Tag Archives: Ranked ballots

Everything’s Fine!

Posted on by
1

These days, this council.

With the provincial government dangling the prospect of ballot reform, tantalizingly, and today’s announcement of the ward boundary review recommendation, giddywe here in Toronto should be giddy with excitement at the opportunity to reshape our local democracy. It’s something that hasn’t been done for 16 years since Queen’s Park pretty much unilaterally aligned all the city’s wards with the federal and provincial riding boundaries. So, we’re overdue, to make an understatement. Seize the moment to try and iron out some of the parochial wrinkles that have accumulated. Sweep out the dust bunnies and moldy odors that have collected in the cupboards.

It’s just… You know…

These days, this council.

With Councillor Justin Di Ciano, as city council’s woefully underwhelming representative, taking his anti-ranked ballots clownshow up University Avenue to speak to the standing committee overseeing voting reform initiatives, there’s some serious concern that Toronto voters won’t get a crack at using ranked ballots. dampenHell, if the councillor has his way, we’ll be robbed of even having a debate about it. His argument against moving from the current First Past The Post system is so full of shopworn bullet talking points, it’s impossible to tell what his real motives are with this antediluvian quest.

Equally unclear are the reasons our mayor, John Tory, seems determined to curtail debate on the ward boundary review ahead of the final recommendation going public. Earlier this year, when five possible new ward alignment options were outlined, he stated his position, which was pretty much as dismissive as you could be. “The last thing we need is more politicians.” Over this past weekend, his rhetoric had ossified into place, suggesting Mayor Tory hadn’t put so much as another thought into the matter.

I’ve maintained my position, which is, first of all, I don’t personally see the need for an expanded number of politicians, and secondly, I have yet to meet a Toronto citizen who has told me that their top priority — or any kind of priority of their’s — is to expand the number of politicians. I think we can make arrangements by reorganizing the boundaries a little bit.

The bottom line is I don’t think we need to have more decision makers at City Hall.

That there? That’s the sound of the door slamming on any sort of serious discussion about the size, shape or reorganization of city council. Maybe ‘a little bit’, John Tory’s incrementalism on full display. draggedIf it ain’t broke, amirite?

Rather than take the opportunity to show some civic leadership, and begin a discussion that might inject some new ideas and life into the governance structure at City Hall, Mayor Tory is intent on belittling the debate to nothing more than the number of councillors. Just like his predecessor did. As if numbers, and numbers alone, are the sole determinant of good, solid and proper political representation.

While it wasn’t part of the ward boundary review mandate to look at the structure of city council, the mayor and councillors could make it theirs, take the initiative and start talking about ways to improve how council functions, how to better represent the residents who’ve elected them to office. One of the biggest glitches plaguing governance in Toronto is the seemingly intractable urban-suburban divide that engenders division instead of cohesion. (Something I suspect is going to be a lightning rod of contention surrounding the ward boundary recommendation today.) Could a move toward at least some at-large, ward-free councillor positions help address that?

Maybe. Maybe not. It’s at least worth some sort of examination, isn’t it?notlistening

Whatever the outcome and final decision city council makes determining new ward boundaries, it’s going to be in place for the next 4 election cycles, 2018, 2022, 2026, 2030. During that time span, the city is projected to see huge population growth – 600,000 new residents by 2031 — and significant demographic changes. Is this Mayor Tory led city council really going to look at that and pursue a redrawing of wards only through the lens of a head count? Will it also brush aside the chance to give voters in the city a new way to elect its local politicians, maybe even in a new type of arrangement that might help reduce the type of harmful geographic divisiveness that has dogged it pretty much from the beginning of amalgamation?

You’d hope not but… well, you know…

These days, this mayor, this council.

— same-ol’-same-olly submitted by Cityslikr

MOAR RANKED BALLOTS!!!

Posted on by
2

… just one more thing, and I don’t mean to bother you… but about ranked ballots…columbo1

Look. I don’t think ranked ballots are the be all and end all. Yes, there are far more pressing problems this city faces than how we elect our local representatives. Problems ranked ballots won’t help solve, at least not directly. Hell, ranked ballots aren’t even going to cure our democratic deficit that keeps our city council from truly reflecting the demographics of this city.

