2014 Mayoral Election

[SteelTown]

Green and Johnston are both LRT supporters so that's good. Vanderbeek probably much like Powers. I really hope this LRT issue doesn't end up as a divisive urban vs suburban spilt.

[durandy]

Doug Conley in Stoney Creek. He looks to be a proto-Clark.

I'm surprised how badly McHattie did. Similar to Olivia Chow in Toronto. I suspect Thomas Mulcair is crying tonight in anticipation of 2015.

[thistleclub]

Hamilton's unofficial voter turnout comes in at just 34.03% city-wide, the lowest since amalgamation. (Toronto's, meanwhile, is estimated at over 64%.)

Ward 13: 43.79%
Ward 01: 40.74%
Ward 10: 37.40%
Ward 08: 36.29%
Ward 12: 35.90%
Ward 06: 35.15%
Ward 09: 34.20%
Ward 05: 33.64%
Ward 11: 33.61%
Ward 14: 33.41%
Ward 07: 31.75%
Ward 04: 29.87%
Ward 03: 29.59%
Ward 02: 29.04%
Ward 15: 27.88%

Only Ward 1 registered an increase in cards cast (up 416 votes) compared to 2010. Every other ward saw fewer votes than the last election.

Votes Cast, 2010/2014

Ward 01: 8,454 / 8,870 (+416, +4.9%)
Ward 02: 7,842 / 6,389 (-1,453, -18.5%)
Ward 03: 7,329 / 7,113 (-216, -3.0%)
Ward 04: 8,420 / 6,956 (-1,464, -17.4%)
Ward 05: 10,642 / 8,723 (-1,919, -18.0%)
Ward 06: 12,190 / 9,883 (-2,307, -18,9%)
Ward 07: 16,173 / 13,068 (-3,105, -19.2%)
Ward 08: 15,135 / 12,554 (-2,581, -17.1%)
Ward 09: 7,743 / 6,826 (-917, -11.8%)
Ward 10: 8,772 / 7,145 (-1,627, -18.6%)
Ward 11: 10,676 / 9,562 (-1,114, -18.6%)
Ward 12: 10,316 / 9,445 (-871, -8.4%)
Ward 13: 8,450 / 8,258 (-192, -2.3%)
Ward 14: 4,264 / 4,119 (-145, -3.4%)
Ward 15: 6,526 / 5,639 (-887, -13.6%)

[mattgrande]

Has anyone seen the trustee results?

Edit: Nevermind, they're on that page thistleclub mentioned.

[movingtohamilton]

I voted. My Ward 3 candidates were elected. My mayor candidate did not win.

Shockingly low voter turnout overall. Long lines at my polling station.

[markbarbera]

Basically four more years of the same old same old. Council will blame their ineffectiveness on <insert mayor's name here>. Yawn.

What we can expect to see in Hamilton politics over the next four years:

• Much to the relief of the provincial government, Eisenberger, after realizing LRT is not going to happen any time soon, will have a discussion with Toronto mayor John Tory about that Smarttrack concept he was selling during his campaign. Nothing will come of it and LRT will also derail the 2018 municipal election
• Olivia Chow, currently unemployed and bored, will pretend to be uninterested in replacing Andrea, then will replace her before the next provincial election
• Andrea Horwath, after being ousted as leader of the provincial NDP, will run for mayor of Hamilton in 2018

[mattgrande]

So when does the mayor-elect become the mayor?

[SteelTown]

Dec 1, 2014.

[thistleclub]

McHattie came third but ran best campaign
(Hamilton Spectator, Andrew Dreschel, Oct 29 2014)

For the record, the decision by The Spectator's editorial board not to endorse a mayoral candidate in Monday's election was not unanimous.

Some members of the board, including me, wanted to continue the practice of giving the paper's stamp of approval to one of the contenders.

In the end, the consensus was to forgo custom and, instead, weigh the platforms of the three frontrunners, describe to readers how they stack up against the ed board's positions and leave it at that.

