1920
1920 Proportional Representation Society of Canada.
Proportional Representation and National Confidence in Parliament. Statement submitted by the PRSC to the Royal Commission on Industrial Relations, with an Introductory Note Showing the Increasing Acceptance of P.R. in Canada.
March, 1920. (P.R. Pamphlet No. 7) perhaps 12 pages in length
(Hathi trust but not available to Canadian readers or possibly not at all; perhaps House of Commons Library has a copy))
Perhaps PRSC had seven publications (or more) but only two even listed on in Hathi trust online.
========
1920 - news of the Irish municipal elections, conducted using STV, was carried to Alberta. In Ireland, 126 separate boroughs and urban council areas used STV. (Edmonton Bulletin, Jan. 19, 1919 )
=====
1920 Red Willow [Alberta] mock parliament is to discuss PR. (Edmonton Bulletin, Jan. 15, 1919)
=====
HISTORIC NOTE:
As farmer, labour and public service organizations pushed for electoral reform, Mackenzie King's Liberal Party passed a resolution in favour of electoral reform in 1919.
King promised electoral reform as he fought the 1921 election.
(see 1921)
=======
Historic note:
January 1920 Premier Norris of Manitoba and his attorney-general contacted Ronald Hooper, an authority on PR living in Ontario at the time, about the possibility of using STV in provincial elections. The government had already given Winnipeg ten seats, up from 4, and was concerned that Labour might take eight or nine, or none at all, any of which might happen under FPTP.
Hooper later recalled "The government of the day did not want to take all the seats, and Mr. Johnson [the attorney-general) was statesmanlike enough to realize that it would be bad for the city of Winnipeg, and if labour got no representation, the matter would not end there." Hooper assured the government leaders that PR would merely give labour and non-labour representation in the provincial legislature in proportion to the votes" however they were placed. (from Hooper's evidence to 1936 Special Committee (see 1936))
Based on that advice, the government decided to adopt STV for election of the ten Winnipeg MLAs in a city-wide district.
This was one of the largest DMs used in an STV government election up to that time.
(the 1917 Calgary city election had elected nine quite successfully. Johannesburg (South Africa) city election 1909 had elected ten. (Humphreys, P.R. (1911). Irish Senate set a new high mark only few years later - when it elected 19 in 1925.)
Manitoba's and Alberta's 33-year use of STV together made up the deepest experience of STV at the legislative level in all of North America.
(1920 Manitoba -- adoption of STV to elect Winnipeg MLAs.
first woman MLA elected - Edith Rogers
1920 election resulted in Liberal minority government, due to election many farmer and labour MLAs, 12 and 11 respectively. Winnipeg's STV only partly responsible - it elected four Labour and no farmers. Mostly it was due to changing times - Liberal party got almost exactly its due share of seats -- its drop in seats was due to dropping from having a slender majority of votes to having only about 35 percent of votes cast.
Government only lasted two years. Edmonton Bulletin blamed the short term on group government (PR), with headline "Manitoba has accorded first practical test of group government in Canada with fatal results" (EB, April 10, 1922, p. 11)
[PR worked against Liberal party in both MB and AB, so Edmonton Bulletin opposed it. The Edmonton Journal favoured it for that same reason.]
In Manitoba, STV used at provincial level to 1954.
Optional-preferential voting.
Whole-vote "exact method" used for transfers of surplus votes (see footnote).
with two different districting schemes:
-- 1920 to 1949 -- DM-10 in Winnipeg city-wide district. (one of largest DM used to elect legislators using STV in the world up to that time).
-- 1949, 1953 -- Winnipeg used three districts DM 4.
1954 end of provincial PR in Manitoba -- seats in Winnipeg area increased by four, system changed to single-member districts and FPTP. (AV used in rural districts 1923-1954)
(1954 end of provincial PR in Manitoba -- seats in Winnipeg area increased by four, system changed to single-member districts and FPTP.
(single-winner Alternative Voting (AV) used in rural districts 1923-1954))
PR expert Ronald Hooper reviewed the use of STV in Winnipeg in the provincial election and gave it high marks.
see Montopedia blog:
======
1920 - Ronald Hooper. The present need for proportional representation.
