1926 Ontario general election

Canadian provincial election September 2023 1926 Ontario general election Ontario 1921 parliamentary no no no 1923 Ontario general election 1923 1929 Ontario general election 1929 112 seats in the 17th Legislative Assembly of Ontario 57 seats were needed for a majority December 1, 1926 150x150px ON Conservative nohash George Howard Ferguson December 2, 1920 ON Conservative name Grenville 75 72 3 57.6% 7.8pp LIB ON Liberal nohash W.E.N. Sinclair 1923 ON Liberal name Ontario South 14 14 17.2% 4.1pp 150x150px ON Progressive nohash William Raney January 1925 CA Progressive name Prince Edward split from UFO 10 10 6.3% – UFO ON United Farmers nohash Leslie Oke - ON United Farmers name Lambton East 17 3 14 1.3% 19.8pp Premier Premier after election G. Howard Ferguson ON Conservative name G. Howard Ferguson ON Conservative name elected members outgoing members The 1926 Ontario general election, frequently referred to as the temperance election, was the 17th general election held to determine the government for the Province of Ontario, Canada. It was held on December 1, 1926, to elect the 112 Members of the 17th Legislative Assembly of Ontario ("MLAs").1926 General Election https://results.elections.on.ca/en/data-explorer?fromYear=1867&toYear=2021&electionId=216&levelOfDetail=election Elections Ontario January 3, 2021 The election was predominantly contested over the government's proposal to replace prohibition with a government operated alcohol sales regime. The incumbent Conservative government, led by Premier Howard Ferguson, was re-elected for a second term in government with a majority mandate. Background Two elections prior, the 1919 election, brought a complete realignment of political landscape in Ontario. It ended the Conservative-Liberal duopoly that persisted for the first half century of Ontario's existence. In that election, the new United Farmers of Ontario unexpectedly won two-fifth of the seats with only a fifth of the votes, and form a coalition government with the Labour Party, another party that had never entered government prior. The incumbent Conservative was render to third party status and the sitting Premier lost his own seat, the first occurrence of either of those events in Ontario, even though they actually won the largest share of the popular vote and by a sizable margin. The impact of that election continued to linger for the players in the 1926 election. Partisan dynamics Premier Ferguson was first elected in the 1905 election that ousted a three decade-old Liberal government and gave the province its first true Conservative administration led by James Whitney, and was recognized as a highly capable minister in the Hearst ministry and a skillful political organizer for the party, so much so he was entrusted to manage the party campaign in the disastrous 1919 election. When he was given the task to rebuilt the party from the 1919 rubble in 1920, he was viewed, even by some peers in his party, in those early days with scepticism and suspicion, as he had developed a reputation of being too establishment, too Machiavellian, too flexible, likely corruptible. Once in government however, he quickly converted the doubters by presiding over a competent and pragmatic administration while running an efficient and disciplined political machine. The Liberals, with their hopes of returning to power dashed in that 1919 election took a different route. They acted on their misgiving on their leader Hartley Dewart, a long-time nemesis of Ferguson, blaming him for devoting too much fire power on the Conservatives, on attacking Ferguson and on winning new grounds in the cities. Dewart was also against prohibition, openly questioned its unconstitutionality long before Ferguson ceased the issue. The Liberals pushing him out likely have removed a potent future rival for Ferguson. They leaned back on their rural base was led by Perth MPP Wellington Hay into the 1923 campaign, during which they lost half their seats, including Hay's. A dispirited rump, they entered the 1926 election being led by the lackluster interim leader W. E. N. Sinclair. After losing the 1923 election after only one term in government, UFO general secretary James J. Morrison announced the organization's withdrawal from electoral politics without consulting the UFO parliamentary caucus. The party apparatus led by Morrison were often in dispute with the parliamentary wing during UFO's time in government. Fully recognizing that Sinclair would make a much weaker rival, Ferguson shrewdly exploited the infighting within UFO and blocked its leader Manning Doherty from becoming opposition leader citing Morrison's statement. In response, and probably pinning their hope in the federal Progressive in the 1921 election, the UFO caucus rebranded as the Progressive Party's Ontario wing. However following Doherty's retirement and the selection of former Attorney-General William Edgar Raney as leader, two of its member, Leslie Oke and Beniah Bowman, split from the group, and returned to their previous designation as United Farmers. Bowman resigned before the 1926 election. The distinction was largely ignored by the mainstream press in any event. While news reports would acknowledge Oke and candidates recruited by him as Farmers candidate, they were counted in the Progressive Party's tally in post election reports. Temperance election The principal issue of the campaign was the government's proposal to repeal the Ontario Temperance Act, replacing prohibition with government control of liquor sales. The Daily British Whig described it as "the greatest issue that has ever been placed before [the voters]". https://www.tvo.org/article/booze-bullying-and-moral-panic-the-temperance-election-of-1926 