My personal opinion is that partisan considerations were not the reason for the UFA to bring in STV in cities and AV elsewhere. One thing that I see in my favour - and that you might not be considering - is that the UFA only ever ran one candidate in Edmonton in each election and none ever in Calgary, (there were five seats up for grabs in each place each election) nor did it run for each rural seat so it did not reveal any great partisan greed in that way, by striving to win as many seats as possible. No UFA candidate ran in four rural districts in 1926, and none ran in five rural districts in 1930. Perhaps because of this, the UFA left room for other parties to take seats. One defender of the UFA government did state that the UFA's percentage of the rural seats was in line with its percentage of the votes cast in rural districts so that made the result fair. I am not sure if the numbers bear this out or not. But the UFA did allow other parties to get seats. A part of the historical background of the UFA adopting STV/AV is this: the Liberal party had received more than its due share of Edmonton seats under Block Voting in 1921 when it took all the Edmonton seats under Block Voting and, a less well known case, the Conservative party had received far more than its due share of seats in 1917 when that party had taken all the Edmonton seats under FPTP. So I think we have to give credit to the UFA for bringing in STV in the cities. If someone says the UFA derived benefit by bringing in STV in the cities, I disagree. I think we agree that STV does not give or deny special advantage to any party. So the general accusation made against the UFA can be boiled down to saying that the UFA brought in fairness in order to deny the special advantage that other parties had received in the non-proportional system previously used. And that that showed partisan self-interest on the part of the UFA. That is a difficult perception to fight and in fact one that goes against the basic pro-rep PR campaign the PR poponentsr is discussing currently where fairness, equal representation, equal power or whatever is expressed as our goal. If a party in power brings in fairness and that hurts other parties who previously benefited from the use of non-proportional systems (which such a change would), it seems it would (like the UFA) open itself to being accused of partisan self-serving behaviour. In such a situation, if there is a reform-minded party whose goal is fairness; and if its opponents benefit from unfairness such as non-proportional systems (and opponents of PR generally always benefit from non-proportional systems), the party would be put in an un-winnable position - It could choose not to bring in reform and leave unfair systems in place or it could choose to make a fair-minded change and be accused of helping itself. History sometimes repeats. Likely none of us want our present PR movement to suffer from the sort of accusations that were once levelled against the UFA, especially if they are unfair. So I anyway choose to accord an honourable motive to the kind of electoral reform the UFA engaged in...
If someone says that the UFA derived special benefit by bringing in AV in the rural lands, I say, if anything, it is more difficult to be elected under AV than under FPTP. The vote transfers under AV are just a back-up system. And usually the leader in the first count goes on to win in the end even after vote transfers. The requirement for majority is important but sometimes it is achieved on the first count with no special procedure, and usually even if vote transfers are conducted, the leader in the first count wins in the end, but the requirement for majority ensures that the majority will is represented Part of my historical discussion in the last email did state the fact that AV is non-proportional. And I am not saying it would make a big improvement over FPTP. I would say that AV is preferable to FPTP in districts where a single-member has to be elected (such as a mayor for example), and STV is fair even if only it is adopted in the cities. Alberta's history showed STV/multi-member districts to be more fair than FPTP or AV or Block Voting. It is just unfortunate that multi-seat districts were thought to be un-workable. If someone says that the UFA derived benefit from using the two different systems - one in the cities and a different one outside the cities, I say if it did not derive benefit from STV in the cities (aside from just one seat won in Edmonton that might not have been won under FPTP or BV) and if it did not derive benefit from AV outside the cities (which my previous analysis of 1926 and 1930 elections, I think, showed), I dispute that it could have derived a benefit from the combination of the two. Once the UFA government chose to retain single-member districts outside the cities, their choice was AV or FPTP and it to its credit chose AV. (Although the systems were different, voters in each cast ranked votes, so there was that continuity, which made public education easier, for one thing.) In 1956 the SC government to its discredit chose to abolish STV/AV and bring in FPTP. I still cling to my basic belief that because PR in those days meant multi-member districts, and because the UFA government, for the reasons outlined last time, thought multi-seat districts outside cities would not work, the UFA government could not install PR outside the cities. As you say, Hunt did hold a different view. Perhaps he was correct; perhaps he was wrong. But his advice on this issue was ignored. We all know cases where governments have not brought in electoral reform despite advice from those knowledgeable on the situation (all too well!) In some cases the lack of action may stem from self-interest; in other cases just from inertia or political feet of clay or overblown perception of the reasons not to do something and an