"Reprinted from the Labour Day review. 1920."
(plus related titles: Proportional Representation Society of Canada. Pamphlets. )
Library of Parliament (Ottawa) Sacré-Coeur
Available , Standard shelving LP/BP ; JF1075 C2 P76
=====
1920 also saw Winnipeg adopt STV for city elections.
first woman councillor elected - Jessie Kirk
(1920 Manitoba -- adoption of STV in Winnipeg city elections. in use at city level until 1970. DM-3 -- 6 members in each district. half of members elected each election (staggered terms). Casual vacancies filled by byelection (held at time of next election). The whole-vote "exact method" used for transfer of surplus votes.
(Winnipeg had 179,000 residents at this point in time.)
3-5 Labour councillors were elected in the 1920 city election. (according to early returns reported in the Edmonton Bulletin, Dec. 4, 1920, p. 1). Such was the consistent result for Labour, although in 1934 Labour support soared, and Labour councillors and Communist councillors plus a Labour mayor eked out a narrow majority in the city hall.
(complaint was made that 9000 votes were rejected in 1920 because the voter had marked an X instead of a number.) (Edmonton Bulletin, Dec. 8, 1920, p. 5)
=====
1920 -- UFA convention passed a resolution that in future STV would be used to elect executive and put STV into use in that same convention 1920.
1920 Edmonton Journal Feb. 14, 1920 devoted a full page to a discussion of PR.
The cause of the Journal's in-depth reportage of PR was the use of STV to elect the UFA executive in a provincial convention.
E.J. Fream submitted an article on the subject "The Hare System of the Single Transferable Vote illustrated in Alberta as used in the election of the UFA executive."
The use of STV at UFA conventions then and later helped prove STV's safety and usefulness to Alberta voters.
1920 March -- Alberta Legislature debated PR.
According to Edmonton Bulletin, generally not a friend of PR, two points came out:
PR is conducive to development of "group politics". some think this is good; some think this is bad.
Another point that came out in Bulletin coverage is that some MLAs think PR is best achieved by, (or the term PR only means) ensuring that each district has same number of voters, by enlarging rural districts so they have same number of votes as city districts (that is assuming single-member districts), decreasing the number of rural members and increasing the number of urban members. (Edmonton Bulletin, March 15, 1920)
======================
1920 Saskatchewan Grain Growers Association (SGGA)
J.B. Musselman (SGGA secretary), New Provincial Political Platform.
"This is not a party movement. either for or against the existing government. It is primarily an expression of political independence from the old party methods and a demand for truly democratic expression at the polls. Instead of electing supporters or opponents of a party leader who either is or hopes to become premier, the electors are demanding a means for intelligent expression of their own views at the polls and we believe that by the method proposed this can be accomplished." (from New Provincial Political Platform)
(CIHM 99025)
=====
1920 Your Committee have given special attention to P.R. as a method of voting (Social Service Council of Canada, Committee on Political Purity and the Franchise, 1920)
(Hathi trust online -- CIHM 80353)
1920 Charles Mullen, Proportional Representation and Municipal Government (1920)
[published in Montreal] refers to "Red terror" and "White terror" in Soviet Union at the time.
[not actually available online, available at UofA Library and many other major university libraries across Canada]
(also author of Paving and Roads book)
[anti-PR MP John Currie quoted from this booklet in his attacks on testimony of electoral reformer Ronald Hooper in 1921 - see 1921)
1920 J.A.S. (J.A. Stephenson) Proportional representation A truly democratic form of voting for government - just what it means and how it works. published in Winnipeg by Canadian Council of Agriculture.
Stevenson, a writer for the Canadian Council of Agriculture, was also author of Profiteering and Where the Farmer touches city labor (these are both listed in Weinrich, Social Protest).
[Writings such as these encouraged the UFA to promise to bring in PR if elected - and helped the UFA actually fulfill that promise.)
1920 - British Representation League established in Toronto as a force against PR. its chairman, J.R. McNichol, described PR as a menace to the British constitution. (Bassano Mail, Dec. 2, 1920, p. 3)
(He likely was John Ritchie MacNichol, who went on to be president of the federal Conservative party from 1925 to 1943. MacNichol addressed the House of Commons Special Committee on PR and STV in May 1921 --see 1921)
1920 - former Winnipeg General Strike leader and jailbird Fred Dixon, speaking in Edmonton, called for Proportional Representation. (Edmonton Bulletin, April 21, 1920, page 3).