Consequently, the board never got down to nitty gritty discussions on which candidate we thought would make the best mayor. But I can tell you this, if we had voted immediately after our meeting with Brian McHattie, there's a good chance he would have got the thumbs up.

Board members were blown away by how well he did during his presentation and Q&A session. He was prepared, direct, precise and, frankly, more mayoral than either Fred Eisenberger or Brad Clark.

Until then, McHattie had generally given the impression of being a bland vessel others pour hopes and visions into. And though McHattie passionately shares those hopes and visions, he had more flatness than fire in his belly. However, for an extended hour at the ed board meeting, he sounded more like a true leader than a mere courier of ideas.

That's not to say if the paper had opted to endorse someone, McHattie would have automatically got the nod. There were still concerns that, among other things, he seemed more of a free-spender than his rivals, a key weakness given the city's fiscal challenges.

The point, however, is even though McHattie ultimately placed a distant third behind mayor-elect Eisenberger and second-placer Clark, he clearly grew more during the election and ran a much more energetic and aspirational campaign than his opponents.

It's a shame, really, that just as McHattie has put some muscle on his political legs, they've been cut out from under him. He was not only seasoned by the campaign, he seemed refreshed by it.

Read it in full here.

[thistleclub]

Pitiful voter turnout equals disengagement
(Hamilton Spectator, Howard Elliott, Oct 29 2014)

Engagement. Various dictionaries offer a variety of definitions, but whether referring to the marital variety or another version, the definitions have something in common. If someone is engaged, they care. They feel strongly about something. They are committed.

This week, we have a stark example of engagement, and of its opposite, less appealing sibling — disengagement. People, by the hundreds of thousands right across Canada, have been engaged in the death and the life of Corporal Nathan Cirillo.

From the time of that awful event, right through until the procession that brought him home and his funeral yesterday, it was painfully obvious that an awful lot of Canadians are engaged in this story. We care, as demonstrated by the raw emotion many of us felt and continue to feel when we think of Nathan, his young son, his family and his comrades.

Then there's the story where the bad sibling plays a key role — the municipal election we just had. To be clear, we are not drawing a straight line between the two events or suggesting they are equally momentous. One involves the senseless killing of an innocent victim doing what he thought was right to serve his country. The other is a somewhat moribund democratic institution that rolls around every four years.

What is striking, though, is the difference in public engagement in the two events. In one case, Hamilton is consumed with engagement in the story. In the other, two thirds of eligible voters couldn't be bothered to cast a ballot that determined how the city will be run for the next four years.

The irony here is hard to miss. Nathan died doing a job that is an integral part of our democratic system of government. You might think, then, that more people would feel compelled to be part of the democracy he served to protect. But instead, near record low turnouts in both Hamilton and Burlington suggest we don't really see the connection, or don't care about it.

Were there special circumstances? Re-elected Burlington Mayor Rick Goldring says the 34 per cent turnout reflects the fact that citizens are satisfied with council direction and performance. Perhaps. But we suspect there's more to it than that. Hamilton voters didn't have a stark or polarizing choice — à la Rob Ford — competing for mayor. Instead they had three solid, if unspectacular, candidates to choose from. Council incumbents ran from a position of strength thanks to their campaign machines and incumbency in general. Even at the public school board, where much citizen angst was heard over school closures, incumbents were returned except where they retired.

It's a puzzle. And everyone from the mayor to city councillors to the school board and yes, the media, need to give this puzzle a lot of thought before the next local election comes around. We need to do better.

[HillStreetBlues]

Originally Posted by thistleclub

The other is a somewhat moribund democratic institution that rolls around every four years.

“Moribund”? It’s possible that Mr. Elliott doesn’t know exactly what that word means (I’m not sure if something can be “somewhat” moribund). Anyway, hopefully we continue to have elections. I’m not surprised that some people aren’t too enthused in voting in them when journalists call the practice “moribund.”

[thistleclub]

Why Bother? My Analysis on Hamilton’s 2014 Municipal Election
(JoeyColeman.ca, Joey Coleman, Oct 29 2014)

Why Bother? That’s the question I ask myself following Hamilton’s election with its low voter turnout.