under-developed perception of the benefits of making a change. I guess I personally choose the latter as the reason for the UFA decision not to have STV outside the cities. (And until a provincial government in Canada brings in PR outside the one or two or three major cities in a province, the Alberta and Manitoba experience with PR will still be the most comprehensive PR experience anyone in Canada ever has done.) Did STV deprive the Liberals of seats in the cities? I would say, in short, no. But STV might have ensured that the Conservatives, the most-popular party, got about its fair share of seats and no more than that, which it might have done under a non-proportional system. Whether it was fair or unfair of the UFA to make this happen will have to be a personal judgement. Analysis Edmonton 1926 18 candidates of four parties and Independents ran in one five-seat district. Calgary 1926 11 candidates of three parties and Independents ran in one five-seat district. In 1926, the Conservatives actually were more popular in the cities than the Liberal party, which was a change from 1921. The STV election result shows this - Conservatives won two seats each in Edmonton and Calgary while Liberals won just one in each city. Labour won one seat in Edmonton and Labour/Independent Labour won two in Calgary. UFA won one seat in Edmonton. vote tallies by party (based on just first preferences) in Edmonton: Conservative candidates took 5100 votes; Liberal 4100 votes; Labour 3600 votes; UFA 3100; Independents (mixed) 2400. In Calgary: Conservative candidates 8800 votes; Liberal 5500; Labour/Ind. Labour 5400; Independent 100. With only five seats in each city, there was some clunkiness in the system - not a perfect relationship between votes and seats. The STV vote transfers sometimes were between candidates of different parties and the seat count percentages jumped in 20-percent increments so this meant the final seat counts was not always in perfect step with the initial party tallies. But the election result in each election in each city where STV was used was mixed and was much more fair than previous elections where under FPTP the Conservative party had taken all the Edmonton seats (1917) nor under Block Voting the Liberal party had taken all the Edmonton seats (1921). The Liberal party's vote tally in Edmonton were almost enough to give the party two seats, but it did not work out for the party. In the last full count, there were two remaining Liberal candidates (a candidate neither elected nor eliminated). The most popular of the two was declared elected and the other was eliminated with no transfer of his votes being made because all the seats were filled. The eliminated one had accumulated 2200 votes (about two-thirds of quota) and that is as many as he ever got. Those 2200 votes (plus the 1700 exhausted votes) were the only ones not used to elect someone. It was just Liberal Party's bad luck but it did win one seat anyway which was better than any other party but the Liberals had done in 1921. Looking at the 1926 Edmonton STV election overall we see it was very fair. The number of wasted votes/ignored voters was "only" 21 percent, a much lower percentage than the 62 percent ignored in Edmonton in 1921 or the 48 percent ignored in Edmonton in 1917 under FPTP. The same sort of fairness was the case in other PR-STV elections held in Edmonton and in the ones held in Calgary. ======= No. 12 of the Commissions, Assemblies and Reports is good presentation of what I said, but this bit was added, which I personally don't agree with "The remaining 49 seats in the province would use the Alternative Vote, giving the United Farmers an advantage in those ridings." AV's required majority actually makes it more difficult to win a seat than SMP's plurality. Only plurality is needed to win under SMP, and at least in Canada's experience of preferential voting, in only a very few instances was the leader in the first count not elected after any vote transfers necessitated by AV. (Even in the 1955 election, the election that caused the SC government to throw away STV/AV, only in four single-member districts did a SC candidate leading in the first count not go on to win the seat. The government suffered under AV only to the extent of four seats.) UFA did not win every rural district under SMP in 1921 and it did not win every rural district in 1926. In the districts it won in 1921, it won all of them, except one, with a majority of the vote, and did not win any seats in Edmonton or Calgary. in 1926 the UFA won about the same number of seats, of course this time with a majority of the vote in each district (at least a majority of the votes still in play at that point in the count) (plus one seat won in Edmonton with quota (at least one-sixth of the vote)). The UFA did win four more rural seats in 1926 than the 38 it had won in 1921. In all but nine of its 42 rural successes, the UFA candidate received a majority on the first count. In only one of these 42 victories was a UFA candidate not the leader in the first count and thus, all others things being equal, those other 41 candidates would have been the winner if the election had been held using SMP anyway. Thus it could be said that the UFA won one seat through AV vote transfers. And this is balanced by the fact there was also one turn-over that went against the UFA. In the first count in Bow Valley, a UFA candidate had more votes than either of his contenders but did not have majority of the votes. Under SMP, all other things being equal, the UFA would have won the seat, but that result was not guaranteed under AV. After elimination of the Conservative, the Liberal candidate (initially in second place) accumulated more votes than the UFA candidate and the Liberal won the seat. So AV does not appear to have given any advantage to the UFA in 1926. And the picture in 1930 was pretty identical.