Booze, bullying, and moral panic: The temperance election of 1926 Bradburn Jamie May 9, 2018 tvo.org TV Ontario The issue pit the government against a united front of the two opposition parties the Ontario Prohibition Union. Temperance advocates were particularly incensed by such a proposal so soon after the 1924 Ontario prohibition referendum where the temperance side secured a narrow victory. The overlooked the political considerations that confronted Ferguson. The large cities, the bedrock of Conservative support, all voted overwhelmingly wet, while rural area where the opposition drew their strength predominantly voted dry.1926-12-02 How Ontario Voted in 1924 Plebiscite The Globe 7 The referendum made repealing prohibition both a policy and political imperative for the premier. Additional labels But the parties' positions respective positions were not uniformly shared within their ranks. For example, the fission in the Liberal caucus led four francophone caucus member to campaign under the banner of Independent Liberals to signal to voters that their intention to support the government on the issue, but would vote with their Liberal peers for everything else. The issue causes problems for conservative members as well, as many have pleaded dry to their local community during the referendum. Ferguson's attorney general, William Folger Nickle, of the Nickle Resolution's fame a few years prior as an MP, stood on principal and resigned from cabinet on the eve of dissolution. He sought re-election under the Prohibition Union's banner in Kingston and was soundly defeated, an unsurprising result given the wet side won Kingston by 15 points in the referendum. A new political party? The government proposal also forced the Ontario Prohibition Union, the leading pro-temperance platform and already a militant issue-focused lobby, to operate more like a political party. While they opted not to field "straight dry" candidates in all electoral districts as some of their leading members had advocated, they played an aggressive brokering role in ensuring the presence of a single strong candidate pledged to the dry cause in every electoral districts. In twenty-seven electoral districts they fielded straight prohibitionist candidates. Outside of Toronto, those candidates were all but in one instance the only opposition candidate in the field. (In Toronto and the one exception, Nipissing, the Liberal candidates in the field were wet, so any risk of vote split was on the wet side.) In a majority of the districts, the union was a key player in brokering agreements among pro-temperance candidates, whether through heavy handed pressure tactic or by facilitating formal public primary ballots. In a small number of districts, they even backed dry Conservative candidates. Some of the candidates endorsed by the Union sought to highlight the endorsement by campaigning under hyphenated-prohibitionist labels, including two elected members who campaigned as Liberal-Prohibitionists and one another who campaigned as Farmer-Prohibitionist. The two main opposition parties mostly avoided campaigning against each other so to minimize the split of the temperance vote.Canadian Annual Review 1927 309 The polarized nature of this election also caused some local Liberal and Progressive associations to formally endorse the candidate for the other party in the district. About a dozen candidates campaiged as Liberal-Progressives or Progressive-Liberals. Four of them, the pair in Oxford county and the pair in Victoria county, were successful in their bids. November 1, 1926 Fusionist Chosen https://news.ourontario.ca/3777592/page/4711453 Oshawa Daily Reformer 8Newman would later join the Liberal caucus in January 1927, upon being instructed by the Clerk of the Legislature to make a choice as to which leader to sit behind. He had wanted to remain a member of the Liberal-Progressive group. J.H. Mitchell (Simcoe Southwest) joined him in the move, saying that he "has always been a Liberal". January 14, 1927 Simcoe Member to back Sinclair https://news.ourontario.ca/3777653/page/4712264 Oshawa Daily Reformer 1 The presence of jointly nominated candidates left some residual issues to be resolved at the convening of the parliament. The controverted election case that ultimately unseated Malcolm Alex McCallum, the Progressive members re-elected in Bruce South, paint a vivid picture of the Prohibition Union's aggressive role in narrowing the field. It was revealed during the trial that that Dr. A.J. Irwin, the president of the Ontario Prohibition Union (who was a public figure more prominent than most of the elected members due to his role as spokesman for the union) personally arranged multiple meetings convening the various pro-temperance candidates in Bruce county. The Union's South Bruce chapter president offered both the Liberal candidate John Anderson, a former MPP, and McCallum, the Progressive candidate and the incumbent MPP to reimburse their campaign expenses if they would withdraw in his favour, and was the primary driving force in actions that was the undoing of McCallum.Re South Bruce Provincial Election, Johnston v. McCallum 1927 onsc 818 canlii [1927] 4 DLR 412 1927-07-16 Ontario Supreme Court McCallum was the only elected member unseated from the 17th Parliament by court proceedings.. + Contests featuring candidates carrying different banners., by number of candidates (1926) CandidatesConLibProgL-PUFOLabI-ConI-LibInd-ProgProhLLL-ProhLLPTotal13 3290 37 13 10 3 2 1 1 1 20 2 3 1 184317 8 3 1 3 6 1 5 1 4541 1 1 1 451 1 2 1 5Total112 48 16 10 4 3 7 7 2 27 2 3 1 241 Acclamation Three Conservatives were acclaimed, including a cabinet member, mines