(see Montopedia blog - https://montopedia.wixsite.com/montopedia/post/winnipeg-labour-man-called-for-active-citizenry-after-general-strike)
1920 Lethbridge voters vote in favour of switching to city manager plan, instead of previous three-person elective commission board. [don't know if switch made] (Edmonton Bulletin, Dec. 15, 1920)
1920 Edmonton city charter amendment committee, with support of city council, has asked prov. government to amend the city charter to include PR, Direct Legislation (recall, referendum and initiative), dropping property qualification for mayor and aldermen, and the mayor to serve for two years. (apparently most or all of this was not allowed, although PR did come, in 1923.) (EB, Feb. 3, 1920, p. 3)
=====
1921 Vancouver and Victoria adopted STV.
Vancouver used PR-STV in three elections -- in January 1921, January 1922 and December 1922. then returned to at-large Block Voting (the system still used today)
Victoria used it in one election in 1921. (Victoria today elects its eight city councillors and three Capital Regional District directors through Block Voting. In 2022, each voter could cast eight votes in its election of city councillors. 185,000 votes were cast although only 27,000 voters voted. And there were no guarantees that one voting block did not just take all the seats.)
(By the end of 1922, Nelson, Port Coquitlam, New Westminster, Mission and Victoria had stopped using STV.
Only South Vancouver and West Vancouver continued to use STV, until 1928 and 1930 respectively.)
1921 Saskatoon, Regina, North Battleford and Moose Jaw adopted STV.
1921 Edmonton city --The ILP did not take any seats in 1921 although its most-popular candidate - George L. Ritchie - received a vote from 15 percent of the voters (which under STV would have been enough to win a seat in a 6-seat contest.)
The Block voting system used in 1921 in Edmonton allowed the business slate to take all but one of the seats. (this laid base for 1922 referendum decision in favour of STV.)
=======
1921 United Farmers of Alberta pushed for electoral reform. Three sitting MLAs called for the change - Non-Partisan League's Louise McKinney and James Weir, [at least I expect that to be the case] and an UFA MLA Moore. The Liberal government of Alberta formed a royal commission. Legislative Clerk of the Legislative Council, John D. Hunt, wrote a report on the use of Proportional Representation in other countries and the reasons to have it in Alberta. (The report was shelved and, it seems, all copies were destroyed.)
An abridgement of his research was published by the UFA at the time of the 1921 provincial election:
Present Electoral system condemned - John D. Hunt, clerk of the Legislative Council, denounces system which allows manipulation by unscrupulous politicians. Proportional Representation only fair method -- Works well with occupational groups. Also attacks autocratic power of cabinet and caucus.
(Peel 9355)
HISTORIC NOTE:
1921 provincial election -- The United Farmers of Alberta, the largest farmer lobby group in the province, ran official party candidates and promised to reform the election system. its campaign literature ("UFA Reconstructive Legislative Program") called for "Proportional Representation for all classes of the community according to their numerical strength." This was to be produced by "Proportional Representation [in the cities] and a preferential ballot in the single-member constituencies." (Manitoba Free Press, July 25, 1921)
=====
1921 -
House of Commons Special Committee appointed to consider the Subject of Proportional Representation and the Subject of the Single Transferable or Preferential Vote, and desirability of the application of one or the other or both to elections to the House of Commons of Canada...
J.A. Sexsmith chaired the Special Committee; Howard Primrose Whidden and others served on the special committee.
April 14, 1921 Ronald Hooper addressed the Special Committee. Image 8 is where Hooper says the Canada's is to "secure the highest type of Parliament where members represent the opinions of people not acres, mental rather than geographical consituencies, it will be necessary to make only two changes - larger electoral districts electing several members, and..." (he was interrupted). Then having explained that Block Voting allowed a majority group to take all the seats [he was optimistic], he said the second change needed was to adopt STV in the MMDs that should be created.