In 1930 the UFA won all but three of its seats with a majority of votes on the first count. In each of these three, the UFA candidate was the leader in the first count, and, all other things being equal, would have been elected under SMP anyway. In this election there were no turn-overs where a UFA took a seat without being leader in the first count nor any contests where a UFA candidate leading in the first count was not elected in the end. (And that was the case not just concerning the UFA - there were no turn-overs in any district where the leader in the first count did not win in the end.) In AV, the vote transfers, it seems, are meant as a check of the popularity shown on the first count, not necessarily to make any change in the popularity-ordering of the candidates. And on balance, the UFA did not win any more seats in 1926 and 1930 than it would have won if the elections had been held using SMP. You are not the only one to accuse the UFA of self-interest in installing AV in the rural districts, but I personally see no justice in that charge. Instead of "The remaining 49 seats in the province would use the Alternative Vote, giving the United Farmers an advantage in those ridings," I would prefer to see "The remaining 49 seats in the province were elected through the Alternative Vote, where the rural voters, like their urban counterparts, cast transferable preferential votes but where majority of the votes was required to win the seat." ====== We owe it to ourselves and our children to improve our voting system. =================================== The compilation of a history of electoral reform FVC's Commissions, Assemblies and Reports in Canada (federally and provincially). does not list any documents used in the debate on electoral reform in Alberta 1919 to 1924. But there is at least one document that survives from that time. Unfortunately no copies apparently still survive of the report composed by John D. Hunt of clerk of the Legislative Council on the topic in 1920/1921. (for those interested in historical writings on electoral reform, check out Hunt's earlier book The Dawn of a New Patriotism.) Hunt's report was apparently hushed up by the Liberal government, in power at the time. (No copies of the reprot can be found at this point) But an abridgement of Hunt's report was published by the United Farmers of Alberta. This powerful farmer organization itself was soon to take over as government. The abridgement is available online at Peel 9355: United Farmers of Alberta, Present electoral system condemned ([1918?]) (ualberta.ca). The full title of the publication tells of its official origin and the Hunt's positive viewpoint on electoral reform: "Present Electoral System Condemned. J.D. Hunt, Clerk to Alberta 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." But note that the provided date of publication "[1918?]" is wrong - the publication must have been published after Hunt's report was submitted to the Legislature which occurred in March 1921. (see Edmonton Bulletin March 11, 1921 The Edmonton Bulletin, March 11, 1921 (CITY EDITION), Page 8, Item Ar00810 (ualberta.ca) The final paragraph of the 4-page abridgement is interesting: "Although Hunt was officially appointed by the government to write the report, the report has not yet been printed. It is apparently unpalatable to some members of the cabinet and at least one member has described it as 'dangerous propaganda.'" So then within a period of just three months, just from May 1921 to July 1921, the report was submitted to the legislature and ignored by the government, the abridgment published, non-proportional electoral reform was implemented by the L:iberal government (the government re-configured the single-member districts in Edmonton and Calgary into two five-seat city-wide districts and gave two seats to Medicine Hat (and installed non-proportional Block Voting in those three cities), a general election was held and the UFA was elected in part on a promise of electoral reform. Three years later the UFA government brought in PR (PR-STV) in the city-wide districts of Edmonton, Calgary and Medicine Hat, and installed Alternative Voting (also known as IRV) for all the districts outside those three cities. Medicine Hat dropped back to single-member district and the AV system after 1926 and the number of seats in Edmonton and Calgary changed over time, eventually rising to 7 in Edmonton and six in Calgary, but otherwise the system stayed just as it was when it was created in 1924, until after the 1955 election.
======================
using PR where you are in minority and FPTP where you are leader can give extra seats to a government this is only effective if government party runs full slate (candidates for all seats).
The United Farmers of Alberta (in power 1921-1935) are accused of this but UFA only ran one candidate in the cities so got little benefit from city PR.
It did though get more seats than its due outside the cities where IRV was used but no more than it would have won under FPTP.
The charge that it used PR in cities to split the opposition hold little water for me as opposition parties could its fairly-elected rep. together if they chose. The members were at least fairly elected under PR-STV in a way that would not have been the case if FPTP or IRV had been used.
PR reflects how votes are cast. If votes are split among diff. opp. parties, then representation reflects that.
Only a very artificial system would push a single party to succeed where it does not have leading number of votes and no government, I guess, would contrive a system just to join opp. together under one label.
The UFA did not push one opp. party to strong position but also did nothing to split parties more than they were already doing themselves. so the charge is baseless.
In fact the election in 1959 after switch to FPTP showed that one party could take a one-party sweep of Edmonton seats under FPTP (and likely under IRV as well) which no party had done under STV-PR.
So perhaps the Liberal or Conservative push for UFA to drop PR-STV was merely greed for a local dis-proportional one-party sweep by Liberals or Conservatives. Likely it was not the splitting of opp. vote that was objected to but that they did not benefit from it as they might have under FPTP.
in fact STV-PR allows opp. votes to join together by later preferences if voters favoured "ABF" Anybody But Farmers - but they did not. Or if they did, the minority guarantee under PR-STV was enough to give one seat to UFA and one seat to Labour despite what the other voters might do. just as it guaranteed due share of seats to Libs and Conservatives as well.
Labour and UFA did benefit from the fairness of PR-STV (each getting one Edmonton seat which was never accomplished previously under FPTP or block voting). Labour was allied with UFA so there was some benefit to UFA in that but nothing artificial about that.
====================================
Comentários