minister Charles McCrea. The acclamation of Addington member William Black, who became speaker of this parliament, was a peculiar example of democracy denied by inadvertent errors and poorly drafted election law. The returning officers in that that instance erroneously ruled the candidate Frank Anglin's nomination paper to be invalid, and declared Black elected by acclamation at the close of nomination. Anglin sought to overturn the decision in the Ontario Supreme Court, which had no difficulty finding his nomination should have been accepted, a finding not contested by Black or the returning officer.1926-11-27 RETURNING OFFICER MADE A MISTAKE In Declaring W. D. Black Elected, Justice Rose's Judgment Holds. The British Whig 20 The returning officer actually sought the Court's permission to invalidate his own decision and conduct a by-election. However, since nominations was closed and Black was formally acclaimed, the Court's jurisdiction to overturn the acclamation was limited to a controverted election, which required the existence of corrupted election practice to establish.Re Addington Election, 1926 CanLII 320 (ON SC) onsc 1926 canlii 320 [1927] 1 DLR 188 1926-11-25 Ontario Supreme Court Therefore, even thought none of the parties involved disputed that Black was acclaimed in error, the law as existed then provided no means for its correction. Riding Party Candidate ReasonCanadian Annual Review 1927 308-309Addington William David BlackNomination of F.A. Anglin (Prohibitionist) erroneously rejected by returning officerEssex North Paul PoissonE.P. Tellier (Liberal and incumbent MLA) withdrew his nominationSudbury Charles McCrea Sole nominee Pre-election vacancy When the legislature was dissolved, ten of its seat were vacant. Six of those seats had been vacant for over a year and a half, as those members left to contest the 1925 election, with two more leaving in advance of the 1926 contest. Where there were laws requiring byelections to be held, there was no central electoral authority at the time, and the duty of organizing polls felled on the shoulder of local returning officer. Since all but one of the resigned members were opposition members, Ferguson was in no hurry of filling them. With cooperation from the speaker, he was able to defer calling those byelections by leaving the returning offices also vacant. The seats that were vacant at dissolution were: Vacant since April 1925 (6) Held by Liberals: Cochrane Held by Progressives: Kenora, Kent East, Norfolk North Held by Labour: Kenora Held by Conservative: Simcoe SouthVacant since August 1925 (1) Held by Conservative: London Vacant since April 1926 (2) Held by Progressives: Manitoulin, Middlesex East Vacant since October 1926 (1) Held by Liberal: Kent West Redistribution of seats thumb|Toronto ridings, as constituted in 1914 thumb|Toronto ridings as reconstituted in 1926 Redistribution legislations were passed in 1925 and 1926 to realign various electoral districts.The Representation Act, 1925 15 George V (1925) 7 https://archive.org/details/statutesofprovin1925onta/page/8/mode/2upThe Representation Act, 1926 S.O. 1926 2 https://archive.org/details/statutesofprovin1926onta/page/n15/mode/2up While the two acts only netted an increase of 1 seat overall in the legislature, they effected significant rebalancing of seat allocations, shifting seats from rural areas where population growth have been stagnant to cities that have experienced rapid population growth. Toronto and York Township The City of Toronto, a reliable Conservative bastion in the early 1900s, grew both its population and its geographically size dramatically in the first two decades of the twentieth century. In the 1926 round of the redistribution, the four dual-member electoral districts in Toronto (a feature introduced in 1908 for purpose of gerrymandering and one that was increasingly untenable), were abolished and replaced by single-member seats. New seats were also created for the area newly annexed from York Township. The city's delegation to the provincial legislature jump from ten seats to fifteen seats, while the delegation of its surrounding York Township's delegation grew from three to four. Elsewhere in Ontario Toronto was not the only city that gain seats however. Ottawa, Hamilton, London, and Windsor each gain an additional seat, along with the Cochrane District in the Northeast. Since the legislature only grew by one seats, the cities' gains translated to significant losses of representation to the rural areas. The change reflected the rapid urbanization of Ontario's population in the early decades of the twentieth century. The rural area of southwestern and midwestern Ontario, the driver of Ontario's population growth for much of the nineteenth century, experienced the steepest reduction in representation. The countries of Grey, Bruce, Huron, Middlesex, and Wellington were all reduced from three to two, while Norfolk was reduced from two to one. Raney complained that the net effect of the redistribution was to transfer up to 11 seats from rural to urban voters, and thus "to secure the re-election of the Ferguson Government".Canadian Annual Review 1927 306 While he was correct in his assessments of the effect, and his grievance entirely unsurprising given the Progressive Party was the biggest beneficiary of rural area being overrepresented. His criticism however had no merit from a representation-by-population stand point. If anything, the redistribution did not go far enough in providing urban areas their fair share of representation.When measured against the 1921 census. Case in point. The five rural counties in southwestern Ontario that lost a third of their seats - Huron, Grey, Bruce, Middlesex, and