Tom Monto

Nov 27, 202134 min read

Vancouver's STV elections, 1921-1922 - fair and balanced

Updated: Oct 22, 2023

Vancouver's STV elections Vancouver used PR-STV in three elections in January 1921, January 1922 and December 1922. R.P. Pettipiece, newspaper editor and labour official in the BC Federation of Labour, was elected in the last two of these STV elections. Other Labour candidates, and also Business-oriented candidates were elected as well, demonstrating the balance produced by PR. =========== Jan. 8, 1920 Vancouver voters voted to adopt P.R. Adopted P.R. for council, school board, and park board, January 8, 1920, by popular vote of 6044 to 2790. (Proportional Representation Review, Jan. 1924) PR brought in for next election. The exact nature of the STV system used appears to be the whole vote transfer method as used in Edmonton, Calgary and Winnipeg in Alberta and Manitoba provincial elections from the 1920s to the 1950s. ===================== Vancouver's first PR election, 1921

The mayor's seat was filled in the election

As well, eight aldermanic seats on council were filled.

The aldermanic race was the PR part of the election. The mayoral race, being single-winner, could not be proportional.

6310 valid votes Effective ballots (those which actually were used to help elect successful candidates for council: under P.R. 1921—5,458 88.9 percent of valid vote Through the basic mechanics of STV - single voting in multiple-seat district -- already in the 1st Count there was a mixture of voting blocks (usually parties) among the eight front runners in the 1st Count. The eight most-popular candidates will be elected. They measure up by exceeding quota or by being the most popular still in the running when the field of candidates is thinned to the number of remaining open seats. The 1921 election saw one change to the front runners in the 1st Count. (The eight front runners would have been elected under SNTV. Although STV vote transfers made little difference, it is not true to say that the same varied representation would have been elected under the Block Voting system if Vancouver had not switched to STV. STV uses single voting in multi-seat district so in most cases prevents one party from taking all the seats in a district.) "The only impact PR had was to re-arrange the order of winners and to alter the candidates in the 8th and final position. P.C. Gibbens, eighth place in the 1st Count, gave way to Woodside who had been in ninth place in the 1st Count." (Dennis Pilon, Drive for PR in BC, p. 115-116) Dennis Pilon, Assoc. Prof at York Univ., is one of the most hard-working campaigners for PR but here he misses the mark. Already in the First Count of this STV election, the front runners are mixed among parties while under Block Voting or FPTP, likely just one party would have all -- or all but a few -- of the front runners and therefore take the lion's share of representation. Labour elected only one councillor in this election. This gave some support to the contention that PR was brought in to ensure that Labour did not take majority of aldermanic seats until it actually had majority of the votes. (Pilon, Drive for PR in BCfter, p. 114) But it should be noted that it is not certain that Labour would have taken even one seat under Block Voting or FPTP. In 1921, Edmonton provincial seats were filled through Block Voting and one party took all the Edmonton seats. In 1959 after Edmonton stopped using STV and switched to FPTP in provincial elections, one party took all the seats. But under STV in city elections and under STV in provincial elections, there was no election when one party took all the Edmonton seats. "Extremely fair and highly moral, but deadly dull" is how one Vancouver newspaper described the election. (Vancouver Sun, Jan 17, 1921, p. 6) The election had occurred in one of the years when the mayor's seat was not up for election so the voter turn-out was not as high as it might have been. A table showing the vote transfers was published in the Jan. 15, 1921 Vancouver World (the reproduction is not clear so numbers may be off slightly.) 6138 valid votes Quota 683 (Droop quota) 16 counts were used to determine the final winners.

1st Count Peak vote total vote Tisdall 1131 1131 elected in 1st Count (1) (surplus tr. in 2nd Count) McRae 558 754 elected in 11th Count (2) (surplus tr. in 14th Count?) Crone 478 689 elected in 10th Count (3) (surplus too small to transfer?) Owen 426 746 elected in 14th Count (5) (surplus not transferred) Tracy 411 706 elected in 10th Count (4) (surplus tr. in 11th Count) Scribbens 397 553 certain to be elected in 15th Count (8) Hoskins 390 690(?) (15th Count) certain to be elected in 15th Count (7) Gibbens 347 416 (eliminated in 15th Count) Woodside 338 684(?) elected in 14th Count (6) (surplus too small to transfer?) Macken 288 383 (eliminated on 13th Count) Trotter 274 499 (eliminated on 16th Count)* Rogers 209 388 (eliminated on 10th Count) Harvey 206 254 (eliminated on 9th Count) Walsh 149 189 (eliminated on 8th Count) Reid 147 159 eliminated on 7th Count Lee 98 103 eliminated on 6th Count Benbrow 82 96 eliminated on 5th Count Young 61 64 eliminated on 4th Count Birch 21 40 eliminated on 3rd Count (19 candidates in total) exhausted votes at the end: 105 (source: Jan. 15, 1921 Vancouver World, p. 15)

*Trotter's elimination in the 16th Count was not strictly necessary - at least the transfer of his votes was not. At the end of the 15th Count, there were only three candidates remaining - Scribbens, Hoskins and Trotter - and only two open seats. The least-popular candidate (Trotter) would definitely be eliminated and Scribbens and Hoskins would definitely be elected. Perhaps due to inexperience the vote-counting procedure was extended into a 16th Count, with Trotter's votes transferred. Winners in the end were mostly the front runners already established in the 1st Count. The only change was Woodside (9th in the 1st Count) passing Gibbens (8th in the 1st Count). They were very close from the start and Woodside's vote total exceeded Gibben's in the 3rd Count. Still the outcome of that final seat was unclear until almost the end -- Woodside was one of the last to be elected and Gibbens was the last to be eliminated. The vote count went satisfactorily although staff were not experienced with STV.

