Editorial: At-Large Elections Don’t Work for Cities—And Alberta Should Admit It

It’s time we start talking about how we elect municipal leaders in Alberta’s cities.

Now, I know I’m not going to make many friends with this piece—and that’s perfectly fine. The great thing about our democracy is that we can hold opposing views, debate them fiercely, and still be respectful at the end of the day. But I think Alberta gets one thing wrong when it comes to our municipalities. Specifically, our mid-size cities—and yes, I’m pointing the finger right at them—are electing their councillors in a way that simply doesn’t make sense anymore.

I’m not talking about scrapping first-past-the-post voting (that’s a debate for another day). What I’m talking about is the outdated way many cities still elect their councillors at large—that is, every voter in the city votes for every council seat, instead of electing councillors by geographic ward.

For towns and villages, at-large elections can make sense. But once a community grows beyond about 25,000 people, the system starts to break down. It becomes less fair, less accessible, and ultimately less democratic. Yet many of Alberta’s medium-sized cities still cling to this at-large model: Fort Saskatchewan, Okotoks, Cochrane, Leduc, Spruce Grove, Medicine Hat, Grande Prairie, St. Albert, Airdrie, Lethbridge, and Red Deer—listen up. And with the rapid growth of Chestermere and Beaumont, those communities might want to pay attention too, because they’re not far behind.

Imagine you’re a resident of your city. You care about your neighbourhood—your street, your local park, the traffic bottleneck that’s been getting worse for years. But your councillor lives on the other side of the city. They don’t drive the same routes, shop at the same stores, or see the same local issues you do. That’s the reality in an at-large system. Councillors can win office without ever setting foot in certain neighbourhoods. The system doesn’t require them to understand the diverse needs of different parts of the community.

In principle, both ward and at-large systems have pros and cons. But in practice, the risks that come with at-large elections—especially in larger cities—are too big to ignore. When every councillor has to campaign to every voter across a sprawling municipality, the connection between representative and resident weakens. Accountability blurs. And the result is a council that can easily become dominated by a few well-known or well-funded individuals, often concentrated in wealthier areas.

Not pointing out any particular municipality here - but... If you’re one of say 39 municipal candidates trying to reach 25,000 or more residents across an entire city, that’s an enormous undertaking. It’s impossible to meet everyone, knock on every door, or meaningfully listen to every neighbourhood’s concerns. Now imagine a ward system. Instead of 39 candidates chasing 25,000 voters, you might have five or six candidates focused on just 5,000 voters in their ward. Those candidates can have real conversations with real people. They can attend every community meeting, visit every neighbourhood association, and hear what matters most to the people they’d actually represent.

Campaigning becomes more personal, more affordable, and more accessible—not just for candidates, but for voters too. Running citywide campaigns has become increasingly expensive. Between signage, advertising, and events, the cost of reaching every voter in a large municipality is significant. That financial barrier discourages everyday citizens—teachers, nurses, small business owners—from running. Instead, it favours candidates with money, connections, or name recognition. That’s not democracy. That’s gatekeeping. And it’s one of the clearest reasons Alberta’s growing cities need to shift to ward-based elections.

The majority of Large and medium-sized cities across Canada use ward systems for a reason. Wards recognize that not all parts of a city are the same. Different areas face different challenges—some struggle with crime, others with infrastructure, others with growth pressures. Each deserves a dedicated voice at the council table. Councillors in a ward system are more accessible to residents because they represent smaller areas. People know who to call when there’s an issue. Councillors better understand the local issues unique to their neighbourhoods. It’s less likely that one point of view will dominate council decisions. It reduces duplication of work—fewer councillors chasing the same issues or trying to represent the same voters. And voters face a simpler ballot with fewer names to choose from, making informed choices easier.

Let’s be honest: when you have 39 candidates running for six council seats in an at-large election, voters are overwhelmed. Sorting through bios, websites, and promises from dozens of people—most of whom they’ve never met—is exhausting. I’m municipally minded, and even I find it frustrating to narrow down a list of 39 to six names. For the average voter juggling work, family, and life? It’s unrealistic. And when voters are overwhelmed, democracy suffers. People disengage or vote based on name recognition alone. That’s not the way to build strong local governance.

Now, I can already hear the counterarguments. Some people say ward systems create “one-issue councillors”—representatives who only care about their neighbourhood’s concerns and ignore the citywide picture. Sure, that can happen. Maybe Ward 4 is passionate about upgrading parks, or Ward 6 is focused on crime reduction. But is that really such a bad thing? Wouldn’t you want a councillor who knows exactly what their area needs and fights for it? Someone who can bring those concerns to the table while still participating in broader city decisions? That’s what good governance looks like—balancing local insight with citywide responsibility.

At-large systems, on the other hand, risk producing the opposite: councillors who know a little bit about everything but don’t have deep connections anywhere. That’s a recipe for shallow representation. Some defenders of the at-large system argue that councillors need to represent the entire city, not just one ward. I agree—but that’s not a reason to stick with the at-large model. The mayor is the one elected to represent the whole city’s interests. That’s their job—to look at the big picture, set the vision, and ensure all parts of the city move forward together. Councillors, meanwhile, bring their local perspectives to that discussion.

