In 1924 when the UFA reformed the province's elecitons system, the UFA did not group constituencies outside the three largest cities. If it had, perhaps its career in the legislature would have had a longer life than it historically did.
When it brought in STV in Edmonton, Calgary and Medicine Hat in 1924, it did not make multi-member districts elsewhere. With votes bing transferable, it created Instant-Runoff Voting (AKA Alternative Voting) in the 48 districts outside the large cities. IRV produced about the same outcome as FPTP would've.
The use of IRV to elect most Alberta MLAs meant the UFA had no protection from the Social Credit landslide of 1935.
But if the UFA had formed say three-seat districts in farm country, any group with 25 percent of the vote in a district would have elected at least one member.
Taking just one example,
the pretend district of Vegreville-Vermilion-Alexandra
1935 three seats quota: 3985 -- (25 percent of the total valid votes) plus 1
First preferences (as per historic elections in the three separate districts in 1935):
total votes UFA Social Credit Liberal Communist
Vegreville- 5750 995 2817 1681 0
Vermilion- 5644 876 2452 1062 838
Alexandra 4544 924 2479 289 197
Totals 15,938 2795 7748 (49 percent) 3032 1035
how many quotas: .7013 1.94 .76 .26
in such a district, the SC would have taken just two seats, not all three as it did in 1935, with the third seat going to either Liberal, or if Communist votes transfer to the UFA, to the UFA.
If the Communist vote was transferred to the SC, then SC would still not have taken all three seats.
The 500 or so Conservative votes, amounting to about .17 quota, are a loose cannon but likely not decisive.
The transfers done in Vermilion in 1935 show us that when Communist, UFA and Conservative votes were transferred, most of the votes that were transferred went to the Liberal, not the SC.
The transfers done in Vegreville in 1935 show us that when UFA and Conservative votes were transferred, most of the votes that were transferred went to the Liberal, not the SC.
So SC taking two seats is the likely outcome, leaving one to the most-popular other party.
This three-seat district is actually close to giving SC just one seat, as UFA and Liberals with addition of Communist and Conservative votes, might have taken a seat each.
In most of the farm districts south of there, the SC were much more popular and SC getting two seats in a district would have been a pretty foregone conclusion.
But not taking all three of the seats involved, which did happen in many cases.
=======
The 51 rural seats could have been grouped into three-seat districts,
excepting perhaps the six largest districts:
These were already geographically challenging without the addition of more area.
They were Edson, Lac Ste. Anne, Grouard, Peace River, Grande Prairie and Athabasca.
(By 1935, the Medicine Hat two-seat district had been divided into two single-member districts. They are included in the 45 rural districts.)
If the six largest districts could have remained single-member districts. thus there would have been 15 three-seat districts, two 6-member districts (Edm and Calg), and six single-member districts.
So aside from the 6 single-member districts (of which Grouard actually elected a Liberal), there would have been only 15 districts outside Edm and Calgary, so likely 15 rural seats would have gone to others than the SC. This is particularly true if the Liberal and UFA vote transferred to the other of that pair, if necessary, and not to a SC candidate.
in 1935, the Social Credit took all the seats outside Edm/Calg except one - Grouard.
With Edm/Calg giving only half their seats to SC (as happened in 1935), with 15 three-seat districts in farm country, and a plurality in Grouard voting Liberal, then the opposition in the legislature would have amounted to something like 22 seats, not the seven that were elected in 1935,
Tnus, even with relatively small DM of three, the result would have been much more fair than the historical result in 1935.
For the SC candidates to take all three seats in a district, they would need to take about 75 percent of the vote.
Only in Little Bow was that figure achieved.
There were only three single-member districts where a SC candidate took even more than 70 percent of the vote - Little Bow (as mentioned), Ribstone and Sedgewick.
Ribstone and Sedgewick do touch each other so potentially they might have lumped into a district together.
Little Bow's strong support for SC might have been drowned out by the votes cast in its neighbouring districts, where SC support was not quite as strong.
And the strong showing for the SC in Ribstone and Sedgewick might have been diluted by the addition of a less-SC third district.
So it seems clear that the SC would not have won all three seats in any, or hardly any, of the three-seat districts, leaving about 15 seats there to other parties.
======================================
Would a three-seat district have been too large to be represented?
it seems not, as all of the "too-large for grouping" districts excepting Grande Prairie would have been smaller than the three-seat districts. That is how it looks from the 1935 electoral district map anyway. (the map is in the Report on Alberta Elections, 1905-1982, p. 54)
And if one MLA can represent that size of a district, then surely three could have.