The Vancouver World stated: "The 'P.R.' mill may grind slowly but it certainly grinds exceedingly small. The system demonstrated yesterday at the city hall that it was 'fool-proof' so far as the counting and distribution of the ballots went. An error by any of the score or more of assistants, however trifling, made itself evident at the stage in which it was committed and blocked all further progress until it was rectified. In the end, the will of the electors was ascertained with mathematical accuracy. The eight men declared elected were the eight men their fellow citizens wanted to elect. There could be no doubt about that in the mind of anyone who watched the practical exposition of the new method of choosing aldermen." The Vancouver World also followed the course of one vote showing how it was cast for a successful candidate and then as one of the surplus votes was transferred on and then went from unsuccessful candidate to unsuccessful candidate until finally helping to elect Owens. Its later marked preferences for Crone and Woodside were not used. The voter identified as "John Doe", marked eight preferences. The newspaper noted the voter might have gone on to mark more, but "at this point he stopped, folded up his ballot paper and deposited it in the ballot box." The newspaper followed the course of this ballot through various transfers, saying "to trace the wandering of that ballot paper until it finally ended its mission by helping to elect Ald. Owen to the council is to describe the working out of proportional representation" (at least the working of STV). Here is its account of the wandering of one particular ballot paper. "The ballot was counted in the first count and helped to make up the Tisdall's total of 1131 first-choice votes and the grand total of 6138 first-choice votes cast for all candidates. But it so happened that Tisdall had so many votes that he did not need more than a part of them. [He only needed quota, one-ninth of the total votes cast.] The part he needed was just 683, leaving him 448 votes to pass on to those who held the reversionary interest. It accordingly followed that John Doe's ballot paper was transferred to his second choice, Birch. Two other votes were transferred at the same time. Birch was not credited with all three votes because roughly speaking, two-thirds of Tisdall's vote had been used up in electing Tisdall, leaving one-third to be distributed, or just one vote [of the three] more for Birch.* Now it came about that when all Mr. Tisdall's votes at a reduced value, as indicated, had been distributed, to the candidates indicated as the second choice in each case, it was found that even with this additional help none of them had climbed up to the quota and that another process must be begun, that of striking out the name of the lowest man and distributing his votes according to their second choices. That lowest man proved to be Birch whom as stated, John Doe had marked as his second choice. Birch had 19 original first-choice votes and as these had not yet been used at all to elect anybody, they were all worth their full face value to the candidates named in them as second choices. But it will be remembered Birch had also a composite vote made up of three transferred ballots which were not allowed full value.* These ballots would now have to be disposed of according to their third choice, the first choice for Tisdall, and the second for Birch being no longer available. But the third choices were all different, and if mathematical accuracy were to be obtained, one-third of one vote would have to go to each of three candidates, the candidate in the case of John Doe being Young. And here comes in the part of the system that is not strictly accurate although in practice it obtains results the error in which is inappreciable. To avoid troubling with fractions when a second transfer had to be made, the returning officer took away from each pile of Tisdall votes as allotted to each remaining candidate sufficient ballot papers to represent enough votes to elect Mr. Tisdall. In the case of the Birch pile, any two of the three might have been taken, but as it happened, [others were taken and] the John Doe ballot paper was left and in due course, when the Birch vote was divided up, [the John Doe ballot] became one full vote for Young. The other two, one of which might have gone say to Tracy and the other to McRae, were sealed up and put away, their mission complete with the share in the election of Tisdall. Not so the John Doe ballot paper. Its adventure had but begun. No quota having been obtained by distribution of the small Birch vote, the Young vote had to follow the same course and the John Doe ballot thus found its way to Reid's tally. Still the quota did not come to anyone. Benbow and Lee fell by the wayside, and then Reid was declared out. It was found, however, that the John Doe ballot's fifth choice was Benbow, who had already disappeared. That was no detriment to the John Doe vote, however. It still retained its full strength, ready to be given to the first candidate who could claim and keep it. Owen was the sixth choice expressed, and to Owen it went, passing over the now-extinguished Benbow. There at last it rested from its labors, for Ald. Owen not only needed but was able to use it. Thus, Mr. John Doe ballot in the end helped to bring about the election of two alderman. [Not strictly true -- it was marked for Tisdall but not used to secure his election. It had been part of his surplus.] It might not have been so. If John Doe had made Birch his first choice, Young his second, Reid his third and stopped {marking back-up preferences] at Benbow, his vote would have become non-transferable when it reached Reid, he having given no indication as to whom else he preferred among the candidates except the unavailable Benbow. It would have been a lost vote in the true sense for it would have failed at every point. Of course had John Doe begun with Birch and continued with Young, Reid and Benbow, and then given the next four places to candidates who were ultimately ruled out, he would have been no better off unless he had gone farther. Had he continued numbering off the candidates in the order of his choice however, he would inevitably have had some influence on the election for his vote would have gone on being transferred until it was given to some winning candidate and perchance just turned the scale in the latter's favour as against another. This is why it is advisable to number off the candidates on a ballot until only one is left, which practically means numbering off them all. In yesterday's counting, fifteenth and sixteenth choices on some ballots became effective. ("Story of Ballot Paper that Began with Tisdall and Ended by Helping to Elect Owen," Vancouver World, Jan. 15, 1921, p. 15)

* in the quote, the writer obviously had little experience tith STV. and he fumbles with notion of fractional vote transfers. The STV system used in Vancouver used whole-vote transfers of surplus votes so there is no real need to discuss full or fractional values of votes. Some systems transfer fractions of each vote that is being transferred - Vancouver's system transferred a fraction of the surplus votes at full value.