Wellington - together accounted for 8.5% of the province's population according to 1921 census. With 10 seats, they were holding 8.9% in a house of 112, and therefore were still slightly over-represented. Toronto & York Township accounted for 22% of the province's population in 1921. With 18 seats between them, they were still under-represented by 6 seats. In driving the wedge between rural and urban, he overlooked a point for which criticism can be justified, which is the unevenness of the redistribution. The rural southwest, where the Progressive Party and the Liberal Party remained strong, had their representation brought down to numbers more proportionate to their population, while the rural area in the eastern part of the province, where the Conservative had more residual pockets of strength, continued to be wildly over represented.A case in point would be Raney's own newly acquired Prince Edward, with a population that accounted for 0.57% of the province population, making it a prime candidate for merger, especially given its neighbor Lennox and Addington district was in a similar situation. Yet they continued to each be represented by their own members. General RegionElectoral districteffectPre-redistributionprocessPost-redistributionToronto & York 5Toronto Northwest, Toronto SouthwestreorganizedBellwoods, Dovercourt, St. Andrew-1Toronto Northeast, Toronto SoutheastRiverdalereorganizedSt. Patrick,Also took in sliver of Toronto Southwest St. George,Originally named Sherbourne in the 1925 Act; subsequently renamed in the 1926 Act. St. DavidRiverdale, Greenwood0Parkdaleportions removedto create BrocktonAlso took in slivers of Toronto Northwest and Toronto Southwest1York Westportions removedto create High Park, York South2York Eastportions removedto create Beaches, Eglinton,From York East and York WestWoodbineAlso took in portions of Riverdale3North 1CochranedividedCochrane North, Cochrane South1East 1Ottawa WestdividedOttawa North, Ottawa South1Southeastern -2Frontenac, LennoxmergedFrontenac—Lennox-1Northumberland East, Northumberland West mergedNorthumberland-1Peterborough East, Peterborough West reorganizedPeterborough City, Peterborough County0Central 0Durham East and Durham West mergedDurham-1Simcoe South, Simcoe WestmergedSimcoe Southwest-1Hamilton East, Hamilton Westportions removedto create Hamilton Centre 1Midwestern -5Brant, Brant SouthreorganizedBrant County, Brantford0Bruce Westeliminateddistributed to Bruce North, Bruce South-1Grey Centreeliminateddistributed to Grey North, Grey South-1Huron Centre eliminateddistributed to Huron North and Huron South-1Norfolk North, Norfolk SouthmergedNorfolk-1Wellington East, Wellington WestmergedWellington Northeast-1Southwest 1LondondividedLondon North, London South1Middlesex East eliminateddistributed to Middlesex North, Middlesex West-1WindsordividedWindsor East, Windsor West1 a Election outcome The Ontario Conservative Party, led by Howard Ferguson, was re-elected for a second term in government. There were several disputes in the selection of candidates: in Port Arthur, Donald Hogarth was one of two Conservative candidatesthe other being the incumbent Francis Keeferwho were selected in parallel meetings arising from a dispute over the validity of the list of delegates. November 11, 1926 Two Conservatives Run Same Riding https://news.ourontario.ca/3777600/page/4711549 Oshawa Daily Reformer 2 The Ontario Liberal Party, led by W.E.N. Sinclair, obtained nineteen seats, inclusive of two Liberal Prohibitionists (one of them was initially erroneously reported by the press as a Liberal-Progressive) who were for all intents and purposes part of the Liberal caucus and four francophone Independent Liberals who could be count on to vote with their Liberal peers on matter other than temperance. Of the four members elected as Liberal-Progressives, one was a long standing Liberal endorsed by the local Progressive association, and more opted to sit with them, boasting their rank to twenty-one when the parliament convened in January 1927. The fracture of the UFO, together with a large number of resignations from MPPs (of which five chose to run federally in 1925, and two more in 1926) significantly changed the composition of the Assembly. The Progressives won eleven seats, inclusive of one who campaign as a Farmer-Prohibitionist, and one as Independent Progressive. Of the four that were elected as Liberal-Progressive, two were former UFO MPPs, both opted to sit with the Progressive with their former colleagues, boosting their rank to thirdteen Oke was the only United Farmers MPP at dissolution of the previous parliament and was re-elected as such. He was joined by Thomas Farquhar from Manitoulin and Farquhar Oliver from Grey South, the latter, the youngest member elected and later a Liberal Party leader, won with the assistance of federal MP Agnes MacPhail. Karl Homuth of Waterloo South was the only Labour MPP returned. His declared his intention to support the government during the campaign, and was admitted to the Conservative caucus soon after the election, leading to the end of the Labour's presence in the legislature. Summary of results The following is a high level summary of elections results, compiled using data made available by Elections OntarioElections Ontario Data Explorer (filtered to 1923 and 1926 elections, election level and party level results) https://results.elections.on.ca/en/data-explorer?fromYear=1923toYear=1926 Elections Ontario with additional adjustments (as noted with footnotes) based on information available from contemporaneous sources. Political party Leader Seats Votes1923Dissl At dissolution of 16th ParliamentCand. Number of candidates fielded 1926 change Changes were calculated based on the total of the party's tally and the tallies of its related categories.