But here’s why I’ve been harping on it for the better part of the past week since city council tried to trip up debate on the issue with Thursday’s successful vote on Councillor Justin Di Ciano’s motion, requesting the province not “proceed with amendments to the Municipal Elections Act to provide for Ranked Choice Voting”. It’s about our current state of governance and its glaringly apparent lack of resolve to even discuss, let alone embrace, change. Such paralytic aversion to new ideas and new ways of thinking adversely affects every aspect of our daily lives in this city, far and beyond than how we cast a ballot.

Yesterday, I highlighted the clown show that was the rookie councillor segment on ranked ballots on Sunday’s Mark Towhey 1010 radio program. I think it could be argued convincingly that the slate, featuring councillors Jon Burnside, Christin Carmichael Greb and Stephen Holyday, skewed rightward. idiotSo, you might infer from that that anti-ranked ballot sentiment is a conservative thing.

Not so fast.

A skim through the names of the 28 councillor voting along with the like of Justin Di Ciano, John Burnside, Christin Carmichael Greb, Stephen Holyday et al reveals that it isn’t simply a matter of right versus left. A handful of what would be considered variations of the colour pinko wound up on that list. Maria Augimeri. Glenn De Baeremaeker. Mary Fragedakis. Anthony Perruzza. They all helped give the motion a wider margin of victory than you might’ve expected, lending it a bipartisan feel to this assault on voting reform.

Joining in from the left side of the political spectrum, Councillor Paula Fletcher, addressing her constituents in a letter explaining her rational for giving thumbs down to ranked ballots, proved to all of us that left wing, progressive voices on council can be as equally dishonest and fatuous on the issue as any from the right.

Thanks so much for your email and your advocacy for voting reform. I want to assure you I also support electoral reform

I agree that ranked ballot voting is an exciting concept. So are other voting reform concepts like proportional representation. Meaningful reforms that get more people engaged and out to vote should be a priority for all governments.

I hope you agree that any transformation of our democratic electoral process should only take place after a rigorous democratic process. Unfortunately, when the motion regarding ranked ballots came up in 2013, City Council (then in the throes of the Rob Ford crisis) did not take the standard steps to bring the idea out for thorough, City-led public consultations. In comparison, the current Ward Boundary Review is undergoing a lengthy process with City staff, consultants, and public updates before any decision is made.

On a matter as important as voting reform, I rely on the same level of staff study and public consultation as I would when considering a major planning application like the 629 Eastern StudioCentre application coming to Council, a transit proposal like the Relief Line or an affordable housing renewal plan like Regent Park. This is the only way a Councillor can make a truly informed decision on your behalf.

I really appreciate that you have taken initiative to be very informed and active on this issue, however some residents were surprised to learn voting reform is being contemplated and have not had that chance.

When we change our voting system, I believe it has to be based on thoughtful, considered debate and best advice from City officials after broad City-wide public consultation.

Sincerely,

Paula

As I have said previously and repeatedly, the June 2013 vote was a request from city council to the province to allow municipalities the option of using ranked ballots (among other initiatives like permanent resident voting) in future municipal elections. bullshitdetectorThe option. All the other stuff – ‘considered debate’, ‘best advice from City officials’, ‘broad City-wide public consultation’, ‘a rigorous democratic process’ — would follow, presumably and if councillors like Paula Fletcher pushed for them, as the city council decided whether or not to implement ranked ballots.

In her letter, Councillor Fletcher delivers the impression that once the province gives us the go-ahead, ranked ballots are a done deal. By invoking the Ward Boundary Review currently underway, she suggests that ranked ballots are inevitable like the ward boundary changes that are indeed coming. Ranked ballots aren’t. At least not yet. And not at all if the likes of Councillor Fletcher has her way, apparently.

The ‘Rob Ford Made Us Do It’ claim is also as ridiculous as it is insulting. We was hyp-nah-tized! We had no control over what we was doing!