The transfer of surplus votes can be done through transfer of fractions of each of them or, as in this case, transfer at full value of a fraction of the votes. Actually for Vancouver voters, numbering the candidates until only eight are left un-ranked means you will necessarily see someone you prefer elected. Eight had to be elected in the 1921 Vancouver city election.

So you might think to ensure that the vote would bear a preference for someone who was elected would mean marking 12 candidates. But even this would not ensure that the vote would be used for sure.

This actually cannot be guaranteed.

If the voter marked many of the unsuccessful candidates as his early preferences, it is possible that the vote was not be used to elect that one guaranteed successful outcome. When the name came up in the sequential transfers, it might have happened that the successful choice was already elected. Therefore, marking all but one ensured that the vote would help to elect someone - unless the first choice (or an early choice) is marked for the one candidate who will hang onto the end only to fail to be elected. In the 1921 election, this was Trotter. The 274 voters who gave Trotter their first choice preference and the other 225 voters whose votes later came to reside with Trotter all did not see their vote used to elect anyone. The 225 votes whose votes went to Trotter later in the process may have had an earlier choice elected before the sequential transfers pulled the name up. And perhaps some of the vortes that had Trotter as a first preference perhaps had Tisdall, Crone or any of the other winners marked as second choice so they too would have seen one of their choices elected although without their vote being used to elect anyone. =============================

The election was a democratic success, and that is how the Vancouver World described it. Of the 6138 valid votes cast, 4129 were cast for a candidates who won in the end. This is talking about first preferences. Of the 6138 valid votes, 5341 were used to elect someone -- 87 percent of the valid votes were actually used to elect someone. The 5341 number is based on six candidates receiving quota and two being elected in the end through the thinning of the field of candidates to the number of remaining open seats. (This 87 percent compares well to the 45 percent or so that are used to elect the members across the board on average in First Past the Post elections - and compares well to the 83 to 40 percent that are ignored in most specific districts where FPTP is used to fill the seat.) Despite this general satisfaction with the result of the election, a portion of city voters objected to the new system. A petition against STV was circulated and turned into city council in the summer of 1921. But it was turned back to the petitioners due to a shortage of names - only a petition signed by five percent of voters was binding on city council. The petitioners this year never did collect enough names to force a referendum. (Pilon, p. 119) Vancouver's at-large election led to complaints of PR benefitting the "thickly populated areas" versus the outlying regions of the city. (Pilon, p. 119) Other causes of complaints were PR's slowness in producing results and "expense beyond reason." The last complaint was possibly based on a common mis-understanding that vote transfers were the only route of STV's effectiveness. In the 1921 election, transfers changed the outcome of just one seat compared to the 1st-Count ranking But it is common for vote transfers to make little or no change in 1st Count rankings. This lack of change does not mean STV does not ensure a high correlation between votes cast and how seats are filled. Due to single voting in multi-seat districts, already in the 1st Count the leading candidates are mixed, with no one voting block approving of all the front runners. And if we judge by the outcome when STV replaced a non-proportional system or where STV was replaced by a non-proportional, we see very different results produced - much more fair results under STV and much less fair and balanced results under the no-proportional system. This is most evident in elections where political labels are used. One of the strongest examples in Canadian history is the change from STV in Edmonton elections after the 1955 election. Party labels were used and the difference is clear. In 1955 candidates of three parties were elected - by the direct application of 80 percent of the votes cast. In the next election (1959), held using FPTP, candidates of just one party were elected in Edmonton. They were elected by the direct application of just 45 percent of the votes. And STV's effectiveness at producing balance was seen in Vancouver politics in the early 1920s even if party labels were not in clear evidence. No Labour councillor had been elected prior to STV. Scribbens was labour-oriented so his election in January 1921 was more fairness than had been achieved earlier. And the next election (January 1922) would see the election of a candidate running under the Labour banner. This was R.P. Pettipiece, who was re-elected in Vancouver's third STV election in December 1922. That election though would be the last to use STV. =========================================

Vancouver's second PR election -- January 12, 1922 The spectacular event of this election was the election of Labour kingpin R.P. Pettipiece. Although not a front runner in the 1st Count, he was elected by vote transfers conducted as part of the STV process, kicking out long-time alderman Rogers. Aldermanic election Electing 8 10,337 valid votes Quota 1149 (the Droop quota) Quota is the number of votes that ensures that a candidate is elected. Any candidate with quota is elected. Achieving the quota secures election but is not the only way to be elected - it is possible to be elected without a quota of votes.

Two were elected with partial quota in this election.

18 candidates in the running initially 16 Counts were conducted before the last seats were filled. Vote totals 1st Count Peak votes Owen 1501 1501 elected in 1st Count (1) (Owen's surplus transferred in 2nd Count) Crone 1498 1498 elected in 1st Count (2) (surplus transferred in 3rd Count) Woodside 989 1150 elected in 4th Count (3) (surplus trans. in 14th Count) Scribbens (Labour) 934 1172 elected in 10th Count (4) (surplus tr. in 11th Count) Hoskin 717 1191 elected in 13th Count (6) (surplus trans. in 15th Count) Tracy 707 1251 elected in 13th Count (5) (surplus trans. in 16th Count) Gibbens 664 939 elected in 16th Count (8) (elected by partial quota) Rogers 586 936 (not elected and not eliminated) Pettipiece (Labour) 482 970 elected in 16th Count (7) (elected by partial quota) Trotter 389 566 eliminated in 12th Count)

Cameron 8th eliminated (13th Count)

Mrs. Hopkins 7th eliminated

Menzies 6th eliminated

Birch 5th eliminated

Boddy 3rd eliminated

Elliot 4th eliminated

White 2nd eliminated

Lee first eliminated

(Vancouver Sun, Jan. 15, 1922, p. 23 HERE IS THE LINK )