±Votes Share change± (pp) ON Conservative row-name||Howard Ferguson 75 74 112 72 -1 640,515 55.87% 7.86ON independent ON Conservative 1emIndependent Conservative – – 7 2 20,144 1.76% ON Liberal row-name||W.E.N. Sinclair 14 11 48 Newman William Newman (Victoria North) as a candidate/1926 elected re-assigned from Liberal to Liberal-Progressive - Newman formally contested the election as a fusion candidate, and expressed his wished to remain so, but was advised by clerk of the legislature that he must opt to sit behind one of the two leaders, upon which he declared for the Liberals. His vote tally of 3,207 also reallocated. 13 4LibProg Of the four members elected as Liberal-Progressive candidates, two of them, Newman and Scoot, opted to join the Liberal caucus and the other two, Sandy and Ross, joined their former colleagues in the Progressive caucus. 193,606 16.61% -1.85ON independent ON Liberal 1emIndependent Liberal IndLib Edmond Proulx's (Prescott) 1923 seat/dissolution seat re-assigned from Independent to Independent-Liberal - Proulx contested the 1923 election as an independent, defeating an official Liberal candidate, but joined the Liberals ranks in legislature and contested the 1926 election as an independent-Liberal. Counted here for comparasion purpose. 1 1 7 4 21,002 1.83% ON Liberal P 1emLiberal-Prohibitionist – – 3 LibPro John Henry Mitchell (Simcoe Southwest) as a candidate/1926 elected re-assigned from Liberal-Progressive to Liberal-Prohibitionist - is erroneously identified in official records as Liberal-Progressive due to press reports following election. Mitchell made repeated formal statements in early 1927 noting that he campaigned as a Liberal-Prohibitionist with the support but not formal endorsement of Simcoe Progressive, and confirming that he "(have) always been a Liberal".1927-01-14 HE'S NOT A DESERTER WAS ALWAYS LIBERAL; Did Not Seek Election to the Legislature as a Fusion Candidate Toronto Daily Star 15 He repeated this clarification in his maiden speech in the legislature.1927-02-16 Debate dragging in house, budget off until next week, eight new members heard in maiden effort yesterday Toronto Daily Star 4 Mitchell's vote tally of 5,779 also reallocated. 2 14,894 1.29%ON Labour ON Liberal 1emLiberal-Labour – – 2 0 4,633 0.40% ON Labour ON Liberal P 1emLib-Lab-Prohibitionist – – 1 0 2,298 0.20% ON Progressive row-name||William Raney17 11 16 FarmPro 9 -3LibProg 67,799 5.91% -12.9 United FarmersLeslie Oke 1 3 3 15,417 1.34%ON Progressive P 1emFarmer-Prohibitionist – – 1 FarmPro Thomas Slack (Dufferin) as a candidate/1926 elected re-assigned from Progressive to Farmer-Prohibitionist - Thomas Slack (Dufferin), a former UFO MPP, As a former UFO MPP, campaigned consistently as a "Farmer Prohibitionist" candidate in 1926 and was strongly supported by the local Prohibition Union,DENOUNCES FERGUSON GERRYMANDER SCHEME T. K. Slack, Dufferin Dry Can dicate, Invades Tory Op-ponent's Stronghold Toronto Daily Star 1926-11-30 36 and identified as a Progressive member instead of United Farmers following election.SLACK STIRS HOUSE BY SHARP CRITICISMS ON LAW ENFORCEMENT: Singles Oat Attorney-General for Attack Over Administration of O.T.A. and Claims That Alert Provincial Police Could Curb Flow of Liquor GOVERNMENT URGED TO AID PINE INDUSTRY SLACK STIRS HOUSE BY SHARP CRITICISMS ON LAW ENFORCEMENT: Singles Oat Attorney-General for Attack Over Administration of O.T.A. and Claims That Alert Provincial Police Could Curb Flow of Liquor GOVERNMENT URGED TO AID PINE INDUSTRY The Globe 1927-03-04 11 Slack's vote tally of 4,478 also re-allocated. 1 4,478 0.39% ON independent ON Progressive 1emIndependent Progressive – – 2 1 6,029 0.51% ON Liberal ON Progressive 1emLiberal-Progressive(joint endorsements) – – 9 LibProNewman4 46,047 4.02% ON Labour row-name||(ceased to be a formal party) 4 3 3 1 -3 14,794 1.29% -3.47 ON Independent row-name|| IndLib – – 1 – -1 2,912 0.25% -1.37 ON Prohibitionist row-name || A.J. IrwinRev Dr A.J. Irwin, a Methodist Church minister, was elected President of the Ontario Prohibition Union in January 1926Prohibitionists Demand Nominees in All Ridings Pledged to Temperance: Will Require Candidates lo Place Temperance Principles Above Party Loyalty in All Cases The Globe 1926-01-27 1 and was the primary spokesperson for the union throughout the campaign. However did not contest the election himself. The most prominent Prohibitionist candidate was William Nickle, who resigned as Attorney General over the issue and was unsuccessful in his re-election bid. The most senior official from the Union that stood was Treasurer Ralph Warren, who was the only candidate against the Conservative incumbent in Renfrew North. – – 27 0 new 92,435 8.06% newTotal 111 Ten seats were vacant.101 241 112 1,146,502193,410Rejected ballotsDeclined ballots6,123662-4570-2245Registered voters / total participation / turnout1,792,7571,153,28764.33%5.93 Ferguson's majority mandate undisputed, exact seat counts subject to debate Partisan affiliations were not recorded in contemporaneous formal election records. While formal nomination contests occurred within some political parties by this point, there were neither requirements nor possibilities for candidates to formally register their partisan affiliations.In Canada, it was not until the 1970s that the "option" of registration become available to political entities. While candidate endorsed by a registered party may have their political affiliation printed on federal election ballots since then, their inclusion on Ontario election ballots did not occur until 2007.Election Statute Law Amendment Act, 