The Ontario Enigma of 1879
(Or when the math simply doesn't make sense)

by Maurice Y. Michaud (he/him)

The first-past-the-post electoral system is prone to yielding odd results, but those from the 1879 Ontario general election defy comprehension. This was not a "wrong winner" election, whereby the party with the most votes does not get to form government. Rather, it was a case where, with only 2 more votes province-wide, the Liberal Party managed to obtain 26 more seats than the Conservative Party. Most reasonable person would have expected that if the two parties were in a dead heat, the seat count should have been relatively close.

Complicating matters is how party lines were not firm in the 19th century as they are today. Candidates did not need to obtain the party's nomination to run in a riding; they merely declared themselves "Liberal" or "Conservative." That is why more than one candidate for the same party could be running for a seat. That said, the Conservatives still fell short in the seat count despite running seven more candidates than the Liberals.

So what could possibly explain the Ontario Conservatives' fate in 1879? Was there a third party that acted as the spoiler? Coming to an answer is an exercise in speculation and is by no means definitive, but let's try on a few theses for size.
 

Thesis I: There was a spoiler party

That thesis doesn't hold because, aside from the 19 independent candidates, there were only three who were neither Liberal nor Conservative: two were Independent Conservatives and won their seat, and one was Labour and he lost his seat... to a Conservative.
 

Thesis I: The independents were the spoilers

Nineteen candidates ran as independents. Together they got 8,085 votes (or 3.26%); none of them won. Moreover, in the 12 ridings where independents were running, the Conservative or Independent Conservative won, except in Oxford South. There, two independents were running against the Liberal winner, Adams Crooks, but the sum of their votes was less than Crooks' plurality. So the independents can't be blamed for the Conservatives' woes.
 

Thesis III: It's Nobody's fault!

That's a thesis worth exploring, although it can't be proven as categorically as a classic vote splitting incident can. It goes on the premise that when voter turnout dips below 72%, the chances that the number of uncast ballots exceeds the number of votes the winner received, meaning that the de facto winner is Nobody. In this particular election, there were 39 cases where Nobody won, but the turnout was below 72% in the majority of ridings. Therefore, what could have been the impact of having a 75% turnout in those ridings where the Conservatives didn't win?

To find the answer, let's:

Thus we could say that there might have been 12 differences.

Size of major portion to give to  LC   1/ 2 ( 50%) 11/20 ( 55%)  3/ 5 ( 60%)  2/ 3 ( 67%)  7/10 ( 70%)  3/ 4 ( 75%)  4/ 5 ( 80%)  9/10 ( 90%)  1/ 1 (100%)
Riding		Eligible & Participation			LC				LIB
Election →					32				56
1.	Addington  LIB  Hammel M. Deroche 1,531 → 51.20% +72	4,519	66.17% → 75.00% →	2,990 +398 3,388	1,459 +239 1,698	→ → →	48.80% +60.00% 50.12%	+8	1,531 +159 1,690	→ → →	51.20% +40.00% 49.88%
2.	Brockville  LIB  Christopher F. Fraser 1,379 → 52.14% +113	4,384	60.33% → 75.00% →	2,645 +642 3,287	1,266 +385 1,651	→ → →	47.86% +60.00% 50.23%	+15	1,379 +257 1,636	→ → →	52.14% +40.00% 49.77%
3.	Elgin West  LIB  John H. Cascaden 1,257 → 50.22% +11	3,562	70.27% → 75.00% →	2,503 +168 2,671	1,246 +101 1,347	→ → →	49.78% +60.00% 50.43%	+23	1,257 +67 1,324	→ → →	50.22% +40.00% 49.57%
4.	Halton  LIB  David Robertson 1,765 → 50.46% +32	5,250	66.63% → 75.00% →	3,498 +438 3,936	1,733 +263 1,996	→ → →	49.54% +60.00% 50.71%	+56	1,765 +175 1,940	→ → →	50.46% +40.00% 49.29%
5.	Hamilton  LIB  John M. Gibson 2,240 → 50.70% +62	7,479	59.07% → 75.00% →	4,418 +1,190 5,608	2,178 +714 2,892	→ → →	49.30% +60.00% 51.57%	+176	2,240 +476 2,716	→ → →	50.70% +40.00% 48.43%
6.	Huron East  LIB  Thomas Gibson 1,924 → 50.74% +56	5,515	68.76% → 75.00% →	3,792 +343 4,135	1,868 +206 2,074	→ → →	49.26% +60.00% 50.16%	+13	1,924 +137 2,061	→ → →	50.74% +40.00% 49.84%
7.	Kent West  LIB  Edward Robinson 1,343 → 52.69% +137	5,438	46.87% → 75.00% →	2,549 +1,528 4,077	1,206 +917 2,123	→ → →	47.31% +60.00% 52.07%	+169	1,343 +611 1,954	→ → →	52.69% +40.00% 47.93%
8.	Lennox  LIB  George D. Hawley 1,231 → 50.20% +10	3,910	62.71% → 75.00% →	2,452 +480 2,932	1,221 +288 1,509	→ → →	49.80% +60.00% 51.47%	+86	1,231 +192 1,423	→ → →	50.20% +40.00% 48.53%
9.	Lincoln  LIB  Sylvester Neelon 2,222 → 50.79% +69	6,410	68.25% → 75.00% →	4,375 +432 4,807	2,153 +259 2,412	→ → →	49.21% +60.00% 50.18%	+17	2,222 +173 2,395	→ → →	50.79% +40.00% 49.82%
10.	Northumberland West  LIB  John C. Field 1,333 → 50.40% +21	4,036	65.54% → 75.00% →	2,645 +381 3,026	1,312 +229 1,541	→ → →	49.60% +60.00% 50.93%	+56	1,333 +152 1,485	→ → →	50.40% +40.00% 49.07%
11.	Perth North  LIB  David D. Hay 2,396 → 50.18% +17	7,080	67.44% → 75.00% →	4,775 +535 5,310	2,379 +321 2,700	→ → →	49.82% +60.00% 50.85%	+90	2,396 +214 2,610	→ → →	50.18% +40.00% 49.15%
12.	York West  LIB  Peter Patterson 1,268 → 51.21% +60	3,920	63.16% → 75.00% →	2,476 +463 2,939	1,208 +278 1,486	→ → →	48.79% +60.00% 50.56%	+33	1,268 +185 1,453	→ → →	51.21% +40.00% 49.44%
Redistribution →					44				44

The result is shocking: 6,998 more votes in 12 ridings, with 3 in 5 of those going to the Conservatives, might have led to a tie. This is pure theory based on many assumptions, but it shows that, of those 12 ridings:

• The largest real Liberal plurality — 137 votes — belonged to Edward Robinson in Kent West, but
• the largest theoretical Conservative plurality — 176 votes — would have belonged to someone named Murray in Hamilton.
• The smallest real Liberal plurality — 10 votes — belonged to George Hawley in Lennox, but
• the smallest theoretical Conservative plurality — 8 votes — would have belonged to George Denison in Addington, who would win the seat in the next general election in 1883.

With this model, the more we increase the portion given to the Conservatives, the more the distor­tion in the number of seats manifests itself, but in favour of the Conservatives rather than the Liberals (as in fact occurred in this election). But, we can certainly draw two conclusions:

1. The more voter turnout is low, the greater the chances are that the seat count will be lopsided in favour of the winner.
2. Moreover, this should prove to those who think that their vote doesn't count that they are very, very wrong.

It would have mattered in 1879, and it matters in 2024. Too bad you can no longer ask Frank Calder!

---