(mostly the eliminatons were in reverse order of the candidates' popularitty in the first Count but Elliot and Cameron did receive enough vote transfers to delay their elimination past their original placement.) The two with the highest vote tallies in the first count had vote totals that exceeded quota so were elected on the 1st Count. Owen's surplus votes were transferred in the 2nd Count. Crone received no votes from Owen's transfers because he had already been declared elected. The votes transferred went largely to Woodside, Tracy, Scribbens, Hoskins and Rogers. Owen's transfers were one of the most complex ones in the vote count process. He had 1501 votes, the largest taken by any candidate.. He had 353 surplus votes. 34 votes had no usable back-up preference. Some of these likely bore only one back-up preference, one marked for Crone. In others, the voters had plumped for Owen and had not marked any back-up preference. Owen's votes were sorted based on the next usable back-up preference, their number recorded and then multiplied by 353/1467ths. This gave the officials the portion of each pile to transfer. In the 3rd Count, Crone’s surplus was transferred the same way, the staff becoming more expert at working out the proportions each time. Crone’s transfers went largely to Woodside, Tracy, Rogers, Hoskin and Scribbens. But neither Owen's nor Crone's transfer put another candidate over the quota. Woodside, 3rd in the 1st Count, received many votes from Owens and from Crone and then from the first candidate to be eliminated, Lee, so on the 4th Count he took quota.

Woodside's vote tally was only one more than quota. That surplus was never enough to make a difference among the other candidates so should not have been transferred but was eventually trasferred in 14th Couint..

White was eliminated in the 5th Count.

Boddy eliminated in 6th Count. His votes went largely to Cameron, Menzies and Gibbens.

Elliot was eliminated in the 6th Count. Birch’s votes (freed up in 8th Count) went largely to Cameron and Hoskin. Cameron got a lot from from Birch and Mrs. Hopkins.

Scribben was elected in the 10th count. His surplus was only 23 votes but that was more than the difference in votes between the last two candidates - Cameron and Trotter - so it had to be transferred.

They went more to Tracy. Trotter got some but not enough to overtake Cameron.

Trotter was eliminated next (in the 12th Count). Most of his votes went to Pettipiece. Garfield King noted “After this, more and more hinged on the results of the eliminations as there were more votes to distribute each time.” The eliminations were in ascending order so as the eliminations progressed, the eliminated candidates had more votes. By the 12th Count, the difference between the remaining candidates was about 300 (vote totals ranged from Tracy's 1105 to Rogers' 812) with more than 500 votes being distributed in each elimination. Pettipiece had initially been the 9th most popular candidate. By the 12th Count, Pettipiece's vote tally exceeded that of Rogers who had initially been the 8th most-popular candidate.. Pettipiece had not increased his vote total by much until the 9th Count when he got some vote transfers from Menzies and then from Mrs. Hopkins in the 10th Count, then 300 more when Trotter was eliminated in the 12th Count.

Pettipiece was among the spectators in the council chambers to see Trotter’s transfer benefit him hugely. Receiving 300 of Trotter’s votes, Pettapiece vote tally leaped past those of Gibbens and Rogers by more than 80 votes. His victory was thus pretty much assured. Pettipiece did not get many votes when Cameron was eliminated in the 13th Count. He received the least number of any remaining candidate but still that helped to bring his count up - Cameron’s transfers went largely to Tracy and Hoskin, who both passed quota and were declared elected. Barring any one getting quota, the filling of the final two seats would be done by the field of candidates thinning to only two candidates.

In the 13th Count, Cameron was eliminated, and Tracey and Hoskins passed quota.

Three candidates remained - Gibbens, Pettipiece and Rogers - only two of them could win the two remining seats. Getting quota was not likely as the most popular of the remaining candidates - Pettipiece - was 200 votes behind quota.

The next elimination would leave only two standing - they would be declared elected to fill the two remaining seats. But before proceeding to the last elimination, The surplus votes of Tracy and Hoskin had to be transferred as they might easily have changed the order of Gibbens and Rogers, who were only 30 votes apart - and thus change which of them would secure a seat.

Vote tallies as they stood on the 13th Count Pettipiece 943 Gibbens 907 Rogers 878. The returning officer ruled that even Woodside’s surplus of one should be transferred. This was alot of work for little result. Woodside’s 1150 votes were sorted by the next usable preference, which could only be Pettipiece, Gibbens or Rogers. Rogers’ pile was the largest, so one vote was moved from it to Rogers’ packet. Hoskin’s surplus votes were transferred and still the result was unclear. The transfer of Trotter’s votes would be the last transfer done. Garfield King noted “The transfer of his votes would be final as the low man [when it was done] would be the next to be eliminated.” (That elimination would leave only two for the remaining two seats.) King reported the excitement was intense when it was seen that the pile of votes to be transferred to Rogers was larger than the pile to be transferred to Gibbens. Was it 30 votes more? Would it be enough to put Rogers in? But after transfers the candidates were still in the same order. Pettipiece 960 Gibbens 939 Rogers 936. The returning officer announced those numbers and declared Pettipiece and Gibbens elected. Their election was certain, because Rogers, being the lowest, was known to be the next to be eliminated, leaving only the other two candidates to fill the two remaining open seats. Pettipiece and Gibbens were declared elected although they each had only partial quota. Rogers had received 22 votes in the last transfer, Gibbens only 11, If Rogers had received four more votes or Gibbens had gotten four fewer, Rogers would have been elected. Roers had been in 8th position in the first Count and Pettipeiee in 9th - vote transfers had reversed their positions and made Pettipiece, not Rogers, the winner. PR put Pettipiece, not Rogers, on the 1922 council.