2007 S.O. 2007 15 37(3) https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/s07015 Affiliations data for elections in earlier time are drawn from records maintained by the Legislative Library, which were compiled decades after the fact. Even in contemporaneous reports, affiliations data were a mixture of both undisputed declaration (made by the candidates or the parties), assessments by third parties such as the press, and presumptions from other events such as acceptance of specific offices. Such data inevitably comes with some uncertainties, time lags, or inaccuracies, reflecting the lesser formality and permeance in partisan affiliation in that era. One should also keep in mind that it was possible for candidates to be endorsed by more than one party. With no legal requirement for registration, it was also possible for candidates to present themselves under slightly modified party banners for communications purposes, often with tacit concurrence of their party brass. These factors were particularly present in this election due to the focus on temperance. 17th Parliament of Ontario Election outcomeElection outcome Impact of the Prohibition Union The Ontario Prohibition Union was unsuccessful in getting any of their twenty-seven sanctioned candidates elected, not even the former Attorney General Nickle. But their impact was undeniable. Multi-cornered local contests had become the norms in Ontario elections upon the rise of United Farmer in 1919. In both the 1919 election and the 1923 elections less than half of the districts featured heading to head contests. (The same was true for Ontario electoral districts in the 1921 and 1925 federal elections), In this election however, the number of 2-way contests jumped up to 90. Only 19 contests featured three or more candidates. In those 19 contests, the presence of more than two candidates were mostly inconsequential to the temperance cause in any event, either because the winner won by more than half the votes, or because the potential for vote split existed on the wet side. The only contest where the presence of two dry candidates could have allowed a wet candidate to come up in the middle was Bruce North, a contest that also ended up in court in proceedings that were related to those mentioned above for Bruce South. The reduction of Bruce country from three to two seats pitted Bruce West Liberal incumbent Alexander Mewhinney against Bruce North Progressive incumbent William Fenton. Mewhinney was ultimately successful with 38% vote share, while Fenton with only 30% came in third behind the Conservative candidate. Despite being the one who could have played spoiler to the contest and a substantial margin behind, Fenton challenged Mewhinney's victory alleging federal trade minister James Malcolm, the MP for Bruce North, offered to secure him a federal appointment should he withdraw (an allegation the court gave little credence to for lack of any evidence), and that the existence of a resolution to reimburse the expense of any candidate who withdraw, a resolution which Fenton was a potential beneficiary. The court summarily dismissed Fenton's challenge and sustained Mewhinney's victory.Re North Bruce Provincial Election; Fenton v. Mewhinney onsc 1927 canlii 1927 [1927] 4 DLR 397 1927-07-16 Ontario Supreme Court Results – vote and seat summaries Ternary plots - shift of electoral support (1923-1926) 350 200 yes center Electoral districts identified by colours of winning parties File:Ternary ON1923.svg 1923 Ternary plot of 1923 results File:Ternary ON1926.svg 1926 Ternary plot of 1926 results Synopsis of local results : #EABB94 silver = incumbent switched allegiance for the election #ADD8E6 silver = not incumbent; previously elected as a UFO MLA #EEBBBB silver = not incumbent; previously elected as a Labour MLA #EEAAEE silver = not incumbent; previously elected as a Liberal-Temperance MLA lightgray silver = petition against election withdrawn lightyellow silver = petition against election dismissed #B9E5B9 silver = election declared void #F5F5DC silver = turnout is above provincial average #yellow silver = acclaimed + Results by riding - 1926 Ontario general electionCanadian Annual Review 1927 309-312https://results.elections.on.ca/en/data-explorer?fromYear=1867&toYear=2019&electionType=GE&electionId=216 1926 General Election elections.on.ca Elections Ontario August 3, 2023 EO data errors on political affiliations adjusted to conform with Canadian Annual Review listing 1928 Journals of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Ontario 62 https://archive.org/details/journalsoflegisl62ontauoft/page/n73/mode/2up 6–10 Riding Winning party Turnoutincluding spoilt ballots Votes#NameParty Votes Share Margin#Margin% Con Lib Proh Prohibitionist Prog Progressive L-Prog Liberal-Progressive UFO Labour I-Lib Independent-Liberal I-Con Independent-Conservative I-Prog Independent-Progressive L-Proh Liberal-Prohibitionist LL Liberal-Labour LLP Liberal-Labour-Prohibitionist Total   001 Addington Con acclaimed 002 Algoma Con 3,554 61.50% 1,329 23.00% 54.94% 3,554 – – 2,225 – – – – – – – – – 5,779 003 Brant County Prog 4,114 55.70% 842 11.40% 70.74% 3,272 – – 4,114 – – – – – – – – – 7,386 004 Brantford Con 7,751 55.73% 1,595 11.47% 71.11% 7,751 6,156 – – – – – – – – – – – 13,907 005 Brockville Con 4,881 60.69% 1,720 21.39% 71.92% 4,881 – 3,161 – – – – – – – – – – 8,042 006 Bruce North Lib 3,601 38.39% 663 7.07% 69.63% 2,938 3,601 – 2,840 – – – – – – – – – 9,379 007 Bruce South Prog 4,922 50.66% 128 1.32% 72.30% 4,794 – – 4,922 – – – – – – – – – 9,716 008 Carleton Con 4,530 60.18% 1,533 20.37% 61.02% 4,530 – – – 2,997 – – – – – – – – 7,527 009 Cochrane North Con 2,886 54.35% 462 8.70% 56.22% 2,886 – – – – – – 2,424 – – – – – 5,310 010 Cochrane South Con 5,124 68.17% 2,732 36.35% 38.49% 5,124 – – – – – – – – – – 2,392 – 7,516 011 Dufferin Prog 4,478 58.87% 1,349 17.73% 73.73% 3,129 – – 4,478 – – – – – – – – – 7,607 012 Dundas L-Proh 4,407 55.22% 833 10.44% 76.76% 3,574 – – – – – – – – – 4,407 – – 7,981 013 Durham Lib 6,639 55.27% 1,267 10.55% 73.87% 5,372 6,639 – – – – – – – – – – – 12,011 014 Elgin East Lib 4,122 55.51% 818 11.02% 71.48% 3,304 4,122 – – – – – – – – – – – 7,426 015 Elgin West Con 6,818 52.52% 655 5.05% 65.80% 6,818 6,163 – – – – – – – – – – – 12,981 016 Essex North Con acclaimed 017 Essex South Lib 4,560 51.20% 213 2.39% 65.34% 4,347 4,560 – – – – – – – – – – – 8,907 018 Fort William Con 5,286 76.10% 3,626 52.20% 50.56% 5,286 1,660 – – – – – – – – – – – 6,946 019 Frontenac—Lennox Lib 4,625 53.24% 563 6.48% 66.49% 4,062 4,625 – – – – – – – – – – – 8,687 020 Glengarry Con 4,442 63.17% 1,852 26.34% 63.81% 4,442 2,590 – – – – – – – – – – – 7,032 021 Grenville Con 4,617 58.02% 1,277 16.05% 75.71% 4,617 – 3,340 – – – – – – – – – – 7,957 022 Grey North Prog 8,423 63.95% 3,674 27.89% 67.85% 4,749 – – 8,423 – – – – – – – – – 13,172 023 Grey South UFO 7,100 54.45% 1,160 8.90% 72.16% 5,940 – – – – 7,100 – – – – – – – 13,040 024 Haldimand Lib 5,212 53.97% 767 7.94% 73.29% 4,445 5,212 – – – – – – – – – – – 9,657 025 Halton Con 6,164 51.53% 365 3.05% 73.34% 6,164 – – 5,799 – – – – – – – – – 11,963 026 Hamilton Centre Con 9,784 75.90% 7,094 55.03% 62.30% 9,784 2,690 – – – – 416 – – – – – – 12,890 027 Hamilton East Con 10,174 69.07% 5,617 38.13% 64.76% 10,174 4,557 – – – – – – – – – – – 14,731 028 Hamilton West Con 8,436 73.48% 5,392 46.97% 65.73% 8,436 3,044 – – – – – – – – – – – 11,480 029 Hastings East Con 3,983 62.68% 1,612 25.37% 67.43% 3,983 – 2,371 – – – – – – – – – – 6,354 030 Hastings North Con 4,008 67.23% 2,054 34.45% 60.92% 4,008 – 1,954 – – – – – – – – – – 5,962 031 Hastings West Con 6,273 61.96% 2,421 23.91% 70.54% 6,273 – 3,852 – – – – – – – – – – 10,125 032 Huron North Lib 6,386 58.97% 1,942 17.93% 73.57% 4,444 6,386 – – – – – – – – – – – 10,830 033 Huron South Prog 6,003 57.93% 1,644 15.87% 72.86% 4,359 – – 6,003 – – – – – – – – – 10,362 034 Kent East Prog 4,562 51.67% 1,252 14.18% 73.73% 3,310 957 – 4,562 – – – – – – – – – 8,829 035 Kent West Con 8,443 57.24% 2,135 14.47% 64.22% 8,443 6,308 – – – – – – – – – – – 14,751 036 Kenora Con 2,641 52.30% 400 7.92% 52.13% 2,641 – – – – – – – – 168 – 2,241 – 5,050 037 Kingston Con 6,705 60.45% 2,319 20.91% 76.05% 6,705 – 4,386 – – – – – – – – – – 11,091 038 Lambton East UFO 6,075 57.88% 1,654 15.76% 68.57% 4,421 – – – – 6,075 – – – – – – – 10,496 039 Lambton West Con 7,092 60.72% 2,504 21.44% 68.73% 7,092 – – 4,588 – – – – – – – – – 11,680 040 Lanark North Con 3,589 51.70% 236 3.40% 70.61% 3,589 – – – 3,353 – – – – – – – – 6,942 041 Lanark South Con 3,870 56.77% 923 13.54% 62.49% 3,870 2,947 – – – – – – – – – – – 6,817 042 Leeds Con 3,702 51.48% 213 2.96% 69.36% 3,702 3,489 – – – – – – – – – – – 7,191 043 Lincoln Prog 4,348 56.37% 983 12.74% 65.45% 3,365 – – 4,348 – – – – – – – – – 7,713 044 London North Con 7,763 61.83% 2,970 23.65% 60.55% 7,763 – 4,793 – – – – – – – – – – 12,556 045 London South Con 9,064 63.17% 3,779 26.34% 69.15% 9,064 – – – – – 5,285 – – – – – – 14,349 046 Manitoulin UFO 2,242 51.13% 99 2.26% 65.26% 2,143 – – – – 2,242 – – – – – – – 4,385 047 Middlesex North I-Prog 5,861 56.04% 1,264 12.09% 73.06% 4,597 – – – – – – – – 5,861 – – – 10,458 048 Middlesex West Prog 5,723 63.36% 2,413 26.71% 66.94% 3,310 – – 5,723 – – – – – – – – – 9,033 049 Muskoka Con 4,206 57.83% 1,139 15.66% 65.47% 4,206 – 3,067 – – – – – – – – – – 7,273 050 Niagara Falls Con 7,900 68.58% 4,281 37.16% 52.80% 7,900 3,619 – – – – – – – – – – – 11,519 051 Nipissing Con 5,215 61.09% 3,414 39.99% 55.81% 5,215 – 1,521 – – – – 1,801 – – – – – 8,537 052 Norfolk Con 7,421 54.64% 1,260 9.28% 79.24% 7,421 6,161 – – – – – – – – – – – 13,582 053 Northumberland Lib 7,612 53.46% 985 6.92% 72.27% 6,627 7,612 – – – – – – – – – – – 14,239 054 Ontario North Prog 3,878 55.58% 779 11.17% 75.02% 3,099 – – 3,878 – – – – – – – – – 6,977 055 Ontario South Lib 8,901 57.30% 2,268 14.60% 72.73% 6,633 8,901 – – – – – – – – – – – 15,534 056 Ottawa East I-Lib 5,195 43.86% 418 3.53% 53.60% 4,777 – – – – – – 5,195 1,872 – – – – 11,844 057 Ottawa North Con 9,042 67.59% 4,707 35.19% 43.91% 9,042 4,335 – – – – – – – – – – – 13,377 058 Ottawa South Con 9,171 62.27% 3,615 24.55% 56.95% 9,171 5,556 – – – – – – – – – – – 14,727 059 Oxford North L-Prog 6,012 58.88% 1,813 17.76% 68.51% 4,199 – – – 6,012 – – – – – – – – 10,211 060 Oxford South L-Prog 5,793 56.97% 1,418 13.95% 73.59% 4,375 – – – 5,793 – – – – – – – – 10,168 061 Parry Sound Con 4,628 60.85% 1,650 21.69% 57.33% 4,628 2,978 – – – – – – – – – – – 7,606 062 Peel Con 6,193 51.50% 361 3.00% 68.46% 6,193 – – 5,832 – – – – – – – – – 12,025 063 Perth North Con 7,350 55.97% 1,568 11.94% 61.23% 7,350 5,782 – – – – – – – – – – – 13,132 064 Perth South Lib 4,176 53.14% 494 6.29% 70.66% 3,682 4,176 – – – – – – – – – – – 7,858 065 Peterborough City Con 6,396 57.33% 1,636 14.66% 72.87% 6,396 4,760 – – – – – – – – – – – 11,156 066 Peterborough County Lib 3,261 54.57% 546 9.14% 67.35% 2,715 3,261 – – – – – – – – – – – 5,976 067 Port Arthur Con 2,683 38.31% 172 2.46% 60.40% 5,194two candidates nominated 1,810 – – – – – – – – – – – 7,004 068 Prescott I-Lib 2,855 35.56% 24 0.30% 66.17% 5,173 – – – – – – 2,855 – – – – – 8,028 069 Prince Edward Prog 4,378 50.28% 49 0.56% 80.46% 4,329 – – 4,378 – – – – – – – – – 8,707 070 Rainy River Con 2,230 48.18% 777 16.79% 55.89% 2,230 – – – – – – 1,453 945 – – – – 4,628 071 Renfrew North Con 5,000 59.74% 1,630 19.47% 58.40% 5,000 – 3,370 – – – – – – – – – – 