Wards vs At Large Systems
An examination of the differences, benefits and disadvantages of a ward system vs an at-large system by conducting a comparative analysis between two cities that held their own plebiscites.
The Ward Systems
Alberta has two types of ward systems within the province: the municipal style, seen in Calgary and Edmonton, Alberta’s two largest cities, and the county-level wards, which include municipalities of Sherwood Park and Fort McMurray. Even school boards vary in how they are organized, between ward-based or at-large systems, though school boards tend to align more with counties in their geographical makeup.
What is a ward system?
The ward system is a form of representative government. It is used in local government elections in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Sri Lanka, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The primary purpose of the ward system is to provide a means of representation for local communities within a larger municipal government. By dividing the city into smaller, more manageable units, the ward system allows for more localized representation and a more direct connection between citizens and their elected officials.
In Alberta, a councillor is not required to reside in the ward they seek to represent. This allows candidates to compete in any ward they choose, as long as they are a resident of the city in which they are running.
What is an at-large system?
An at-large system refers to a type of election system where candidates run for office across an entire city, county, or jurisdiction. In this system, candidates are elected by the collective vote of all eligible voters within that geographical boundary. The candidates who get the most votes from the entire area win.
The debate over which system is best has been ongoing since well before the founding of the province of Alberta. But which system is better? The answer depends on the question being asked. For example:
Which system provides better representation by bringing the representative closer to their constituents?
The answer to this question can depend on the size of the municipality. In smaller municipalities, communities are more closely knit, and people tend to know their councilors more personally—perhaps they are neighbors, or their children attend the same school or participate in the same sports. However, as municipalities grow, the sense of community connection begins to diminish. With growth, municipalities see the emergence of more distinct communities, and the zoning of neighborhoods becomes a necessary layer for cities to manage their affairs more effectively.
At what point do citizens stop saying, "I live in this town," and start saying, "I live in the northeast part of this town"?
At what point does a municipality transition from having one police detachment or fire hall to having multiple detachments, each serving specific communities within the city?
It’s a natural progression for municipalities to evolve into a zoned structure as they reach a certain geographical size and population. So, why don't city councils follow this same evolution?
Ward Pros and Cons
Former and current councilors have been asked their views on the question of wards, and while the answers vary, a few common themes emerged for not supporting a ward system:
The cost of implementing and maintaining a ward system. Wards require ongoing maintenance, including redrawing boundaries, conducting censuses, and managing the election process, which involves printing multiple ballots to reflect the candidates within each ward.
Concerns that councilors may prioritize the interests of their ward over those of the city as a whole when voting on decisions—something explicitly prohibited by the Alberta Municipal Act.
Many councilors have also expressed support for a ward system, citing various reasons, such as:.
Proper representation for their constituents at a more local level. This would eliminate confusion citizens may face when determining which councilor to contact when they need to connect with their representative.
Increased accountability for the electorate. Councilors would no longer be able to blend into a group of at-large councilors when facing grievances from their constituents.
Simpler election choices for voters, as they wouldn’t be overwhelmed by a long list of candidates, making it easier to make an informed choice.
A ward system has been shown to reduce the number of acclaimed candidates due to increased competition, since only one candidate, rather than multiple, would have the potential to win.
At-large pros and cons
Pros
Councilors advocate for the needs of the entire city rather than just a subsection of the community. As stated in the Municipal Act, S153(a), councilors have a duty to consider the welfare and interests of the municipality as a whole, though this applies to ward systems as well.
It can foster a sense of unity within the jurisdiction, as all representatives are accountable to the entire population. This can potentially reduce conflicts or rivalries within the area.
Cons
Incumbency is more common, as at-large systems make it challenging for candidates to canvas an entire city, a difficulty that increases as the municipality grows.
Voters may struggle to make informed choices, as they need to research a large pool of candidates, which can sometimes include over 30 individuals.
The Jam Study
An example of the challenge of candidate selection in an at-large system can be illustrated by the "jam study." In 2000, Sheena S. Iyengar and Mark R. Lepper of Columbia and Stanford University conducted two studies to examine whether too much choice can lead to "choice paralysis." In the first study, they offered jam samples at a grocery store. Initially, customers were presented with six types of jam. Later, they were offered 24 types of jam. The results showed that "30 percent of the people who sampled from the small assortment decided to buy jam, while only 3 percent of those confronted with the two dozen jams purchased a jar."
In the second study, 197 students were given the opportunity to write a two-page essay as an extra-credit assignment. Students were offered either 6 or 30 potential essay topics to choose from. Of the 70 students assigned to the limited-choice condition, 74% completed the assignment. In contrast, only 60% of the 123 students in the extensive-choice condition chose to complete the assignment. While we like having options, too much choice can overwhelm us, leading to difficulty in making decisions and resulting in "choice paralysis."
Undervotes
Comparing ward systems with at-large systems reveals differences in how the electorate votes during elections. For example, in ward systems, the number of votes cast in an election for mayor and councilors is almost equal. In at-large systems, however, undervotes are frequent, especially when comparing the number of votes cast for councilors to those cast for mayor.