King applauded the result, saying “It may seem a lot of work to go through to make in the end only a difference in one case. King noted that PR advocates pointed to this as "the virtue 'par excellence' of the system." “PR they say is more democratic since it gave Labour a fair share of representation on the council, Scribbens and Pettipiece being members of the Federated Labour Party. Labour men expressed a hope yesterday that Pettipiece and Scribbens would forget their pre-election differences and work together in the interests of the workingmen.” (Vancouver Sun, Jan. 15, 1922, p. 23) The two main strains of the Labour Party were represented by Scribbens and Pettipiece, showing the care with which PR awards seats. Scribbens received votes in each transfer of surpus votes and elimination so looks to have fairly wide general suport. and received a fair number when Mrs. Hopkins was eliminated. she had received a fair number when Menzies was eliminated.

Pettipiece on other hand reeived just a handful of votes when Lee, White and Elliot were eliminated and when Scribbens' surpus was transferred.

King credits PR with Pettipiece's election, but PR deserves more credit than just the election of Pettipiece.

Taking the votes as they are, King's surmised that under the old system - Block Voting (multiple plurality) - the winners would have been Owens, Crone, Woodside, Scribbens, Hoskins, Tracy, Gibbens and Rogers. But it seems to me that under Block Voting, the Business community would have filled all the seats, likely electing Rogers and perhaps Cameron or Trotter instead of Scribbens and Pettipiece. So it seems to me under Block Voting Labour would have taken no seats at all. It was single voting in a multiple-district that allowed Scribbens to do as well as he did in the First Count. Pettipiece’s victory was spectacular, as King noted, but it was not the only achievement of STV. Scribbens‘ election was an example of STV's effectiveness also. Emphasis on the power of vote transfers, which supposedly only changed one seat, set the system up for criticism on the grounds of excessive cost. And Pettipiece’s election itself - coming at the expense of the powerful Business faction - may have helped activate strong opposition to the system’s retention. W.J. Conway defended the system, telling its critics that Vancouver's STV system was designed specifically to “obtain fair representation… and so to prevent any considerable section of the community resorting to ‘direct action.’” (un-dated newspaper clipping, entitled "PR or Jazz", in Garfield King fonds, City of Vancouver Archives) Pettipiece himself, although he was the person elected most evidently under PR, did not defend the STV system when it came under attack. Pilon said this was this odd because in other places at that time, a lack of PR was said to be giving aid to the radical movement. Apparently Pilon did not see that Pettipiece was himself something of a radical - a champion ofhe radical labour movement -- Just a few years before the 1922 election he had been one of the authors of the book The Genesis and Evolution of Slavery Showing how Chattel Slaves of Pagan times have been transformed into the Capitalistic property of today, (Monto, Old Strathcona, p. 148; Pilon, Drive for PR in BC, p. 120; Weinrich, Social Protest from the Left in Canada)

Effectiveness of the vote

Two groups each got seats in this election.

Most votes were cast for the winners - 8200 votes (of the 10,300 votes cast) were initially cast for those who won in the end.

8800 votes of the 10,300 cast were actually used to elect someone. (This is a much higher rate of effective votes than under FPTP where as many as half across the board - and as many as 82 percent in any one district - may be wasted.

600 votes were found to be non-transferable but this waste is miniscule compared to the 5000 or so wasted under typical FPTP elections of the same size.

Women's representation

Mrs. Hopkins, the sole woman candidate, was not elected -- if as few as 1149 women had given her their vote, she would've been elected. But because that number did not support her, the outcome reflected that fact.

In other cities, PR did result in the election of the first woman elected in that city. It was like that in Winnipeg both provincially and municipally and in Calgary municipally. No woman MLA was elected in Calgary - under Block Voting or STV - until 1935. But the first woman MLA in that city - Edith Gostick - was elected under STV, even though it took a while. even for STV to achieve this breakthrough.

Labour

STV proved itself able to produce fair representation for Labour while FPTP and Block Voting are seen to fail in this if you look at the historic record.

In BC a sole Independent Socialist MLA was elected - in Newcastle - in 1916 under FPTP, but the member did not stand for re-election and a (non-Socialist Party) Labour party man took the seat next time round.

But in Vancouver, Labour and Socialist candidates fared badly under FPTP and Block Voting.

It was not until 1941 that the first Labour or CCF MLA was elected in Vancouver under FPTP or Block Voting. Under STV the first Labour men had been elected to Vancouver city council back in 1922!

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

December 1922 election - Vancouver's last STV election Despite the attacks, PR-STV continued in use for the December 1922 election, but this would be the last election to use STV. The December 1922 election went fine, but the process was mostly held up to ridicule. (Pilon, p. 120) (coverage of the election can be found in the Vancouver Sun, Dec. 16, 1922 (page number not noted)) Pettipiece was re-elected to council in the December 1922 election. He topped the poll so this time did not need the help of STV to win a seat. (Pilon, Drive for PR in BC, p. 120) ================ Aldermanic election, December 1922 Total valid votes 10,172 8 open seats Quota: 1131