Why Bother to push for City Hall transparency, Why Bother to push for more civic engagement? Why Bother when people don’t vote and very little changes?

It easy to feel disheartened at 34.02% voter turnout. It’s even easier to just give up, and walk away.

Why didn’t people vote? There’s no single reason, and we don’t know what reasons equate to what percentage of those who didn’t vote.

What we do know is this is not a desirable outcome, and its something we need to address.

More about this in another later post, I really haven’t absorbed my emotionally draining disappointment about this. I hoped my work would contribute a small part towards improving engagement.

The poll-by-poll results reveal the City is fairly united in our choices, this is not a suburbs versus city divide in how people voted, nor are their neighbourhood divides in the wards.

All incumbents won with huge majorities and super-majorities.

Based upon the results, Hamiltonians who vote are extremely happy with the direction of the City.


Read it full here.

[mattgrande]

That's really interesting, thanks thistleclub.

What do you guys think of changing our electoral system to a ranked ballot of some kind? Part of me thinks that it'd increase turnout, but the cynic in me thinks if only 34% of people can bother voting, the problem isn't the method of how we vote...

[LikeHamilton]

Has anyone seen any stats that show whether the municipalities that had online voting, have a better turn out for this election?

[thistleclub]

Originally Posted by LikeHamilton

Has anyone seen any stats that show whether the municipalities that had online voting, have a better turn out for this election?

Will e-voting boost turnout in Ontario’s municipal elections?
(The Globe and Mail, Nicole Goodman, Oct 21 2014)

Excerpt:

Looking at data from Elections Canada, which asks non-voters about their rationales for not participating, shows that the largest group of reasons cited for not voting in 2000 and 2004 includes items such as disinterest, apathy, and cynicism. In 2008 and 2011, however, we see a shift where the most popularly cited reasons are those that relate to accessibility (e.g. being “too busy”, “travelling”, “work/ school schedule”, and “injury” etc). For electors who are away, busy or injured, the option of voting remotely online from the comfort of their home could encourage voting.

Evidence from the City of Markham supports this, showing that in 2003, when online voting was first made available, 25 per cent of Internet voters had been eligible to vote previously but reported not doing so. In 2006, 21 per cent of those who voted by Internet reported not voting previously, and 9 per cent of those in 2010.

These small increases are not going to solve the issue of low turnout. Nor is any added accessibility offered by remote online voting going to encourage the apathetic to participate. But, for the growing segment of electors who cite reasons related to accessibility as the rationale for their non-participation, could this voting method make the difference between voting and not voting? For some, it might.


Rise of e-voting is inevitable, as is risk of hacking
(The Globe and Mail, Adrian Morrow, Oct 26 2014)

Excerpt:

The use of Internet voting is exploding. Nearly 100 Ontario municipalities are using it in Monday’s election – including one that will even ditch paper ballots entirely. Proponents contend it is not only more convenient, but more equitable, giving people who cannot get to physical polling stations the same opportunity to vote as everyone else.

But the expansion of e-voting has also caused consternation for some security researchers and municipal officials. They worry that entrusting this pillar of democracy to computers is too great a risk, given the potential for software problems – or hackers determined to put beer-swilling robots on the school board....

Edmonton tested an e-voting system in 2012 with a mock election. But after some voters successfully registered to vote multiple times, city council got cold feet.

“If you actually open the door for hacking or security concerns or potential fraud, then you defeat the whole purpose of democracy,” then-councillor Kim Krushell told CBC. Other councillors countered that, during a real election, the security would be tighter. In the end, the city scrapped the system.

Ahead of Halifax’s 2012 election, security researcher Kevin McArthur scanned its Internet voting system for vulnerabilities. He said he uncovered security gaps that would allow a hacker to change votes without it showing on the system logs, by intercepting data between users’ computers and the server.

He took his concerns to the Cyber Incident Response Centre at Public Safety Canada. They were worried enough to warn both the Halifax government and the software provider, Scytl.