What’s even more embarrassing is Councillor Fletcher wasn’t in the room at the time. Her name is notably absent for this vote. Maybe she felt too traumatized by the ‘throes of the Rob Ford crisis’ to weigh in. hynotizedWho knows?

I don’t know the councillor, so I can only guess at her motivation with all this. Maybe it’s personal. She had a squeaker of an election back in 2010. Perhaps had ranked ballots been in place the outcome would’ve been different. There’s this Labour Council letter from August, “Democracy and Civic Elections”, that full-throatedly denounces ranked ballots. Maybe Councillor Fletcher feels a greater allegiance to the Labour Council than she does residents of Toronto. It could just be that some progressives are as allergic to change as conservatives. I wouldn’t even dismiss the possibility the councillor simply doesn’t like ranked ballots for very legitimate reasons.

That’s fine. But as I said yesterday, be upfront about it. Don’t mask your opposition in misinformation and spin. If Toronto elects to proceed with ranked ballots, it will only happen after serious public consultations, staff input and considered debate. All of which Councillor Fletcher calls for in her letter. behonestSupporting last week’s motion wasn’t necessary for any of that to happen.

All that motion served to do, with Councillor Paula Fletcher solidly behind it, was to fire an arrow across the bow. The option for ranked ballots appears to be coming, like it or not. Opponents of the issue just wanted to let everyone know, including activists who’ve been pushing the initiative with years of hard work, that it was still going to be a long, hard, uphill battle.

— sincerely submitted by Cityslikr

Rank Anti-Ranked Ballot Arguments

Posted on by
2

There are good arguments against ranked ballots. Valid reasons in which they are not optimal, mostly revolving around the question of true proportional representation. goodpointIt is not a perfect system.

Unfortunately, these are not the arguments being made currently, especially by those on city council who voted in favour last week of requesting the province not to give cities the option of introducing ranked ballots in forthcoming elections. Motion 6(a) from Councillor Justin Di Ciano (Ward 5 Etobicoke-Lakeshore): “That the Province should not proceed with amendments to the Municipal Elections Act to provide for Ranked Choice Voting.” There’s nothing more to this than not wanting to have the debate at all. It’s essentially trying to kneecap a decision council made last term. No discussion. Just cheap political thuggery.

If you want to hear really bad, woefully inadequate, pure and utter fuckwad nitwittery arguments against ranked ballots, take 5 minutes and listen to this segment on Mark Towhey’s Sunday 1010 talk radio show from three first term councillors, all, interestingly enough, close allies of Mayor John Tory. He voted against the motion. With friends like these, am I right?

I’ll refrain from taking the most obvious snark shot here. Larry, Curly and Moe. Because, really, that’s the first thing that sprang to your mind too, isn’t it.

No. I’m going with Dopey, Doc and Sully. A coterie of dumb. Exemplars of why we here in Toronto can’t have nice things.

When Councillor Christin Carmichael Greb (Ward 16 Eglinton-Lawrence) opens her mouth to speak, you realize why she doesn’t do so very often. It does her no favours. You know why she supported the motion to bury ranked ballots? She’s never been a fan of them. That’s why. She doesn’t like them.

You can hardly blame her, from an entirely selfish perspective. As Mr. Towhey pointed out, she was elected last year with only 17% of the popular vote. tempertantrumWith ranked ballots, the outcome might’ve been different, depending on the makeup of her challengers and other variables. Councillor Carmichael Greb simply doesn’t ‘believe it’.

Besides, she told listeners, she worked really hard for over a year to ensure that fewer than 1 in 5 voters in her ward put an X beside her name. She earned that 17%, dammit! With 16 candidates on the ballot in Ward 16, it was already confusing for the voters, she claimed. Having to choose 1, 2, 3 would’ve been even more so and, ultimately, not made any difference as far as the candidate who got into office with just 17% of the vote was concerned.

In explaining his opposition to ranked ballots, Councillor Stephen ‘Doc’ (yeah, I went there) Holyday (Ward 3 Etobicoke Centre) continued his impressive display of seemingly sound, rational reasoning always taking him into the reeds of illogical reactionism. It is a step forward, I guess, from the frequent unhinged rantings of his father, the sire of the Holyday dynasty in Etobicoke, (L’il Ginny, anyone?), but if it lands us in the same nonsensical soft spot, what’s it matter? The journey is a lot less fun to watch.