John Allister Currie (Simcoe North) berated Hooper saying he was attacking "one of the fundamentals of our system of government". said MMDS had not worked with Block Voting; Limited Voting in Toronto as MMD had not worked [likely he was wrong]
Hooper countered Currie's counter-examples by saying MMDs without single voting and ranked votes were not useful [and of course, ranked voting without MMDs is not useful.]
He said MMDs do not lead to more-expensive campaigns -- whole slates share the expense. [perhaps a better point is you can appeal just to your potential supporters, not to a purported plurality of general populace in the single-member district, you don't need to cover the whole district or even attempt to cover the whole district.]
p. 33-34 committee members discussed IRV (phrased as "use of ranked votes in single-winner contests") and Germany's PR
p. 38-39 recounted the minimal training that was done to prepare for Winnipeg's 10-seat STV contest in 1920.
p. 42 France sought to follow Belgium's example and brought in PR but in unsatisfactory compromise and in 192 strong effort made to bring in improved system
p. 44 already discussion of having IRV in rural districts. Queen opposed.
p. 46 UK HofC voted against PR for third time.
John Ritchie MacNichol, of the British Representaton League, addressed the House of Commons Special Committee in May 1921. (page 54-)
[final recommendations of the special committee not noted in the report online.]
=====
1921 federal election -- King promised electoral reform as he fought the 1921 election.
1921 federal election flawed, said Ronald Hooper
"Clearly we ought not to retain a system of election that so threatens the unity of Canada as to give whole cities and whole provinces over to one political creed," Hooper summed up.
Hooper's views were presented in the January 1922 Proportional Representation Review (available on-line)
(Ronald Hooper:
Around 1923 (exact date unknown) he presented evidence on PR to an Ontario Legislative Assembly body
(in 1936 he presented evidence to the House of Commons Special Committee on electoral reform -- see 1936))
===
After King won with a slight majority, nothing immediately was done to reform our election system.
1922 - Progressive Party MP William Good put forward a motion to the House of Commons advocating reforms in advance of the next election.
He introduced legislation in the House of Commons in June 1922 that would have seen Instant-runoff voting used in each riding where more than two candidates were competing, and he also called for demonstration multi-member districts to provide experience of proportional representation --
“one or more multi-member constituencies” would be created “for the purpose of demonstrating the working and effects of the system of true proportional representation.”
King's government formed an all-party "Committee appointed to consider the Subject of Proportional Representation and the single transferable or preferential vote."
Nothing came of it.
1921 House of Commons committee on PR
online parliamentary Library
The committee recommended no change because the MPs on the committee said they had not seen evidence that proportional representation would be “conducive to good government.”
The motion was defeated, although Prime Minister MacKenzie King himself voted in favour.
Labour MP A.A. Heaps tried to get the committee members to fulfill their own party's promise but was ignored. (FVC website: "100 year of broken promises"))
(see Wiki: Elections in Canada)
Hooper wrote an article in the Canadian Law Review in 1923 on what Good's proposed IRV would mean for Canadian elections.
see Montopedia blog:
========
1922 Sedgewick and Ribstone -- nomination of UFA candidates for upcoming by-elections. selection of candidates was done by Instant-Runoff Voting. The reportage of the events somewhat erroneously called the system "the use of the preferential system of balloting, with the single transferable vote."
In the Sedgewick nomination contest, 98 ballots were cast, with none spoiled, and only two delegates did not rank order all the seven candidates. A.G. Andrews, the successful nominee, went to on to be declared the MLA by acclamation.
Ribstone - Ten candidates were in running. 70 delegates, representing 23 locals, voted. Farquharson, the successful nominee, went on to be elected MLA in two-party fight against a Liberal. (The UFA, June 15, 1922, p. 10)
=======
1922 December Edmonton city -- majority of voters voted to adopt STV for next election, electing councillors in city-wide district.
Apparently there was great dissatisfaction with the 1921 election result. Labour councillors pulled for STV as did a couple business-slate councillors - Izena Ross and Bickerton Pratt. (Edmonton Bulletin, Jan. 17, 1922)
As well, Edmonton voters could see Calgary's success with STV since 1917, Winnipeg's success with it since 1920, and the successful use of STV in Vancouver and Victoria, Regina and Saskatoon in 1921 and 1922.
