The Baird's Tale

<div class="page traditional" style=" background-color: #fff; "> <article> <header> <h1 style=" font-family: 'Lato'; color: #333333;">First pass of reform </h1> James Rimmer </header> <div class="main"> It’s an election time here in Ontario, which means the usual arguments about the state of our democracy abound. Fair Vote and its ilk are out critiquing our voting system, pointing out the absurdities and low vote percentages to win a seat in our first past the post system.They break out the now clichéd legislative seating charts that show the impact if votes had been counted in some proportional manner. They argue a change in rules is required to save our democracy, re-engage the youth and the apathetic and create better governance.What they don’t mention is that in Canada, we’ve tried this before. And we rejected it.From the early 1920s to the mid-1950s, Manitoba and Alberta both used alternative vote systems to decide the winners of their legislative seats. Cities had multi-member ridings that used the Hare system to transfer votes between ranked candidates.In rural areas voters ranked candidates, with preferences re-allocated from the lowest ranked candidate until someone gained 50% of the vote.Neither system led to the changes electoral reforms today argue for. It did not lead greater participation, more fulsome public policy debates, or more inclusion of diverse voices. As Jensen states "The evidence on voter turnout suggests that the adoption of STV did not usher in a new era of improved political participation in either Manitoba or Alberta. Indeed the overwhelming evidence in both cases is that the change in eleoctral system did not have any significant effect on voter turnout"1  In fact many progressives soon became disenchanted as the alternative votes allowed conservative forces to unite to defeat labour candidates. Bracken’s Progressive Party pulled Liberals and Conservatives into its coalition against labour candidates. United Farmers of Alberta and then later Social Credit, both right-wing popularist farmer groups used alternative votes to beat labour candidates. In fact alternative vote proved so effective at stopping the left BC’s Liberal-Conservative coalition adopted it for the 1952 election to stop a rising CCF. Annoyed at the open attempt to rig the election voters plumped for BC’s Social Credit, who would rule for another 20 years straight and would continue on until the early 1990s.Further, the voting proved to be complicated and slow. Editorials right until its abandonments had to re-explain to voters how to rank candidates. Plumping, where voters refuse to rank candidates and instead mark only one preference was high. Further, disqualified ballots were very high. In 1952 9.1% of Edmonton’s votes were thrown out as they were incorrectly filled out according to Alberta’s strict rules at the time.2.  It took days for the urban seats to be allocated as votes were counted and re-shuffled. With voters having lost their affinity with the system, the experiment was quietly ended in the 1950s. The provincial governments quietly rushed, as they had when they enacted the experiment, the amendment through the legislature Since its end, this experiment it has been forgotten from our political discourse. There has been very little academic research into the topic, (save Harold Jensen's very well done PhD thesis, see footnotes) and it has little influence on other discussions of the topic. Its abandonment and being forgotten is a lesson in the uses and abuses of history. For those who agitate for electoral reform the Manitoba and Alberta experiences offer little for them. It stands as a counter argument to their whole thesis. For those who stand for first past the post even admitting electoral reform happened, and the world did not end, concedes are too much ground and legitimacy to the reformers. Committed to denying the very idea, the very logic of alternative systems they have reason to keep silent about the alternatives used for thirty years.The experiment does have some important lessons that need to be added to our popular discourse. First it’s a strong reminder of the law of unintended consequences. No one can predict how voters will interact with a new voting system.As British Columbia showed, voters will express their discontent at times in odd and off kilter ways. Second, is that any game will be gamed. No matter the rules of an electoral contest candidates will try to maximise advantage and minimise its benefits for opponents. In the pursuit of power parties will reshape themselves into coalitions, big tents, lists – whatever will get them closer to power.Ultimately the electoral reform debate should not be about fairness or proportionally, but what shape do we want our political parties to take. 1. Jensen, Harold John. "Single Transferable Vote in Alberta and Manitoba" (PhD diss.,University of Alberta, 1998) 86. 2. Jensen, Harold John. "Single Transferable Vote in Alberta and Manitoba" (PhD diss.,University of Alberta, 1998) 87. </div> </article> </div>

Share

Issue 3