A Halifax spokeswoman confirmed the city looked into the potential problems, but she would not say what it did to fix them. In a statement, Scytl said the company “addressed the problems in written correspondence to CCIRC, by outlining the security capabilities of our existing technology.” It added it has safety measures in place to deal with the types of vulnerabilities Mr. McArthur says he found. Public Safety Canada would not say if it was satisfied with the response.

Despite these concerns, those who run e-voting are adamant about its security.

[thistleclub]

[thistleclub]

What will it take to get people to vote?
(Hamilton Spectator, Andrew Dreschel, Nov 3 2014)

After last week's dismal voter turnout of 34.02 per cent, Councillor Sam Merulla wants to grow democratic participation by enticing voters with rewards.

Merulla doesn't know what form the incentives might take.

"If I knew it, I would say it."

He knows for certain it shouldn't be cash.

"It can't be money because the perception of that is terrible."

But he intends to put forward a motion to study the issue at the first meeting of the new council next month.

Merulla argues the new council should make boosting voter turnout for the 2018 municipal election a priority.

"It's about participation; it's about engagement; it's about ensuring that everyone is involved in the process."

Despite a number of crucial issues facing Hamilton, the Oct. 27 election saw the lowest turnout since amalgamation.

In the first amalgamated election of 2000, turnout was 43 per cent of eligible voters. In 2003, the turnout was 37.4 per cent; in 2006, 37.3 per cent; and in 2010, 40.45 per cent.

But as Merulla points out, Hamilton wasn't the only southern Ontario municipality where herds of voters stayed away.

In Burlington, the turnout was about 34 per cent. In Mississauga and Brampton, it was 36 per cent. Oshawa came in at 26 per cent; Kitchener about 30 per cent; and St Catharines roughly 31 per cent.

Toronto broke the pattern with a whopping 60 per cent turnout, the biggest since it was amalgamated.

One thing Merulla won't countenance is compulsory voting as in Australia. Electors who fail to cast a ballot in federal and state elections Down Under are fined about $20. Unsurprisingly, turnout is always more than 90 per cent.

Merulla argues the punishment approach is undemocratic.

"I think people have every right not to vote as much as they're free to vote. You start imposing punitive measures and suddenly you're no longer a free society."


Read it in full here.

[thistleclub]

Hamilton: Democracy or oligarchy?
(Hamilton Spectator, Andrew Dreschel, Nov 12 2014)

Democracy is government by the people, especially a majority. Oligarchy is government by the few.

So, does a voter turnout of 34 per cent make Hamilton a democracy or an oligarchy?

"Basically, what you're getting into is you're going from democracy to oligarchy," says Frank Graves, president of the polling firm Ekos Research.

"The idea of democracy is that the people make the choice. In an oligarchy, it's a choice by few. And, in this case, that is the case: One in three Hamiltonians selected on behalf of everybody and that's not how democracy is supposed to work."

Even if Graves is being playfully provocative, there's no question he takes voter turnout seriously, making him the ideal expert to answer a left over question from the municipal election.

Does voter turnout really affect the outcome? Or are voters statistically representative of the non-voting public, meaning turnout has little impact on who wins or loses?

Councillor Sam Merulla has been beating that drum since turnout became a hot issue. He recognizes the need for greater public participation, but argues it's a "red herring" to say governments only express the will of a minority of voters.

Merulla maintains that Election Day is, in fact, a huge random sampling of the electorate's wishes. He says it doesn't matter if the turnout is 34 per cent or 95 per cent, the outcome will likely be identical.

"Election day is the most random sample known to man," he says. "The turnout is still statistically representative of what the results would be anyway if there were more votes cast."

A large body of academic research agrees that voters are relatively typical of non-voters. But it's a view that's falling on hard times.

According to Graves, it might have been true when turnout was much higher, but today it would only be "happenstance" if the outcome stayed the same regardless of how many voters showed up.

"The idea if you take 34 per cent of who showed up and say this is representative sample of Hamiltonians — no chance."


Read it in full here.

[Dr Awesomesauce]

BoBra's the worst ever. What a colossal waste of time he was.

[durandy]

he's just so oddly thin skinned for a politician.