These factors and others caused a majority of Edmonton voters to vote for STV when it came up for referendum in Dec. 1922, leading to the city using it for city elections starting in 1923.
=====
1923 Edmonton adopted STV for city elections. STV in use until 1927.
City-wide district already being used under Block Voting so that at-large districting continued. Annual elections, so any casual vacancies filled in next election.
Two-year terms, staggered terms, half of councillors up for election each year.
DM varied from five to seven.
Whole-vote "exact method" used for transfer of surplus votes.
1923-1927 Edmonton used STV to elect its city councillors and school board trustees.
Edmonton dropped STV after voters in 1927 signalled they wanted to return to Block Voting.
(Edmonton did not go to single-member winner-take-all FPTP ward elections until 2010.)
======
1923 February UFA convention -- H.E.H. Scholefield elected vice president by use of "single transferable votes" [actually IRV]. Seven were in running. (The UFA, Feb. 15, 1923, p. 5)
=======
1923 Alberta -- Instant-Runoff Voting used for cancel-prohibition referendum.
Plumbing was allowed. (Edmonton Bulletin, April 28, 1923, p.1)
Government sale of booze and private beer parlours got majority of votes in 1st Count.
in debate in the Legislature, Premier Greenfield said he supported using preferential voting in the referendum, as question was to be not just on beerhalls being closed but voters would have choice about different alternatives, or to maintain Prohibition as is. (Edmonton Bulletin, April 18, 1923, p. 1)
The referendum used ranked voting, and only 4 percent of the ballots were spoiled. This low rate of rejected votes helped lay base for the adoption of IRV in every district outside Edmonton, Calgary and Medicine Hat the following year, and of STV in those cities. (see 1924)
=====
Ronald Hooper, "The 'Alternative Vote' method explained." Canadian Bar Review 232, 1923.
(Ronald Hooper, The "Alternative Vote" Method Explained, 1923 1-3 Canadian Bar Review 232, 1923 CanLIIDocs 36, <https://canlii.ca/t/t621>, retrieved on 2025-02-05)
=====
1923 Ontario -- in waning months before holding a general election, the reigning United Farmers of Ontario finally started a move toward PR as promised in its 1919 campaign platform.
1923 United Farmers of Ontario. Proportional representation and the transferable vote in single member constituencies. Published in Toronto (four pages)
(Weinrich Social Protest) (not in Hathi Trust online)
(Around 1923 (exact date unknown) evidence on PR presented to an Ontario Legislative Assembly body.)
1923 - the UFO government put forward legislation to re-distribute seats and adopt PR and STV.
The Conservative leader objected, saying fair and equitable treatment could not be given these topics in the little time remaining before the election. (Edmonton Bulletin, April 13, 1923)
A week later Conservative MPPs filibustered to hold up debate. One MPP spoke for three hours reading quotes from British sources in opposition to PR.
Some government MPPs were quoted as saying they did not want the electoral reforms being considered. (Edmonton Bulletin, April 18, 1923)
Two days later Premier Drury admitted defeat.
He withdrew the proposed re-distribution/PR bill, blaming the Conservative opposition. He said the people would deliver their verdict on the case in the upcoming election. Mention of the voters deciding the issue was applauded in all sections of the chamber.
The Liberal leader dis-associated his party from the Conservative obstructionism, and said his party was ready to co-operate on the reform bill.
The Premier defended his government's attempt to effect reform in that direction, saying "PR is in the platforms of three of the parties in the Legislature, and 15 percent of its members were elected with it in their platforms. That means that we should at least make a trial of it. The Legislature itself has passed the principle of PR. Under the circumstances, no government would be doing its duty if it failed to bring it in as part of redistribution."
The Independent Labour Party, with 11 MPPs, was the third party that supported PR, as Drury mentioned.
The Liberal Party put adoption of PR in its election platform as the 1923 election loomed closer. In April 26 , the Liberal party said it would run candidates in every district, instead of leaving way open for easy re-election of UFO members.
And it presented its own proposals for electoral reform:
- the use of Alternative Voting in every district where more than two candidates are nominated. (Alternative Voting is better known under the name Instant-Runoff Voting.)