The reasons for this are not always clear and may never be fully understood, but undervotes are a common occurrence in all at-large systems. An undervote happens when fewer than the permitted number of votes are cast. For example, if the ballot allows a maximum of four candidate selections and the voter chooses only two, this results in two undervotes. Importantly, all votes that are cast are still counted.
One possible explanation for undervotes is strategic voting, where a voter selects only one or two candidates in an effort to improve those candidates' chances of winning by not increasing the competition. It’s also reasonable to assume that some electors may feel overwhelmed by the number of candidates and may only select names they recognize. Similarly, some voters might fill out the ballot with names because they feel compelled to complete it.
A comparative analysis
Historical election data between Calgary and Lethbridge was collected and compared to their overlapping provincial districts in order to determine if the voter turnout maintained the trend of the cities provincial counterparts. The Calgary comparison shows that over the last 7 election cycles, the voter turnout has maintained a trend similar to the provincial counterpart. However the same comparison for Lethbridge shows the trend of voter turnout remains relatively flat when compared to the provincial counterpart. This provides further merit to the argument that a ward system improves voter turnout.
What solved it better?
When comparing the merits of at-large versus ward systems, the specific question being asked can lead to different conclusions.
For example, considering recent events in Calgary—such as blanket rezoning, the water main break, and the Green Line project—would these issues have been managed differently under an at-large system?
In Red Deer, where complaints of underrepresentation in the northern part of the city have persisted for some time, could a ward system help address this issue?
And what about minority groups? They often cluster in specific areas of the city rather than being evenly distributed. How might they be best represented?
When it comes to approving the financial investments involved in large projects, like building recreational facilities or upgrading infrastructure, which system—at-large or ward—would be more effective in addressing these concerns?
Cities that use a ward system
Some municipalities throughout Canada, with varying populations, have adopted the ward system.
In Saskatchewan:
Regina, with a population of 228,928, has 10 wards ranging from 22,000 to 27,000 residents each.
Saskatoon, with a population of 273,010, has 10 wards ranging from 25,690 to 31,399 residents each.
Prince Albert, with a population of 37,756, has 8 wards ranging from 4,800 to 5,100 residents each.
In Manitoba:
Brandon, with a population of 51,313, has 8 wards ranging from 4,700 to 5,400 residents each.
Winnipeg, with a population of 749,534, has 15 wards ranging from 44,000 to 51,000 residents each.
A plebiscite for wards
The idea of implementing a plebiscite has been adopted by at least two municipalities in Alberta to ask the public whether they would like to change their city’s representation to a ward system.
In the case of a plebiscite on a ward system, the need for a public education campaign to inform voters about the implications of each system, and whether the electorate has enough information to make an informed decision, has been highlighted by various councilors across different municipalities as an important factor.
In Alberta, there have been two plebiscites on this issue: one in Red Deer during the 2013 election, and one in Lethbridge during the 2021 election.
The Lethbridge question asked, “Do you support using a ward system to elect City Councillors starting with the 2025 municipal election?”
In Red Deer, the council approved the addition of a question on the ballot that asked voters, “Do you want the city of Red Deer divided into wards?”
Red Deer voters were given two choices:
No, I want to keep voting for Council candidates for the whole city, not just the area where I live.
Yes, I want to be able to vote for the Council candidates who run in the area I live in (my ward).
In Red Deer, the plebiscite was defeated, with 71.7% of voters saying no to the non-binding question approved by the council in May of that year. The topic of a ward system had been debated twice previously by Red Deer council, in 2012 and again in April 2013, both times the motions being defeated.
In Lethbridge, the 2021 plebiscite was approved by the public, with 55.7% of voters saying yes to the non-binding question. However, even with public support, the newly elected council voted 7-2 to rescind the decision to explore a ward system and instead adopted a precinct model of four sections.
A tale of two cities
What was different between the two municipalities that led to vastly different results when asked whether to adopt a ward system? Besides nearly a decade between the election questions, another key difference was public education. In Lethbridge, there was regular media coverage on the council’s vote to proceed with the ward report. Many residents and media outlets had time to absorb and report on the decision leading up to the 2021 election.
In Red Deer, the decision was voted down twice by city council before being revived just six months before the 2013 election. This left little time for a public awareness campaign, and the brochure provided by the city was ambiguous in its explanation of what a ward system entailed. The question remains: was the Red Deer public adequately prepared and educated on what a ward system would mean for residents?
If media coverage is a measure of public education, it appears that Red Deer was advised against the ward system, as reported by the Red Deer Express. In contrast, Lethbridge media provided the public with a more balanced assessment.
What can be said with certainty is that the debate over a ward system is far from over in these two cities. As recently as September 2024, Red Deer council debated the topic again and voted it down 7-2. Meanwhile, in Lethbridge, some members of the community are not willing to take no for an answer and have initiated a petition calling on the city council to honor the plebiscite vote and move forward with a ward system.