Votes received 1st Count Peak votes Pettipiece 1454 1454 elected on 1st Count (1) (surplus tr. on 2nd Count) Almond 1306 1306 elected on 1st Count (2) (surplus tr. on 3rd Count) Owen 1126 1156 elected on 2nd Count (3) (surplus tr. on 12th Count) Crone 790 1204 elected on 11th Count (5) (surplus tr. on 14th Count) Tracy 773 1280 elected on 11th Count (4) surplus tr. in 13th Count) Rogers 739 1067 elected after 14th Count (7) (surplus not transferred) Gibbens 726 1104 elected after 14th Count (6) (surplus not transferred) Scribbins 562 949 elected after 14th Count (8) (surplus not transferred) Bennett 489 890 (eliminated after 14th Count) Woodside 454 541 (eliminated in 9th Count) Morrow 451 693 (eliminated in 11th Count) Conley 435 698 (eliminated in 10th Count) (5 less-popular candidates) (17 candidates in total ) at the end (the 14th Count): 692 exhausted votes In the 2nd Count, Scribbens received 83 votes from Pettipiece's surplus transfer. This was the largest portion of Pettipiece's transfer. It did not change the order of the candidates' popularity, but without it Conley and Morrow would have passed Scribbens and then Scribbens, not the other, would have been the least popular candidate around the 10th Count and and would have been eliminated. Instead Scribbens stayed above the bottom and he survived to win in the end, while Conley and Morrow were eliminated. When Morrow was eliminated, in the 11th Count, his vote transfers elected Crone and Tracy. That left only four remaining candidates and three remaining open seats. Gibbens 1066 Rogers 1019 Scribbens 915 Bennett 850 A pause was taken to transfer the surplus votes of three candidates before the final elimination that would determine the final winners. Unless these transfers put any of the remaining candidates over quota, the three leading candidates when the transfers were done would be elected even if they only had partial quotas (so-called remainders). The candidate with the least votes would be eliminated. Owen's 25 surplus votes were transferred first. Although not enough themselves to have any significance, In combination with the other transfers they might have allowed Bennett's vote total to pass that of Scribbens. The largest portion of Owen's transfers went to Rogers. The largest portion of Tracy's 149 surplus votes went to Bennett, but it was not enough to put him over Scribbens. The largest portion of Crone's 73 surplus votes were transferred to Scribbens. The vote transfers did not put any of the remaining candidates over quota and did not change the order. Bennett was eliminated, and Gibbens, Rogers and Scribbens were declared elected. The Dec. 16, 1922 Vancouver Sun contained a table of the vote transfers and this accompanying text: "Every step in the process of determining who was elected to the city council is demonstrated by this table, which was transcribed from the official record for the Vancouver Sun by Garfield A. King, secretary of the Vancouver branch of the Proportional Representation League of Canada. A similar table made out by Mr. King and published in the Sun, showing the aldermanic results in the election last January, has been used for reference at the city hall throughout the year and has been used for demonstration purposes in all parts of the Dominion. "The Proportional Representation of voting provides a guarantee of the continuity of the personnel of the city council." said Mr. King in commenting on the results of the present election. "Aldermen with a record of good service seem to be assured of a return to office as long as they retain the confidence of their supporters. Under the old [single-winner] ward system, with three- or four-cornered contests, there was no assurance of even the best of candidates being returned. "The results also show that the ward spirit in Vancouver has largely died out and the civic issues are viewed from the standpoint of the city as a whole and not from ward consideration. While 'P.R.' has its complications, it does not seem to present any great difficulties to the voters in marking their ballots as evidenced by the fact that 94 out of every 100 voters followed intelligently the instructions at the top of the ballot. "The percentage of spoiled ballots is too high and for the future, greater publicity and education must be given by the city council regarding the method of voting. The percentage of spoiled ballots was smaller during the first year the system was employed in Vancouver. This was due to their extensive campaign of instruction immediately preceding the election. "The small number of non-transferable ballots indicated that the great majority of voters availed themselves of the privilege of expressing their choices freely. During the course of the count, it was noticed that on a number of occasions, 10th, 11th and 12th choices came into play effectively. "The counting operation is carried out more efficiently every year. Everything moved with perfect smoothness yesterday. "The fact that a labour candidate secured the highest number of first choices is particularly interesting. considering that there is not the slightest doubt in the world that under any other system, Alderman R.P. Pettipiece would not have been elected, judging by the fate of labour candidates at previous elections.* "The direct representation of labour on the city council should ensure during the coming year, as it has in 1922, better relations with the labour world and should go far to preserving the good understanding that at present exists." Mr. King predicts that the "P.R." system will be applied to the large centres in the next federal campaign. its introduction will give all shades of political opinion fairer representation, he said. (Winnipeg Sun, Dec. 16, 1922, p. 11) * Pettipiece had been elected in the January 1922 election so King must have been referring to systems used prior to the STV period. And yes, King's surmise probably is true - even Pettipiece and Scribbins together (both being Labour, this is obvious assumption to make) had only about 20 percent of the first preference voters so it is doubtful that either of the labour-oriented candidates would have been elected under Block Voting or under First Past The Post elections in wards. Unfortunately, Vancouver did not have occasion to put into effect King's suggestion of "greater publicity and education" in later elections, as the Dec. 1922 election was the last in Vancouver to use STV. End of Vancouver's STV The year 1923 would see STV abolished for Vancouver city elections. PR expert Dennis Pilon's thesis The Drive for PR in BC 1917-23 (pages 119-120 describes the defeat of STV in Vancouver. According to Pilon, STV had few active defenders when it came under final attack. PR reformers Hall and Robert Telford had lost interest and did little. Conway, like the year before, showed himself a valiant defender of STV, having a letter published in the Vancouver World in its defence. (Vancouver World, April 19, 1923, p. 16) The Vancouver city council said they would like to repeal STV. When an anti-PR petition arrived in the spring of 1923, the councillors authorized it as being duly signed, and in a poorly-attended summer session they voted to hold a referendum on dropping STV. This referendum would be held before the next city election so that if abolition of STV was approved by voters, it would come into effect before the next election. Referendum on STV, June 16, 1923 3809 voted to drop PR;only 1705 voted in its defence. (PR Review, April 1924 (https://montopedia.wixsite.com/montopedia/post/opinions-on-canadian-municipal-stv-1924) The city returned to Block Voting before the next election, held in December 1923. Pettipiece ran for mayor in that election. He failed in his attempt. At the time that STV was used to elect the aldermen, Alternative Voting (Instant-Runoff Voting) was used to elect the mayor. But in 1923 this was no longer the case. The left vote was split between Pettipeice and another, and transferable votes were no longer in use to allow the voters to come together behind one of them, so a business-oriented candidate was elected. (Pilon, Drive for PR in BC, p. 120) Pettipiece later served on the city council again though, 1933-1935 and in 1936.) The termination of STV was at first thought to be only temporary. Some, such as PR writers Hoag and Hallett, said they thought educational work would soon secure its return. But to date, now, a hundred years later, that has not happened. Vancouver has never even held a vote on STV’s return. ==================================== 2021 Vancouver city council has passed a motion to form a Citizens Assembly to investigate electoral reform. =======================================================================