- representation by population should be observed with due regard for country boundaries.
- redistribution should not be introduced in the last years of a government but should be discussed in the first session following a census.
- that proportional representation should be the method of election and brought in by grouping certain districts. Proportional representation at that time meant Single Transferable Voting in multi-member districts.
He said he expected the Liberal party to take 50 seats in the upcoming election and if not hold power, to at least be of considerable influence in the Legislature. He said Ontario ought to have had redistribution and blamed the UFO government for not moving earlier on that issue. (Edmonton Bulletin, April 26, 1923)
In 1923 election, under FPTP, the UFO received about half the seats that were its proportional due. The UFO received about same proportion of the votes cast as it had in 1919, but its seat tally dropped by 40 percent.
(see https://montopedia.wixsite.com/montopedia/post/ontario-farmers-government-tried-for-pr-1919-1923
========================================
(1924 Alberta -- adoption of STV to elect provincial members in Edmonton, Calgary and Medicine Hat. city-wide districts - Edmonton and Calgary each with 5 members, M.H. 2 members. (These MMDs were in existence prior to STV being adopted.)
As well IRV was prescribed for districts outside major cities.
Legislation given royal assent April 12, 1924.
STV -- Optional-preferential voting. Droop quota. Whole-vote "exact method" used for transfers of surplus votes (see footnote).
In 1924 Alberta was the first legislature in U.S./Canada to adopt an election system where all its members were elected using non-plurality methods - the proportional STV or the majoritarian Instant-Runoff Voting system.)
The use of transferable votes (both under STV and IRV) produced these benefits:
"It prevents representation on a minority basis as is possible where there are more than two parties. Further it gives to all voters a much freer and wider use of the ballot in making choice in representation." (Farm and Ranch Review, March 1, 1956, p. 58)
see
https://montopedia.wixsite.com/montopedia/post/how-democratic-were-alberta-s-stv-elections-the-stats
On March 10, 1924, Labour MLA Alex Ross, a member of the UFA caucus, moved second reading of the new Election Act that included STV.
He pointed out that ranked votes had been used in 1923 Prohibition referendum and only 4 percent of votes cast there were spoiled.
applauded John D. Hunt's careful work in formulating the new Election Act and comparing it to old act.
The new act was to do away with election deposits. (perhaps that was amended out later, because candidate deposits were never abolished in Alberta)
"Elections Act Alberta Model For All Time" (Edmonton Journal, March 11, 1924)
=====
1924 Canadian House of Commons discussed proportional representation.
14th Parliament, Third session. 14-15 George V 1924
Ronald Hooper gave evidence.
[did see the transcript of the discussion online but can't find it now]
=====
1924 John D. Hunt A Key to P.R. (1924)
explained the workings of STV, using whole-vote "exact method" for transfer of surplus votes.
(Hunt's booklet A Key to P.R. (1924) is accessible in Peel's PP website and also reproduced in the book A Report on Alberta Elections and in the 100 years of Democracy volume of the [2005] Centennial Series.)
(John D. Hunt see 1917)
HISTORIC NOTE:
In 1924, Alberta provincial election system adopted STV in cities and Instant-Runoff Voting (IRV) elsewhere. This mixed system was in use in Alberta elections 1924-1956.
"The main advantage [of the IRV system] is that it prevents representation on a minority basis as is possible where there are more than two parties [candidates]. Further, it gives to all voters a much freer and wider use of the ballot in making choice in representation." (Farm and Ranch Review, March 1, 1956, p. 48)
=========
In 1923/1924, Manitoba, already using STV in Winnipeg, adopted Instant-Runoff Voting (IRV) elsewhere in provincial elections. In use 1924-1953.
(Also, IRV was used in all districts in BC in 1952 and 1953.)
=====
1924 -- Use of STV in Canadian city elections reviewed, in pages of PR Review
At that point in time:
-Winnipeg, Edmonton, Calgary and 4 Saskatchewan cities were using STV.
-Vancouver, Victoria and several BC cities had used STV.
(Lethbridge had not yet made its move to STV.)
-outside of BC, no city that had adopted STV had abandoned it. (Later all would, unfortunately.)