========================================================
Is 21-member opposition proportional for the 1935 party vote tallies?
in the 1935 election, Social Credit candidates took 54 percent of the vote.
Thus the SC party was due 34 seats of the 63 in the Legislature.
Under STV in most of Alberta (with DM between 6 and 3) (with IRV in six districts), I expect SC would have taken 41 seats, a due share for a party with 65 percent of the vote.
So still like under the actual 1935 election, SC would have taken majority government, and still received more seats than its due, but at least under the STV/IRV DM-3 system, the opposition would have had 35 percent of the vote instead of what it got under STV/IRV -- only 11 percent of the seats!
===============================================================
How many seats would the UFA had won if DM-3 STV/IRV had been used?
To win a seats, the UFA would need to accumulate a quarter of the votes cast in teh three-seat district. This amounts to
Looking at the 1935 results in the small single-member districts where the UFA ran candidates in 1935,
we see the UFA vote shares as:
more than 24.8 percent of the vote -- 2 districts Lac Ste. Anne, Whitford
(being this close to quota, the candidate should be elected with quota.)
taking between 21 percent and 24.8 percent of the vote -- 6 districts (acadia, alexandra, gleichen, grande p., macleod, ponoka)
taking between 15 percent and 21 percent - 21 districts beaver r., camrose, cardston, clover b., cochrane, coronation, cypress, empress, hand h., nanton, okotoks, peace r., pembina, sedgewick, st. p., sturgeon (with help from united front), taber, vegrev., verm., wainw., warner,
less than 15 percent -- 15 districts. (bow v., didsb., grouard, innisdf., lacombe, leduc, little b., olds, pincher, ribstone, st alb., stettler, stony., vict., wet.)
Receiving more than 15 percent of the vote in the first preference is almost certain to be enough to win a seat.
25 percent plus 1, being quota, is certain success. And having 15 percent means you are likely not to be eliminated and you are likely to remain alive long enough to exceed quota through transfers.
(In sample three-seat district above, 15 percent means an average of 800 votes in each SMD, 530 votes shy of the amount derived by quota divided by 3 (1330).
In Edmonton STV election in 1935, the top two in 1st Count (Howson, Barnes) went on to be elected. Those who came in 3rd, 5th and 6th were not elected.
The most-popular candidate not to be elected was 4th-place Hall with 53 percent of quota in the 1st Count.
The least-popular to be elected was Mullen with 47 percent of quota in the 1st Count.
The 15-percent measure as minimum to be certain of success is picked somewhat at random (at least based on performance of STV in Edmonton and Calgary in 1935).
(Calgary in 1935 saw no one with more than 54 percent of quota not to be elected and no one with less than 54 percent to be elected. )
And anything more than 21 percent is where a candidate is easily certain to survive to receive votes and exceed quota and win a seat.
anything more than 15 percent (60 percent of qjuota) the candidate will also win (based on historical pattern)
If we assume UFA wins the two seats due to support from voters in Lac Ste. Anne and Whitford, and wins two due to the six districts listed in the 21 to 24.8 bracket, and 7 due to the 21 districts where UFA took more than 15 percent, then that gives the UFA 11 seats - a much more fair result than the zero seats that it won in 1935.
(Liberals and Conservatives (with 30 percent of the provincial vote together) perhaps would have won the other four of the 15 rural minority-party seats that were likely produced by the DM-3 STV system, plus the four Libs and two Conservatives elected in Edm/Calgary in 1935, plus the Liberal elected in Grouard in 1935.)
so a total of 9 Lib or Cons MLAs elected.
Making a total opposition of 20 (instead of the 7 elected in real life in 1935).
In 1935, the UFA did not run a candidate in these districts -- Athabasca, Drumheller, Edson, Lethbridge, Med Hat, Red Deer and Rocky Mountain. Likely under DM-3 STV, they would have run candidates there just to up their vote tallies and hope for lucky break, and if the UFA candidate had no chance, their supporter's votes likey would have been transferred to the Labour, Liberal, Conservative or Communist candidates, or perhaps to a SC candidate.
The UFA also did not run candidates in Calgary, and only one in Edmonton. This likely would not have changed under DM-3 STV, as those cities would not have changed their election system, still being DM-6 STV.
=======================================================================
Comments