info from P.R. Review Jan. 1924

Vancouver, British Columbia

Population (1921) 117,217.

Adopted P.R. for council, school board, and park board, January 8, 1920, by popular vote of 6,044 to 2,790.

Prior to adoption of P.R. Vancouver had tried plurality vote both at large and, more recently, in single-member wards.

P.R. was abolished June 16, 1923, after three trials, by popular vote of 3,809 to 1,705. Ward system now in force.

Total vote for council:

under P.R.,

January 1921—6,310;

January 1922—11,140;

December 1922—10,913;

under ward system,

December 1923—11,307 (no contest in 2 wards out of 8, vote for mayor 13,859).

Invalid ballots for council

under P.R.,

January 1921—172, 2.7%;

January 1922—803, 72% ;

December 1922—741, 7.3% ;

under ward system,

December 1923—198, 1.8%.

Effective ballots (those which counted for successful candidates) for council:

under P.R. 1921—5,458, 88.9% of valid vote

under ward system 1923—5,521, 49.7% of valid vote.

We have no figures for effective ballots in other elections.

Synopsis of ten replies:

P.R. apparently gave representative results so far as the candidates and the interest of the electorate permitted. The results as a whole were not strikingly different from those of the old system,but labor received increased representation on the council and school board,and an alderman (member of council) of long standing was replaced by a leading business man. The general public is apathetic toward P.R., as evidenced by the smallness of the vote on the question of its abolition. Some politicians are actively opposed. P.R. is not at all well understood generally.

Its proponents have not had the time or the resources to conduct what they consider a satisfactory campaign of education. The impression that P.R. is difficult and complicated was widely circulated and probably some voters stayed away from the polls on that account. Otherwise P.R. had little effect on the interest shown in elections. Mr. Cowper says there were fewer personalities in campaigns under P.R. Others think P.R. made no difference in the temper of election contests. The members elected by P.R. were well distributed geographically except for some of the outlying districts. P.R. had no appreciable effect on racial or religious feeling, the attitude of the community towards its local government, or the solution of the community's problems.

A special effort was made to discover the reasons for opposition to P.R. Apparently the principal reason, aside from the natural opposition of ward politicians and others who experienced new difficulties in controlling elections, is a widespread impression that P.R. makes no important difference in the outcome and that therefore the additional time and expense required for the count are not justified. Lack of comprehension of the method of counting and greatly exaggerated reports of the numbers of spoiled ballots are important contributing factors. There is some opposition to the representation of geographically scattered minorities, which opponents of P.R. like to refer to as "cliques" even though the number of votes required for election under P.R. is greater than under the ward system.

Only two of the ten correspondents, Mr. Rogers and Mr. Ash, advise other cities not to adopt P.R.

Two, Mr. Neelands and Mr. Cowper, recommend it without qualification.

The attitudes of the other six are indicated below.

W.G. Rogers, former city official, April 3, 1923: "I have had over forty years' experience in municipal affairs, being clerk, auditor, councillor, and reeve, and I am convinced from my experience with P.R. that it lends itself to class and clique representation on elected bodies and that it can be juggled if deputies so desire. So confusing is the system, like gambling in choices, that the interest and enthusiasm usually experienced in elections is entirely gone. Only 25% attend the polls and 20%* of the ballots are spoiled.

City Clerk McQueen in 1920, without clerks, had the results of the election handed to the press two hours after the polls were closed and the news was soon broadcasted over Canada under our old system, but in 1921 under P.R., with a score of clerks, it took him several days to arrive at the results of the election and the costs exceeded the old system by $2,670.37."

William Ash, ward leader, April 13, 1923 : "It is not near so good as the way we were used to vote by a cross. I could tell you which or very near who would win — the ones that belonged to some lodge or some clique. I think if you put the eighteen names in an old hat and shook it up and took the first eight that came out you would do as good."

Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper, K.C., former member of the Dominion cabinet, June 12, 1923: "In spite of the lack of understanding on the part of a considerable number of voters, the results achieved have really been such as could be called fairly representative of the city, having regard to the candidates nominated. I think the city government under proportional representation has functioned as well as previous city governments, but no better. I personally consider proportional representation sound in theory, but still fear that, not being properly understood, a proportion of the electorate is unduly deprived of its voice."

F.A. McDiarmid, Parliamentary Agent, Union of BC Municipalities. April 6, 1923: "Proportional representation has given Vancouver legislative bodies that I consider truly representative. I do not think there is any difference between the effects of P.R. and the effects of the former system. An alderman who comes in and does good work is usually held as long as he wants to stay. He seems to have no more difficulty in being elected under the P.R. system than he had previously. P.R. is perhaps a trifle more costly but not enough to make any real difference."

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

*For the three Vancouver elections before 1923 the average percentage of spoiled ballots was 5 3/4. This figure given by Mr. Rogers is so far from the truth as to suggest the possibility that he wrote in the heat of strong prejudice against the system.