=====
1925 June - UFA MPs disappointed at lack of progress by King's Liberal government.
No action was being taken on "Home Bank legislation, STV, Soldiers' Land Revaluation, changes to the Bankrupty Act, freight rates, so one is justified in questioning the good faith of this administration." (The UFA, June 1, 1925, p. 6)
1925 -- The UFA MPs met with UFA MLAs.
The Calgary Albertan, reporting on the meeting, said the MPs reported that they could not work with the Conservatives but believed they work with the King government on three issues with some hope of success:
-establishment of system of rural credits;
-establishment of STV,
-transference of control of natural resources to the provincial governments. Such would give Alberta the right to develop Spray Lakes power project under the control of the provincial government.
But actually the UFA MPs were clear that they were a distinct parliamentary unit in the House of Commons and were prepared to co-operate with "Liberals, Conservatives, Progressives or any other party or group in the interests of good legislation." (The UFA, Dec. 1, 1925, p. 6)
However the King government never brought STV into use in federal elections. (see 1936)
======
1926 Alberta election
the first provincial election in Canada and the U.S. where all the elected members are elected by non-plurality systems.
The UFA government claimed success in fulfilling its 1921 campaign promise: "Proportional Representation of all classes. Representation of all classes of the community in the Legislature according to their numerical strength. This to be brought about through Proportional Representation and the preferential ballot [IRV] in single-member constituencies.
Preferential ballot [in STV and IRV] has been introduced and will be in general use in the 1926 election." (The UFA, June 10, 1926, p. 8)
STV in Edmonton elected four types of MLAs, much more varied than the one-party sweep of 1921.
STV in Calgary elected four types of MLAs.
(the IRV system, used outside Edmonton, Calgary and Medicine Hat, only changed the winner in two districts compared to the result under FPTP and had no organized PR element.)
(before the next election in 1930, M.H. divided into two single-member districts.
Later Edmonton and Calgary DM increased to 6 seats, back to 5, then Calgary up to 6 again, Edmonton up to 7.
(STV dropped in 1956, replaced by single-member districts and FPTP.)
In almost all the STV elections in Edmonton and Calgary, 3 or 4 parties were represented among each city's MLAs.
1926 Edmonton: four parties represented among the city's MLAs.
Winning candidates received 15,000 votes, 82 percent of the 18,000 valid votes.
Overall, 8501, 57 percent of the winning candidates' vote totals, were made up of first preferences.
Overall, at least 11,200, at least 75 percent of the winning candidates' vote totals, were made up of first and second preferences.
======
1926 The Toronto districts were again dis-assembled, when Toronto was given 13 MPPs. Since 1914 the eight Toronto MPPs had been elected in two-seat districts, but the 13 were henceforth to be elected in single-member districts using FPTP.
(With Toronto's change to FPTP, Ontario would strictly use FPTP in single-member districts from then until the present.)
1929 J.S. Woodsworth. Labor's case in Parliament: A summary and compilation of the speeches of J.S. Woodsworth in the Canadian House of Commons 1921-1928. [Ottawa]: Canadian Brotherhood of Railroad Employees, 1929.
Canada's pre-eminent lefty of his time, J.S. Woodsworth, called for "Proportional Representation with grouped constituencies" in a book of his speeches published in 1929.
"Proportional Representation with grouped constituencies" at the time meant STV - ranked votes, single voting and multi-member districts.
Page 76 to 78 also concern that type of electoral reform.
(Peel 10437)
(see Montopedia blog for excerpts on this material.)
=====
1929 Lethbridge adopted STV for city elections.
discarded it before next election.
======
1930 Joseph P. Harris
The Practical Workings of Proportional Representation in the U.S. and Canada (1930)
National Municipal Review, 19 (5) May 1930 (pages 337-383)
A detailed examination of processes of STV and some variations.
Discusses "fixed quota" as a means of making it simpler to communicate and thus easier to sell (p. 3)
As well, contains a city-by-city chronology of the use of STV
including Calgary (p. 365) and Winnipeg (p. 366).
see Montopedia blog "Commonsense simplifications of STV urged in 1930 (Harris)"
====
(housekeeping:
Comments