and 2012.
But FPTP also means that if a government in power that gets more votes than it had taken before it might be kicked out of power. We will see this in 2019.
The NDP, led by Rachel Notley, received less than half the votes cast in the election. But her party received a majority of seats in the Legislature.
41 percent of the vote -- 62 percent of the seats
(False-majority government)
(FPTP's windfall of seats to most-popular party)
Artificial Regionalism - NDP MLAs were elected in all 21 Edmonton districts (although NDP did not take more than two-thirds of the votes cast there),
As well, NDP took 15 of the 26 Calgary districts and 18 of the 40 districts outside the major cities.
1.5M votes cast across the province
57 percent Voter turn-out.
In many ridings, the combined votes of the Progressive Conservative and the Wildrose candidates surpassed that of the NDP.
But in other ridings such as Red Deer North, Spruce Grove-St. Albert, Calgary-Buffalo, Calgary-Varsity, Lethbridge East and Lethbridge West, the combined vote of the NDP and the Liberal candidates totalled more than 50 percent of the district's votes, thus overwhelming the combined vote of the Conservative and Wild Rose candidate.
This also held true for Calgary Mountain View where a Liberal was elected.
Second-place party denied due share of seats:
Conservatives with 28 percent of the vote took only 11 percent of the seats.
Wildrose with 24 percent of the vote took 24 percent of the seats.
Small parties denied due share of seats:
Liberals with 4 percent of the vote took only 1 seat but due three.
Alberta Party with 2 percent of the vote took only 1 seat but due two.
2019 election - Change of government (only the fifth time that Alberta experienced a government change.
- The Conservative party, led by Jason Kenny, received far more than its due share of seats in the Legislature
55 percent of the vote -- 72 percent of the seats
(FPTP's windfall of seats to most-popular party)
NDP took 15,000 more votes than it had receivedin 2015, but instead of being re-elected to majority government as it had in 2015, this time it was pushed down to only 38 seats.
Conservatives went up from 25 seats to 63 seats, with increase of votes from 413,000 to 1M.
1.9M votes cast
2023 - The Conservative party, led by Danielle Smith, and NDP, led by Rachel Notley, received about their due share of seats in the Legislature.
The Conservatives captured a majority government with a slim majority of votes.
But there was massive artificial regionalism in the representation elected.
Conservative party took no seats in Edmonton and only 12 in Calgary.
Thus, when it formed cabinet, there can be no representation from Alberta's capital city.
NDP took all the seats in Edmonton where it received only about two-thirds of the vote.
Conservatives 53 percent of the vote -- 56 percent of the seats
NDP 44 percent of the vote -- 44 percent of the seats
The election set several firsts —
-first time in Alberta history that the Legislature for second consecutive time held only two parties.
-the two main parties took more than 96 percent of the vote, the largest share ever in Alberta history.
(Liberal party vote strunk to less than 1 percent)
NDP took 777,000 votes, 170,000 more votes than it took in 2015 when it won government, but was held to only 38 seats.
seems any one but United Conservative Party and NDP stayed home -
only 1.8M votes cast, 100,000 fewer than in the 2019 election.
seems the stay-at-homes were mostly supporters of third parties.
2019 UCP and NDP combined vote total: 1,659,000 third parties: 247,366 votes
2023 UCP and NDP combined vote total: 1,706,000 third parties: 71,321 votes
Likely due to constraints imposed by FPTP, and its stress on two-party competition, about 170,000 third-party supporters stayed home -- or simply switched to one or other of the two main parties.
And if they switched, it seems then that many supporters of the two main parties stayed home believing that the district result was pre-ordained - that the NDP would win most or all the seats in Edmonton and the UCP would win most or all the seats outside Edm/Calgary. And that any votes cast for others would be simply disregarded. And if they thought that, they were right.
Effective votes:
some but not all the UCP and some but not all the NDP votes were used to elect an MLA,
but for sure none of the third-party vote was used to elect anyone.
None of the UCP votes in Edmonton were used to elect anyone.
None of the NDP vote in 12 Calgary districts was used to elect anyone.
None of the UCP vote in 10 Calgary districts was used to elect anyone.
None of the NDP vote in 37 rural districts was used to elect anyone.
None of the UCP vote in 4 rural districts was used to elect anyone.
(It was just luck that with so many wasted votes that the election result would be roughly proportional to the two parties' vote tallies.)
Despite FPTP, election produced minority representation:
-the first election in Alberta of a Black woman -- Rhiannon Hoyle in Edmonton-South
-election of First Nations woman -- Jodi Calahoo Stonehouse in Edmonton-Rutherford. (more than 3 percent of Alberta's population is First Nations so actually the due share of representation for First Nations people is almost 3 seats.
2023 election did see three Indigenous MLAs elected.
Calahoo Stonehouse's election was due somehat to luck - if she had received only 3300 fewer votes and those votes had moved to the UCP candidate, she would not have won her seat. As it happened, three Indigenous MLAs were elected in 2023.
The last one to be elected previously (Oberle) was back in 2004.
So 2023 was at the end of 20 years of having no Indigenous representation in the Legislature at all.
Under Pro-rep, Indigenous voters would have elected their due share of representatives each time, whether their choice was Indigenous or non-Indigenous.
(The measure of representation of Indigenous voters is assumed to be Indigenous MLAs, for lack of any other way to see if Indigenous voters are represented.)
-the first black Muslim and the first Somali-Canadian was elected in Alberta in Edmonton-Decore – Sharif Haji.
=============================
Information used in this blog taken from:
A Report on Alberta Elections 1905-1982
Wikipedia articles on Alberta elections 1993-2023
=================================
For more information, see Montopedia blogs "Timeline of Canadian electoral reform" part 1, 2, and 3.
==========
Comentários