Councillor Holyday informed us that, under the current system, there’s quite a diversity at city council. A diversity along the political spectrum, that is, left, right and centre, and please, don’t look at the overwhelmingly white, largely male elephant in the room. longrouteSuch diversity, according to the councillor, leads to vigorous debate and discussion which, it can hardly be argued, is a good thing.

The problem with ranked ballots, says Councillor Holyday, is that they will ‘flatten’ that diversity. How? Because – and this is where he goes truly Holydian in his thinking – the second or third choice candidates on a ranked ballots will, and I’m quoting here with italics to emphasize the outrageousness of the statement, “…naturally be that centre, centre-left candidate that’s very neutral, very unexciting…”

Where the fuck does he come up with that?! Was he talking to his dad over Sunday brunch before coming in to the studio to do the show? Councillor Holyday proceeds to pile it on, suggesting such a fantasy scenario will lead to boring debates at city council as if the sole purpose of municipal government is to keep us entertained with some gruesome spectacle.

What’s truly amazing about the councillor’s performance here is that he actually brings up an interesting point before taking it and driving it through his eye into the intelligence centre of his brain, thereby killing any possibility of thoughtful discourse. on2ndthoughtBingham Powell, in his 2000 book, Elections as Instruments of Democracy: Majoritarian and Proportional Visions, suggested that our current system, first past the post, let’s call it, which requires a simple plurality of votes to determine election outcomes, may lead “to governments that are more extreme than the voters”. Or, less boring, as Councillor Holyday might sum up.

By making his particular argument against ranked ballots, basically smoothing off the extreme edges of the democratic process, Holyday winds up actually arguing in favour of the hyper-partisan, divisive dynamic that has been paralyzing this city for at least 5 years now.

As egregious an assault on our intelligence as that was, Councillor Jon Burnside (Ward 26 Don Valley West) took home the bullshit prize on this particular day. I nicknamed him Sully because, honestly, I failed to come up with a better word ending in ‘y’ for him. Dicky? Pricky? I even briefly contemplated transgressing the c-bomb stratosphere before settling on Sully.

Why?

Councillor Burnside’s anti-ranked ballot justification just drips of condescension toward the voting public. The ‘complication factor’, he stated, despite the fact that host Towhey had perfectly explained how ranked ballots worked in about 45 seconds.idiot Ranked ballots are a lot more complicated than putting down one X, Burnside said, as if counting to 3 gets most of us all fuzzy-headed.

He then goes on to say that when he was out knocking on doors during last year’s campaign, a lot of voters didn’t know the difference between federal, provincial and municipal levels of government as if that somehow proves that we can’t be trusted to mentally multitask. Nope. We’re simple folk. We like to mark our ballots like we like to sign our names. With just one X.

It is hard to refute his argument about the idiocy of the electorate, I guess, at least in Ward 26. After all, voters there voted Jon Burnside into office to represent their interests at City Hall.

In less time than it took Mark Towhey to inform listeners about the nuts and bolts of ranked ballots, Councillor Burnside sullied the reputation of voters and revealed a real patronizing side toward his constituency. I’d suggest anyone wanting to challenge him in 2018 simply print up flyers saying in big bold letters: COUNCILLOR JON BURNSIDE THINKS YOU’RE STUPID, WARD 26! No, wait. KOWNSILER JON BERNSID THINK WERE STOOPID WORD ??WEAR EVER WE LIV!!!

If you’re opposed to ranked ballots, so be it. We do still live in a democracy. idiot1This isn’t Russia. This isn’t Russia, is it, Danny?

Just be honest, is all we can ask. Don’t come up with bogus rationalizations. It’s obvious, listening to these 3 city councillor, Burnside, Carmichael Greb and Holyday, they don’t like change. The won, fair and square, with the current system in place. Why would they possibly want to change that?

But please stop insulting our, albeit limited, intelligence pretending it’s about anything else. You just wind up embarrassing yourselves.

— dumbly submitted by Cityslikr