8,370 072 Renfrew South Con 5,208 56.92% 1,267 13.85% 63.27% 5,208 – – – 3,941 – – – – – – – – 9,149 073 Russell I-Lib 5,231 42.86% 983 8.05% 66.40% 4,248 – 2,725 – – – – 5,231 – – – – – 12,204 074 St. Catharines I-Con 8,669 72.91% 5,448 45.82% 60.51% – – 3,221 – – – – – 8,669 – – – – 11,890 075 Sault Ste. Marie Con 5,497 77.38% 3,890 54.76% 38.96% 5,497 – 1,607 – – – – – – – – – – 7,104 076 Simcoe Centre Con 5,315 50.93% 195 1.87% 70.47% 5,315 5,120 – – – – – – – – – – – 10,435 077 Simcoe East Con 7,312 55.84% 1,530 11.68% 71.09% 7,312 – – – 5,782 – – – – – – – – 13,094 078 Simcoe Southwest L-Prog 5,779 52.03% 452 4.07% 68.41% 5,327 – – – 5,779 – – – – – – – – 11,106 079 Stormont Con 7,101 65.97% 3,438 31.94% 66.98% 7,101 3,663 – – – – – – – – – – – 10,764 080 Sturgeon Falls I-Lib 2,043 49.26% 103 2.48% 50.97% 1,940 – – 164 – – – 2,043 – – – – – 4,147 081 Sudbury Con acclaimed 082 Temiskaming Con 4,048 63.79% 1,750 27.58% 45.36% 4,048 – – – – – – – – – – – 2,298 6,346 083 Victoria North L-Prog 3,207 52.26% 277 4.51% 70.03% 2,930 – – – 3,207 – – – – – – – – 6,137 084 Victoria South L-Prog 4,632 53.38% 587 6.77% 74.48% 4,045 – – – 4,632 – – – – – – – – 8,677 085 Waterloo North Con 9,500 69.03% 5,238 38.06% 49.84% 9,500 – – – – – – – – – 4,262 – – 13,762 086 Waterloo South Lab 9,093 62.01% 3,523 24.03% 67.91% – – 5,570 – – – 9,093 – – – – – – 14,663 087 Welland Con 7,697 69.54% 4,325 39.07% 56.34% 7,697 3,372 – – – – – – – – – – – 11,069 088 Wellington Northeast Lib 6,601 62.24% 2,596 24.48% 71.26% 4,005 6,601 – – – – – – – – – – – 10,606 089 Wellington South Con 8,044 53.04% 921 6.07% 74.20% 8,044 – – – 7,123 – – – – – – – – 15,167 090 Wentworth North Con 4,817 54.55% 803 9.09% 69.76% 4,817 4,014 – – – – – – – – – – – 8,831 091 Wentworth South Con 8,383 67.38% 4,324 34.75% 62.85% 8,383 4,059 – – – – – – – – – – – 12,442 092 Windsor East Con 9,750 83.70% 7,851 67.40% 48.24% 9,750 – 1,899 – – – – – – – – – – 11,649 093 Windsor West Con 8,741 77.79% 6,245 55.58% 47.95% 8,741 – 2,496 – – – – – – – – – – 11,237 094 Beaches Con 9,590 73.08% 6,058 46.17% 64.83% 9,590 – 3,532 – – – – – – – – – – 13,122 095 Woodbine Con 9,578 78.28% 6,920 56.55% 60.61% 9,578 2,658 – – – – – – – – – – – 12,236 096 Greenwood Con 9,101 78.64% 6,629 57.28% 58.23% 9,101 2,472 – – – – – – – – – – – 11,573 097 Riverdale Con 8,832 69.12% 4,886 38.24% 61.96% 8,832 – 3,946 – – – – – – – – – – 12,778 098 Eglinton Con 10,230 61.73% 3,887 23.45% 78.03% 10,230 6,343 – – – – – – – – – – – 16,573 099 St. David Con 10,948 77.68% 7,803 55.37% 62.81% 10,948 3,145 – – – – – – – – – – – 14,093 100 St. George Con 7,865 56.34% 4,881 34.97% 66.62% 7,865 729 2,984 – – – – – 2,381 – – – – 13,959 101 St. Patrick Con 6,339 69.64% 4,145 45.53% 65.48% 6,339 570 2,194 – – – – – – – – – – 9,103 102 St. Andrews Con 4,536 44.00% 1,171 11.36% 67.37% 4,536 311 2,097 – – – – – 3,365 – – – – 10,309 103 Bellwoods Con 9,452 76.79% 6,595 53.58% 62.09% 9,452 – – – – – – – – – 2,857 – – 12,309 104 Bracondale Con 10,563 69.41% 7,560 49.67% 70.33% 10,563 1,653 3,003 – – – – – – – – – – 15,219 105 Dovercourt Con 6,239 66.93% 3,156 33.86% 62.07% 6,239 3,083 – – – – – – – – – – – 9,322 106 Brockton Con 11,245 57.40% 5,810 29.65% 61.72% 11,245 5,435 – – – – – – 2,912 – – – – 19,592 107 Parkdale Con 8,915 65.44% 4,207 30.88% 66.23% 8,915 – 4,708 – – – – – – – – – – 13,623 108 High Park Con 10,466 61.13% 3,810 22.25% 76.55% 10,466 – 6,656 – – – – – – – – – – 17,122 109 York East Con 11,085 66.02% 5,379 32.04% 58.74% 11,085 – 5,706 – – – – – – – – – – 16,791 110 York North Lib 6,009 57.49% 1,565 14.97% 75.01% 4,444 6,009 – – – – – – – – – – – 10,453 111 York South Con 10,242 66.49% 5,080 32.98% 55.36% 10,242 – 5,162 – – – – – – – – – – 15,404 112 York West Con 9,927 62.20% 6,813 42.69% 63.04% 9,927 2,919 3,114 – – – – – – – – – – 15,960 a + Dual nominations in the 1923 electionCanadian Annual Review 1927 309-312 Riding Candidate Votes PlacedPort Arthur ON Conservative colour&name Donald McDonald Hogarth 2,683 1stFrancis Henry Keefer2,511 2ndPrescott ON Conservative colour&name Edmund Mooney 2,831 2ndLouis Beaudoin2,342 3rdSt. George ON Independent-Conservative colour&name Cecil Armstrong 1,664 3rdEdward Owens717 5th After math The members elected convened in the legislature on February 2, 1927. 17th Parliament of Ontario After the election, the Toronto Star reported accusations of other corrupt payments during the campaign. December 9, 1926 Election Scandals https://news.milton.halinet.on.ca/2494383/page/2 The Canadian Champion Milton 2 In Kent East, the former Progressive Candidate W.J.Cryderman stated that an unnamed Liberal had offered him $500 cash plus a Dominion government position if he withdrew his nomination. The allegation was however never acted upon, and therefore never tested in court. In Perth South, the Progressive candidate W.A. McKenzie was twice offered payments by the Prohibition Union if he withdrew his nomination. He did withdraw, but returned both cheques because of their blatant illegality. See also Politics of Ontario List of Ontario political parties Premier of Ontario Leader of the Opposition (Ontario) Notes and references Notes References Sources The Canadian Annual Review of Public Affairs, 1926–27 1927 The Annual Review Company Toronto https://archive.org/details/canadianannualre0000unse_x4e0 Canadian Annual Review 1927 Further reading 1928 Ontario Sessional Papers, 1927: Vol. LIX - Part V Sessional Paper No. 25 - Return from the Records of the General Election to the Legislative Assembly in 1926 https://archive.org/details/n05ontariosession59ontauoft/page/n11 Toronto King's Printer Category:1926 elections in Canada 1926 Category:1926 in Ontario Category:December 1926 in Canada