Alberta Had Proportional Representation: Why’d We Give It Up?

Newspaper clipping from the Calgary Herald reporting on the Social Credit Landslide win in Alberta

Alberta used Single Transferable Voting (STV) in Calgary and Edmonton—why did we get rid of it?

How Alberta Ended Up with PR in the 1920s

In 1921, the United Farmers of Alberta won a majority of the seats in the Alberta provincial election. They had promised electoral reform. The form they introduced was:

  1. Districts with multiple MLAs elected for Edmonton (5), Calgary (5), and Medicine Hat (2)
  2. A ballot by which voters ranked the candidates by preference

But they also left all the other districts to be single MLA districts. 

The effect was immediate and positive. Whereas in the 1921 election, all five seats in Edmonton went to the Liberals, in the next election in 1926, the results were:

MLAParty
Hon. F. J. LymburnUnited Farmers of Alberta
C. Y. WeaverConservative
C. L. GibbsLabour
W. W. PreveyLiberal
D. M. DugganConservative

Now there’s some diverse representation! We can only imagine that Edmontonians were better pleased with actually getting the types of MLAs they wanted.

This voting system continued through until 1955. Medicine Hat had dropped down to one MLA, so the system became less effective there. But Calgary had 6 MLAs and Edmonton 7, which made for a good variety of MLAs from the following parties in the 1955 results for the two cities:

EdmontonCalgary
Social Credit (3)Social Credit (3)
Liberal (2)Liberal (3)
Conservative (1)Conservative (1)

Political Pushback and the Return to FPTP

The Social Credit party was feeling uneasy. They weren’t enjoying the same success that had been used to after being in power since 1935. What’s more, because not all district elected multiple MPs, Social Credit had a majority in the Legislature based on its winnings in rural one-MLA districts.

It used this unfounded majority of seats to change the Alberta voting system to single-member districts using first-past-the-post. 

And so Alberta lost its tenuous grasp on good voting. 

The immediate effect was dramatic: in the very next election, Social Credit won all the Edmonton seats and all but one in Calgary, which they lost to a new party, the Progressive Conservatives. 

Hubris had its day. In 1971, the PCs took the majority of the seats (49 of 75), and by the 1976 election, Social Credit was all but finished, with just 4 seats.

Instead of the PCs being incorporated into the political life of Alberta and Social Credit continuing to make its contribution—what would have happened had Alberta had multi-member districts and Single Transferable Voting across the province—the old party disproportionately lost and the new one disproportionately won. It made it look like a catastrophic change, which was not the case. 

Is PR Dangerous? Alberta’s History Says Otherwise

People sometimes claim that a more proportionate voting system allows extremists to come to life and thrive, when, in fact, there’s nothing more extreme than a new party getting just 5.3% more votes than their rival, but gaining 100% of the legislative power. 

Alberta had better. And we can have it again. 

2 responses to “Alberta Had Proportional Representation: Why’d We Give It Up?”

  1. Thank you Jasmine for this important message.
    When Alberta adopted STV in the cities in 1924, it also adopted instant-runoff voting (AKA Alternative voting ) in the single-member districts outside the cities.
    Thus Alberta became the first province in Canada to elect all its MLAs through a non-FPTP system. Later Manitoba and BC did likewise.) (In USA/Canada, only Illinois preceded Alberta by using semi-proportional Cumulative Voting to elect its state legislators.)
    Oddly the multi-member districts used in STV starting in 1924 had been established previous to the 1921 election, but that election had used Block Voting which enabled the Liberal candidates with just a third of the votes to take all the seats.

    When you say hubris brought down the Social Credit, I suppose you mean that because they abolished the STV, they suffered when their polarity dropped and instead of descending to 4 sets in 1976 they would have held on to more seats if they had not been “on the short end of the FPTP stick”.
    But actually perhaps FPTP allowed them to hang on to power an extra decade.
    Perhaps with PR even just in cities, they might have been thrust from power tht much sooner. Even by 1955 they had already been in power for 20 continuous years! in 1955 and again in 1967 they took less than half the votes so were not proportionally due a majority of seats. It was FPTP that kept them in power, or at least it is fair to say that under full PR they would not have had majority government in those elections. if their grip on power had been loosened in 1955, Social Credit likely would have started experiencing a continuing drop in voter appeal.
    I would like to direct interested readers to check out my blogsite Montopedia (wix.site) for hundreds of articles about PR and Canada’s use of alternative voting systems.

  2. […] Read more: Alberta Had Proportional Representation: Why’d We Give It Up? […]

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Fair Vote Canada - Edmonton Chapter

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading