2014 Mayoral Election

[ScreamingViking]

And it's not just been a Hamilton issue either. Other municipalities have had to deal with urban vs. suburban & rural splits and the politics that come with that.

I think without the creation of the Regional Municipalities, some of these suburbs would have been annexed as urban growth spread beyond the core city, following the pattern of previous decades. We'd probably have essentially the same issue today if that had occurred, maybe with less rural area within the City of Hamilton, ringed by a rural remainder of the old county.

[thistleclub]

Ontario’s ranked ballot system will “confuse” Hamilton voters, says manager of elections
(Stoney Creek News, Kevin Werner, June 8 2015)

Hamilton’s manager of elections says he isn’t convinced preferential balloting will improve Ontario’s municipal election process.

Tony Fallis told members of the governance review sub-committee June 8 that the provincial government’s announcement that it will amend the Municipal Elections Act and allow municipalities to use ranked balloting in the 2018 municipal election will cause confusion among electors. He said while the mayor and council will use the preferential balloting system, school trustees will continue to use the current first-past-the-post system.

“It will confuse the electorate,” said Fallis.

Still, Ward 3 councillor Matthew Green says reforming the municipal election process is a “fantastic opportunity” to improve how people vote and expand the democratic process.

He said the public has been talking about creating a more democratic election system across the province, especially as voter turnout continues to decline, including in Hamilton. The last few elections has seen voter turnout in the 30 per cent range.

“This is not a silver bullet,” said Green. “But we need to open a conversation across the city. This merits public engagement.”

In last fall’s municipal election Green came out on top in a 15-candidate field, receiving 2,852 votes, or 40.7 per cent of the ballots from the 7,113 electors who voted.

Under a ranked ballot system people make selections among the candidates. They identify their preferred candidate, and then rank their second-best candidate, and so on instead of putting a check mark beside one candidate.

If no candidate receives 50 per cent of the number one votes, an instant run-off is held. The last place candidate drops off and their second choice votes are allocated to the remaining candidates. The process continues until one person receives a majority of the votes.

Proponents argue a ranked ballot system is more democratic and curbs vote splitting.

Mayor Fred Eisenberger said in a recent interview he would be willing to change Hamilton’s voting system.

He said residents have become “turned off” by the political system, believing they don’t have a choice. A preferential voting system, said Eisenberger, may encourage more people to vote since each ballot will count.

Eisenberger says the first-past-the-post option gives the impression that incumbents benefit from the system.

Fallis said he will be presenting a report on the 2014 municipal election at the July 6 general issues committee meeting.


Read it in full here.

[HillStreetBlues]

I think maybe it’s Fallis who’s confused. I’m a member of the electorate and I understand preferential voting just fine.

(Thank you for the primer. It really helped.)

[CaptainKirk]

Originally Posted by HillStreetBlues

I think maybe it’s Fallis who’s confused. I’m a member of the electorate and I understand preferential voting just fine.

(Thank you for the primer. It really helped.)

Ditto.

[realcity]

I think it's funny that Mayor Fred was a guest speaker at the grand opening of THF.... a project that would've never happened without Bratina. Even though it sucks, location sucks we at least got a rebuilt IWS cept it is was rotated. The 'stadium' doesn't look much different. A Texas High School field is more like it.

[thistleclub]

Hamilton must decide when it wants to become a unified city, says professor
(Ancaster News, Kevin Werner, Feb 18 2016)

A consultant overseeing Hamilton’s ward boundary review urged Hamiltonians to decide if they want to become a united city after over 15 years of trying to maintain their distinct identities after amalgamation.

Former University of Waterloo political science professor Robert Williams told about 10 people, who turned out for a ward boundary review workshop Feb 17 at Ancaster’s Morgan Firestone Arena, that 16 years after amalgamation change needs to take place.

“You have to decide at what point you want to become one city,” said Williams.

Williams, who has overseen a number of ward boundary reviews, said Ottawa, which was amalgamated with its area municipalities at the same time as Hamilton’s amalgamation, decided to change its ward boundaries five years after its merger.

“My concern is at some point preventing change will work against this city,” he said.

The Ancaster ward boundary workshop had only three people from Ancaster participating. Two people left before the workshop began, while Ancaster councillor Lloyd Ferguson observed the proceedings. Ancaster trustee Alex Johnstone, who took part in the Glanbrook workshop as well, participated with a couple from Flamborough, a person from Ward 7 and another one from Ward 11….

There are three more ward boundary review workshops scheduled over the next week. One will be held at the Stoney Creek Recreation Centre Feb. 20; another will be at Chedoke Arena Feb. 22; and the last workshop will be at the Dundas Lions Memorial Community Centre.

Williams says another round of public meetings will take place in June to present proposals for boundary changes. A final report to councillors will be completed by late September or early October. Councillors will make the final decision on whether to change the city’s boundaries.


Read it in full here.

[ScreamingViking]

Ferguson, who voted against the ward boundary review last spring, said he was content on how it is currently operating.

He said the fear during amalgamation and now is that the urban politicians will dominate the suburban areas.

“The fear is so strong now of being outvoted,” he said.

During amalgamation the Transition Board recommended there were 13 wards. But, said Ferguson, suburban officials lobbied the provincial government which established 15 wards.

“The present system is working well now,” he said.

And how does the severe rep by pop imbalance grab you Lloyd? How is that working? (probably just fine, since it makes his voice more important)

I wonder if there's a Colombian quote that fits the ward boundary wrangle?

Don Ross, a former Hamilton alderman, and member of the Transition Board, argued it’s time to change the ward boundaries. He suggested creating five wards based upon the federal ridings. Those ridings would be represented by three councillors each.

He believes there still remains an “us verse them” division on council based upon the 8 to 7 urban-rural ward split. Ross said to encourage a unified city, the ward boundaries should “overlap” each other. For instance, he said the Ancaster councillor should also have to represent a portion of west Hamilton.

This is actually not a bad idea. Somewhat akin to creating "radial" wards that encompass central city, suburban, and rural areas, while maintaining more of a semblance to original communities. I guess one risk is having a dominant councillor taking charge in a ward. A ranked-ballot system would work best to support this, to ensure that the top 3 are more fairly elected (otherwise, voters would be selecting just their #1 choice and not providing their individual preference for the other two)

[realcity]

I'd vote for Fergussen

[Dr Awesomesauce]

^You would!

[thistleclub]

From Ajay Sharma's The Paradox of Amalgamation: An Analysis of Municipal Restructuring in Ontario:

Case Study No.3 – The Region of Hamilton-Wentworth

From their inception, regional governments were highly controversial and unpopular. Terry Cooke (2003), the former Regional Chair of Hamilton-Wentworth Chairman, argues that the two-tier system of regional government confused lines of political accountability, or in other words, who was responsible for what. The effectiveness of regional government in Hamilton-Wentworth was also undermined by territorial or parochial politics:

The Hamilton-Wentworth system was dysfunctional from the very beginning. The main problem was that the City of Hamilton, because of its high proportion of the regional population, always had more than half the seats on regional council. In the early years of Hamilton-Wentworth, suburban members would sometimes thwart the city by walking out, thereby preventing a quorum (Sancton, 2000a: 143).

The creation of Hamilton-Wentworth in 1974 demonstrated the considerable problems of merging city and countryside. If the new central-city region was relatively strong, outlying areas felt that effective regional government would inevitably serve only that city’s interest.

Dissatisfaction with regional government manifested itself in the form of several committees and reports that focused on how to address the structural deficiencies of the system. In 1978, the Hamilton-Wentworth Review Commission (Hamilton-Wentworth, 1978: 40-41) assessed the state of local government in the region and concluded:

…the present institutions do not fulfill our criterion of a government that can respond to the needs and desires of its citizens. In our view, there are three basic problems: there are serious conflicts between city and non-city politicians, which interfere with and retard the development of policies to serve the citizens of the Region; the structure blurs accountability and hinders accessibility, with the result that it cannot respond to the citizens easily; and finally, the structure of the system results in resources not being used as efficiently as possible.

The Commission concluded that a new single-tier City of Wentworth should replace the region and its six lower-tier municipalities. Not surprisingly, this recommendation was rejected by the province because the region had only been operating for four years.

[SteelTown]

Originally Posted by ScreamingViking

I wonder if there's a Colombian quote that fits the ward boundary wrangle?




This is actually not a bad idea. Somewhat akin to creating "radial" wards that encompass central city, suburban, and rural areas, while maintaining more of a semblance to original communities. I guess one risk is having a dominant councillor taking charge in a ward. A ranked-ballot system would work best to support this, to ensure that the top 3 are more fairly elected (otherwise, voters would be selecting just their #1 choice and not providing their individual preference for the other two)

Yes, I like Ross idea for ward boundary. Re-look the entire ward boundaries. Maybe have two Councillors that have parts of the downtown area. Why does the lower end wards have to go from the waterfront to the escarpment? Why not from say Cannon St to the escarpment? Have a North End Councillor.

Plus there should be mandatory ward boundaries review say very 15 years to check for population growth or decline, and should be independently done. This is what Elections Canada does for the federal MP boundaries.

Oh and kinda on a separate issue, Councillors should have two term limits and elected using ranked ballots.

[realcity]

Why does the lower City still have five wards when the population keeps decreasing? It should be four and add one to the mountain where the actual productive people live.

[interr0bangr]

Originally Posted by realcity

Why does the lower City still have five wards when the population keeps decreasing? It should be four and add one to the mountain where the actual productive people live.

Why the fuck are you not banned for shitting up every thread on this forum time and time again?

[realcity]

That's the spirit son.

[Dr Awesomesauce]

Kaboom!

[thistleclub]

If one were inclined to carve the lower city (Wards 1-5) into four new wards, the remaining wards would all hew to roughly 44,000-51,000 population per (going off the 2011 Census):

Wards 1-5 become Wards 1-4 (45K avg)
Wards 6-8 become Wards 5-7 (50K avg)
Wards 9-11 become Wards 8-9 (44K avg)
Wards 12-15 become Wards 10-11 (51K avg)

You could also go with roughly 60K per (the approximate yardstick for Toronto's wards) and redraft the lines from there. But because they contain around 36% of Hamilton's total population, under any even-handed redistribution the amalgamated suburbs are never going to enjoy vote parity with the old city.

The gap between the population of Wards 1-8 and Wards 9-15 in 2011 was approximately 140,000. To close that gap, Wards 9-15 would have to add as many residents as they did in total over the 1956-2011 period.

[HillStreetBlues]

Once again, thistleclub provides with sober and rational analysis. Unfortunately, "realcity" is just going to be confused with these facts of yours. If it reads them.

What a mess this thing is. It's the rural wards, not the lower city wards, who are over-represented (notwithstanding the truth that the lower city has been losing population). But also those rural residents who are likely to claim that they are under-represented, since (by virtue of their minority position) not a lot of attention is paid to them.

I personally feel that Hamilton-Wentworth also now known as the "City of Hamilton" is not going to work well for anyone. Ross' idea is pretty sensible since it will at least absolve the municipality of responsibility over ward boundaries in the future. Area rating should be dispensed with completely- if we're one City(and rural appendages) we should accept that we're going to be cross-subsidizing one another in different ways.

[thistleclub]

Reminder: Ward Boundary Online Feedback closes on Thursday, March 3.

[thistleclub]

Ranked ballot on the horizon in Ontario
(Toronto Star, Kenyon Wallace, Apr 3 2016)

The provincial government is poised to give municipalities the option to change the way local politicians are elected by letting voters rank their favourite candidates in a system that proponents say will result in greater diversity on councils.

Sources tell the Star that Ted McMeekin, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, will unveil plans Monday to table legislation allowing Ontario municipalities to elect councils with ranked ballots as early as 2018. McMeekin will stress that the new system will be optional — no municipalities will be forced to adopt it.


Read it in full here.

[thistleclub]

Developer donations influence local election outcomes, study finds
(Toronto Star, Noor Javed, Apr 3 2016)

Developer contributions made to the election campaigns of municipal candidates directly influence the outcomes of local elections, says a report being released Monday that analyzes the financial statements of candidates who ran in 13 municipalities around the Lake Simcoe watershed in 2014 — including a handful within the GTA.

The report called If It’s Broke, Fix It: a Report on the Money in Municipal Campaign Finances of 2014 prepared by a grassroots group, Campaign Fairness Ontario found that candidates who took contributions from developers were twice as likely to be elected as those who did not report such contributions.

The group says it is concerned about the “troubling relationship between corporate funding and election outcomes in Ontario” and is calling for the province to allow municipalities to “ban corporate and union contributions to municipal election campaigns” — similar to what Toronto opted for in 2009, prior to the 2010 municipal election.

“Development funding is still the largest component of corporate funding, and that is worrisome,” said York University political science professor Robert MacDermid, who analyzed the financial statements of nearly 300 candidates who ran in 13 municipalities including Newmarket, Barrie, Aurora and Orillia in 2014. “And most of it comes from outside the municipality,” he said.

“This money is flowing into local elections from outside, and it represents interests outside . . . and to some degree potentially distorts what representative politics should be about,” he said.

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing has confirmed it will make an announcement on Monday about changes to the Municipal Elections Act, which would “give municipalities more local choice in future municipal elections,” according to Mark Cripps, a spokesman with Minister Ted McMeekin’s office.

“Our goal is to develop policy proposals to make the Municipal Elections Act as effective as possible,” said Cripps. “We recognize that any proposed changes to the Municipal Elections Act will need to be in place well in advance of the next municipal elections in 2018, to allow municipalities sufficient time to prepare for any changes that come out of the review.”


Read it in full here.