Yes, councillors are sworn in to represent the entire municipality, not just their ward. But there’s no contradiction there. A ward system doesn’t mean parochialism—it means grounding citywide decisions in lived, local experience. When councillors think globally but act locally, the entire city benefits.

When you have dozens of people running at large for a handful of council seats, it’s not just confusing for voters—it’s chaotic for the electoral process. Campaign signs crowd every intersection. Forums become unmanageable - if you haven't watched some of this election, I highly recommend it. Voter turnout can actually drop because people feel their vote won’t make a difference. Wards simplify the process. They ensure each voter chooses from a manageable slate of candidates who are directly accountable to them. It’s cleaner, fairer, and more representative.

And here’s another problem with at-large systems: when everyone is responsible for representing everyone, accountability disappears. If you have a local issue and six at-large councillors, who do you call? Who’s supposed to take ownership? In a ward system, you know exactly who your councillor is—and they know exactly who they answer to.

If you think ward systems don’t work, just look outside the city limits. About 99 percent of rural municipalities in Alberta elect their councillors by ward or division. These councils function effectively, year after year. Councillors represent their wards while still working collaboratively on broader municipal issues. No system is perfect, but rural Alberta shows that ward-based representation can produce strong, balanced local governance. So why do we assume cities are so different? Why do we cling to an outdated at-large system that works against accessibility, fairness, and accountability?

At-large systems also tend to favour those with resources. Running a citywide campaign takes time, money, and name recognition. That creates a steep barrier for new voices, particularly younger candidates, newcomers, or people from less affluent backgrounds. If you’re a teacher, a mechanic, or a small business owner with a great vision for your city, how do you compete with someone who can afford to plaster signs across town and run citywide advertising campaigns? You can’t. Not easily. And so, the same kinds of candidates—often wealthier, well-connected, and from certain parts of the city—keep winning.

That’s not democratic representation. That’s selective representation. If Calgary or Edmonton ever abandoned their ward systems and went fully at large, we’d see exactly that outcome: councils dominated by those with deep pockets and strong backers. And I, for one, want a council that reflects the diversity of our cities—not just the privileged few who can afford to run.

Now, some might say, “Chris, things are fine the way they are. Why fix what isn’t broken?” To that, I’d say: because things can be better. Sure, our cities function. Councils meet, budgets pass, and services get delivered. But that doesn’t mean our electoral system is working as well as it could. Ward systems bring governance closer to the people. They strengthen representation, increase accountability, and make elections fairer. And if we truly believe in continuous improvement in local government—and we should—then the way we elect our representatives deserves scrutiny too.

This issue is only going to get more urgent. Many of Alberta’s cities are growing fast. Cochrane, Beaumont, and Airdrie, for example, have seen explosive population increases over the past decade. What happens when a city of 40,000 becomes a city of 80,000 or 100,000 but keeps using an at-large system? Representation doesn’t scale. Campaigns get even costlier. Voter engagement declines. And the gap between councillors and communities widens.

Now’s the time to act—before these cities become too large to change easily. Transitioning to a ward system takes planning, consultation, and boundary-setting. It’s not something that can be done overnight. But if these communities start the conversation now, they can design fair, effective systems tailored to their growth.

At the heart of this debate is a simple question: What does democratic representation really mean? To me, it means that every resident has a voice—and that their voice matters equally. It means that no one neighbourhood or demographic dominates the rest. It means accessibility, fairness, and accountability at the most local level. An at-large system might have made sense decades ago when our towns were smaller and more homogeneous. But today’s Alberta cities are diverse, dynamic, and complex. They deserve systems that reflect that reality.

Democracy isn’t just about holding elections. It’s about ensuring those elections produce governments that genuinely reflect the people they serve. So, where do we go from here?

First, we need a serious, provincewide discussion about municipal representation. The Municipal Government Act gives cities flexibility in how they structure elections. It’s time we use that flexibility to modernize. Councils in cities over 25,000 should begin exploring ward system options. Engage residents. Host consultations. Commission studies. Learn from Calgary, Edmonton, and Rural Alberta's experiences.

The province should support this shift by providing resources and guidance to help municipalities design fair ward boundaries and transition smoothly. And finally, we as citizens need to demand better. We need to ask our councils, “Who represents me? Who knows my community?” If the answer isn’t clear, that’s a problem—and one worth fixing.

I love Alberta’s cities. They’re vibrant, resilient, and full of passionate people who care deeply about their communities. But if we truly want our local governments to reflect that passion and diversity, we need to rethink how we elect them. At-large systems might feel comfortable, but they no longer serve our growing urban reality. Ward systems aren’t perfect, but they’re fairer, more representative, and more democratic.

Because in the end, democracy isn’t about making things easy for politicians. It’s about making things right for the people. And it’s time Alberta’s cities caught up to that idea.