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

Herbert O. Frind, formerly chairman of the Civic Bureau of the Board of Trade:

"P.R. has not helped to bring out men trained for the purpose or representative of application of scientific administrative methods. Too few changes of personnel have taken place. If P.R. is really doing its work I am in favour of it, but I have not the proofs to endorse or reject."

J.S. Gordon, Municipal Inspector of Schools, March 23, 1923:

"As far as I understand the situation, voting by the proportional representation method in our civic elections for the past two years has made little, if any, difference in the general results of the elections. The advocates of the system are well satisfied, however, with the experiment so far. One thing that makes the system unpopular is a suspicion that, in the transferring of votes, there is, danger of injustice being done; personally, I think the danger is very remote."

J.S. Cowper, Editor of the Vancouver World, April 4, 1923:

"We have had as a result of P.R. a Labor alderman added to the council in 1922 who would not have been elected on a straight majority vote. By the 1923 election this man had made himself so useful on the council that he was elected at the head of the poll on the first ballot. P.R. has not aided or hindered noticeably in the solution of the city's problems."

George C. Cross, newspaper writer, March 31, 1923:

"We have had three elections under the 'P.R.' system, and the only change in the personnel of the city council has been the substitution of a 'labor' man for one of the old stand-bys and of one of the leading business men of the city for an alderman who had served on the council for fourteen years. A large element in the community falls in with the cry set up by defeated candidates that 'P.R.' is more bother than it is worth. I have taken part in the counting on two occasions and have found that everything went like clockwork and that the returning officer's integrity could not be questioned.

My personal opinion is that, in so far as 'P.R.' has given representation to a large portion of the community that was without it before, it has accomplished some good. There is a great need of further educational work regarding the system generally and the method of voting in particular. 'P.R.' has not yet made any appreciable change in the government of the city and should be given a few years further trial before being condemned or otherwise."

R.H. Neelands, President of the Vancouver Trades and Labour Council, March 27, 1923: "Proportional representation has given our city legislative bodies which I consider truly representative. I believe it is a better method of expressing the popular will than the plurality system which we had previously. Apparently ignorance of the system and disgruntled defeated candidates are responsible for the movement to abolish it."

Garfield A. King, barrister, leader for the adoption of P.R., March 20, 1923:

"Generally speaking, our real problem is to provide adequate machinery to inform and educate the public from year to year, over and over again, how to use the ballot effectively. With this is involved the further problem how to organize the voters as voters, through the formation of 'voters' leagues.' These two things are vital, and I would hesitate to work for the adoption of P.R. in any large community unless these two necessities were guaranteed as well."

Dr. Robert Telford, physician, leader for the adoption of P.R., October 31, 1922: "Vancouver has had two elections under P.R. It has worked out well."

L.J. Ladner, member of the Canadian House of Commons for Vancouver South, debating in the House February 19, 1923, against the adoption of P.R. for parliamentary elections: "When you come to apply proportional representation to municipal government, much may be said in favour of the principle, and for my part I am rather disposed to accept the principle for municipal systems of government."

Garfield A. King, August 8, 1923:

"I think your article [entitled "Vancouver Drops P.R." in the P.R. Review for July, 1923] sums up the situation perfectly. On the same day on which the P.R. vote was taken the electors of the city in their wisdom voted down Daylight Saving and also defeated seven or eight by-laws that, in the judgment of everybody interested in the city, were absolutely vital and necessary and which included provision for repairs to schools, new school buildings, water works extension, and much needed street work.

The franchise on these questions was exercised by a limited and very selfish group, and in view of the reactionary vote it cannot be said that the principle of P.R. has in any way been discredited. There is a general feeling of apology and shame for the spirit of reaction which is at the present time victorious."

(See also articles dealing with Vancouver in the P.R. Review for April 1920, April 1921, and January 1923.)

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

Vote transfers had little effect on who was elected in Vancouver's STV elections 1921-1922.

The January 1921 election saw one change to the front runners in the first count. The eight front runners would have been elected if the election had used SNTV. Seven of them were elected in the STV election. STV ensured more voters were happy with the result by electing one initially-lower-ranking candidate, instead of one of the front runners in the 1st Count, who did not actually have as wide general appeal.

The December 1921 election also saw one change to the front runners in the first count. Of the eight front runners, seven were elected in the STV election, with one initially-lower-ranking candidate also elected.

The December 1922 election saw no change to the front runners in the first count. Of the eight front runners who would have been elected under SNTV, all eight were elected in the STV election.

Balance and fairness was already established in the 1st Count through Single Voting and a multi-seat district.

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

Information on other Vancouver elections can be found at :

https://ia904503.us.archive.org/8/items/PAM200372/PAM-2003-72.pdf

Dennis Pilon, The Drive for Proportional Representation in British Columbia 1917-1923 (published in 1994)

file:///home/chronos/u-7471ce29d386ae6b6c8a0356e0b3c71f1425c61b/MyFiles/Downloads/b18026539.pdf

For a review of Vancouver’s use of plebiscites as a means both to the elite imposition and the prevention of voting system reform at the municipal level, see Dennis Pilon, “Democracy, BC-Style,” in Michael Howlett, Dennis Pilon, and Tracy Summerville (eds.), Politics and Government in British Columbia (Toronto: Emond Montgomery, 2010), 87-108, specifically at 92-93 and 96-99.

(source: Pilon, Myths [used against Electoral Reform]. https://www.yorku.ca/research/robarts/wp-content/uploads/sites/466/2022/11/2CW-Fall-2022-Pilon-Final.pdf)

Montopedia

What is, was and could be

Vancouver's STV elections, 1921-1922 - fair and balanced

Recent Posts

Comments