2014 Mayoral Election

[thistleclub]

Where you live – and whether you’ll vote
(Hamilton Spectator, Emma Reilly, Oct 27 2014)

If you live in Dundas, you're the most likely to head to the polls on Monday.

Ward 13 has the highest average voter turnout — 44.62 per cent — of any of the city's 15 wards, based on numbers from the 2006 and 2010 elections. (The City of Hamilton was not able to provide ward-by-ward voter turnout percentages for elections before 2006).

However, if you live in central Hamilton, you're less likely to vote than anyone else in the city. In Ward 3, the average number of people who cast their ballot in the past two elections was the lowest in the city: 28.8 per cent.

Previous elections have shown that certain demographics are more likely to vote. Those who are wealthy vote more than lower-income residents, while people who are older show up at the ballot box more than younger voters.

In Hamilton, the three wards with the highest voter turnout were Dundas, Stoney Creek (Ward 10) and the west Mountain (Ward 8).

Factors driving these figures differ in each ward, notes McMaster University political scientist Peter Graefe. For examples, Dundas has a high percentage of residents who are wealthy and, with the construction of several seniors' residences, the upper age range is also top-heavy.

Dundas — which had its own municipal council until it amalgamated with Hamilton in 2001 — also has a history of politically engaged citizenry.

"It had a pretty vigorous municipal life in the past," Graefe said. "There may be that kind of heritage there."

When it comes to Stoney Creek, Graefe points out that Larry Di Ianni's mayoral campaigns in both 2006 and 2010 may have affected the numbers. Di Ianni – who represented Stoney Creek as a councillor – likely had a strong base of voters in Stoney Creek and as a result, his team would have ensured those supporters made it to the ballot box.

The other end of the voting spectrum is a different story.

The Spectator's Code Red series, which examined how geography affects everything from health to education to voter turnout, found the three Hamilton wards with the highest rates of poverty – 2, 3 and 4 – are the same three wards with the lowest rates of voter turnout for the 2006 municipal election.

Ward 2, which encompasses the downtown, was an outlier in the 2010 election thanks to a wide-open race between 20 candidates. That pulled the average numbers above Flamborough's Ward 15.

Residents who rent or move frequently may not appear properly or at all on the city's voter list, which makes it more difficult for them to cast a ballot. Politicians also tend to give limited time to areas with lower voter turnout in order to focus their efforts on those more likely to support them at the polls — further alienating residents in low voter-turnout areas.

"We have a history of civic politics leaving people behind, not just in the context of the campaigns, but structurally. People have to work harder to go out and vote," Graefe said.

The good news is that overall, more Hamiltonians are going to the polls.

In 2010, voter turnout rose to 40.45 per cent of registered voters, compared to 37.3 per cent in the 2006 municipal election.

In 2003, total voter turnout was about 37.9 per cent.



Again, however, the lower-city turnout is somewhat distorted by the depleted/incomplete voter rolls. Measured against voting-age population, anemic lower-city turnout becomes even more so:

2010 Municipal Election
Ward 1: 8,454 votes = 40.7% of registered voters, 33.6% of voting-age population
Ward 2: 7,842 votes = 40.4% of registered voters, 23.4% of voting-age population
Ward 3: 7,329 votes = 31.0% of registered voters, 23.9% of voting-age population
Ward 4: 8,420 votes = 35.5% of registered voters, 23.8% of voting-age population
Ward 5: 10,642 votes = 41.3% of registered voters, 36.7% of voting-age population

[durandy]

exciting election, 4 open seats and new mayor. First 3 polls showing have Eisenberger way ahead.

[durandy]

first poll in ward 3 Matthew Green absolutely destroyed, let's hope that continues. Aidan Johnson ahead early in ward 1.

[thistleclub]

CHML tweets:

BREAKING: #HamOnt elects @FredEisenberger #CHMLvote #YHMvote

[durandy]

calling it, Fred, Matthew Green, Aidan Johnson, Arlene Vanderbeek, ward 9 too close.

[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.

[thistleclub]

One for the wonks, via Ryan McGreal's Quandy Factory: A granular breakdown of the number and percentage of votes cast (and corresponding percentage of eligible voters) for each winning councillor in this week's election.

Plus some historical comparatives:

[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...

[thistleclub]

Seems likely. Premier Wynne's mandate letter to Municipal Affairs Minister McMeekin specifically tasks him with "Undertaking a review of the Municipal Elections Act after the 2014 municipal elections... [ensuring] that the act meets the needs of communities, and that it provides municipalities with the option of using ranked ballots in future elections, starting in 2018, as an alternative to first-past-the-post." (McMeekin will also lead the co-ordinated review of Places To Grow and Greenbelt plans — which are linked to the MTO's review of Metrolinx/The Big Move — so I suspect he's going to become more politically prominent than ever.)

It would make sense for the Minister's own municipality to be an early adopter on ranked balloting, but that's not a fait accompli, and there would certainly need to be a educational component to help the public adapt to the change. The recent results spotlight the need for increased awareness and engagement, and this could go hand-in-hand with that. Nobody wants to consider voter turnout plunging further, but it's not a foregone conclusion. If the campaign isn't as sleepy and if there isn't a provincial or federal election competing for oxygen, it's possible that turnout could increase.