Showing posts with label voting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label voting. Show all posts

Friday, October 29, 2010

Post Election Blues

Election Results - SO WHAT NOW?

In Ward 18 -

As with every election, no matter who wins, I always notice a bizarre feeling of "Is this real?" after the results are in. For those who lost - and expected to win - like Kevin Beaulieu, the shock and grief is understandable. For those who won, there is always the same degree of shock, just in a different direction.

Ana Bailao won big. She campaigned hard and long and had everything going for her. Despite that, the sneaky tricks, primarily by her campaign, stood out in the last week of the election. I have no doubt she exceeded maximum campaign limits (just by looking at the glossy literature that hit my mailbox all year). I have no doubt she had her election signs up (slightly) early. I have no doubt she engineered and authored supposedly neutral stories in the Portugese only media, and probably exceeded expense limits here too (you are supposed to claim for value of offered goods and services). But then, all those questionable tactics have always been the trademark of big Liberal party politics in Davenport, so were they Ana's doing or did it just come with the territory of her backers? It will be interesting to se if anything comes of these anti-democratic tactics through the normal channels of Toronto Election services.

Despite the tactics, Ana won big. Her shock is likely of the "Oh my God, I won! This is serious!" variety and I hope it sits with her throughout her time on council so that she is constantly thinking - "Now I have to live up to my promises and represent ALL my constituents". The absolute worst thing Ana could do would be to cater to her big development dollar donors and/or her ethnic Portugese community.

REALITY:
* 75% of the ward is NOT Portugese. Our City Councillor must represent ALL of ward 18
* Everyone in the ward is concerned about getting the right kind of development, 100% of the ward wants in on community consultation and real input BEFORE things happen in the ward.
* There are several disparate lobby groups of special interests in the ward: cyclists, artists, BIA's, self-defined resident groups - and the as-always forgotten margianlized poor, homeless and hungry. Ward 18 is complex and will need a careful hand to achieve all the compromises necessary.

For those that came in as 'also-rans', the loss was likely expected, or should have been. Media defined the race as a two person, two party one the moment Kevin Beaulieu announced his intention to run on April 13, after his former boss Adam Giambrone had self-destructed in the mayoral race and finally decided not to run again in ward 18. So for the last 7 months the writing was on the wall for all to see.

Still, we should all ask what will become of the 'also-rans', 90% of whom made a serious try at campaigning. At the 8 meetups and debates, they all offered differing ideas to improve the ward as well as cemented the unifying theme of more and better community consultation. They exhibited their various skills and abilities, which would be a shame and loss to the ward if they all did not continue to contribute to improving the quality 0f life in the community.

Frank de Jong, the Green Party candidate will likely take a run again at the provincial MPP race expected in just under a year, so we can probably count on his staying involved.
Hema Vyas although living within walking distance of ward 18 constantly told us she cared for and was involved in the ward 18 community. She came with impressive cultural and non-profit credentials. Will we see her just as active post-election?
Joe MacDonald promised us he would not be a career politician and came with impressive academic and insider political experience. Hw will he stay involved in ward 18 life?
Kirk Russell stayed very much in the centre of discovering and bringing to light alleged and real infractions of electioneering by the two front-runners. He had some extremely detailed and well-researched ideas about traffic that bears further consideration by those now in power. How will he stay involved?
Nha Le, the perennial election campaigner and supporter of the big Liberal party machine is nothing if not persistent in trying to be involved in ward18 politics. Will he be of use to Ana as he has been to Tony Ruprecht? Is he just a Liberal hanger-on or will he contribte to ward 18?
Doug Carroll was an eloquent and ideas driven person, even if those ideas did not resonate within the ward. Will his interest in city governance continue and be listened to by Ana?
Ken Wood, Mohammed Muhit, Joanna Teliatnik and Abdirazak Elmi - how will they be involved in future ward 18 life, if at all? Time will tell.

I hope Ana Bailao continues to read my blog and considers seriously her promise of better and real community consultation. She has been quoted as saying "Now the work begins". If she doesn't govern well, the next election results could be very different, yet again.


Remember: Davenport Deserves Better.... Will We Get It?

Monday, October 25, 2010

AFTERMATH

TORONTO HAS SPOKEN

#WARD18:

1. Ana Bailao = 6,277 votes = 44 %
2. Kevin Beaulieu = 4,911 votes = 34% 1,366 votes behind
3. Frank de Jong = 869 votes = 6%
------------------ Top 3 candidates belong to political parties
4. Hema Vyas = 776 votes = 5%
5. Joe MacDonald = 669 votes = 5%
6. Kirk Russell = 326 votes = 2%
7. Nha Le = 154 votes = 1%
-- Above all had significant election signs and/or campaign offices
8. Ken Wood = 106 votes = 0.8%
9. Mohammed Muhit= 74 votes = 0.7% ???
... Mohammed did not even campaign, never met ???
10. Joanna Teliatnik= 70 votes = 0.5%
11. Doug Carroll = 54 votes = 0.4%
12. Abdirazak Elmi= 42 votes = 0.3%
----------- TOTAL VOTES = 14, 346 out of 26,737 eligible voters

VOTER TURNOUT = 53.7% !!!!!!!
Wow! Up from 35% last city election
---------------------------------------
So we could say Ana was elected by 23.5% of all eligible voters... if we assume that the 12,391 eligible voters who did NOT vote were of the 'None of the Above' persuasion.
--------------------------------
So.... Why did 12, 391 people decide NOT to vote at all?
Lazy? Just didn't care? Weren't aware an election was on? This baffles me.
---
I do know from anecdotal experience that at a few polling stations I saw voters come in to say "I just want to vote for Mayor" Maybe they didn't know any of the other candidates? I wonder if the mayor race captured their attention because the media kept saying it was so close.
--------
Assuming Ana expended the maximum limit allowed (she likely went way over), it cost her about $4.58 per vote she received. Just.... interesting.
------------
MAYORAL RACE:
1. Rob Ford = 381,803 votes = 47%
2. George Smitherman = 288, 104 = 36%
3. Joe Pantalone = 95, 0844 = 12%
----------------------- Again top 3 belong to political parties.
4. Rocco Rossi (who dropped out) = 5000 votes = 0.7% of vote followed by many others.
Himy Syed = 576 votes = 0.07% of vote
----------
CITY COUNCIL MAKEUP:
Ward 1 = Vincent Crisanti
Ward 2 = Doug Ford
Ward 3 = Doug Holyday
Ward 4 = Gloria Lindsay-Luby
Ward 5 = Peter Milczyn CLOSE VOTE
Ward 6 = Mark Grimes
Ward 7 = Giorgio Mammoliti
Ward 8 = Anthony Perruzza
Ward 9 = Maria Augimeri CLOSE VOTE
Ward10= James Pasternak
Ward11= Frances Nunziata
Ward12= Frank Di Giorgio
Ward13= Sarah Doucette
Ward14= Gord Perks
Ward15= Josh Colle
Ward16= Karen Stintz
Ward17= Cesar Palacio
Ward18= Ana Bailao
Ward19= Mike Layton
Ward20= Adam Vaughan
Ward21= Joe Mihevc
Ward22= Josh Matlow
Ward23= John Filion
Ward24= David Shiner
Ward25= Jaye Robinson
Ward26= John Parker
Ward27= Krystyn Wong-Tam
Ward28= Pam McConnell
Ward29= Mary Fragedakis
Ward30= Paula Fletcher
Ward31= Janet Davis
Ward32= Mary-Margaret McMahon
Ward33= Shelley Carroll
Ward34= Denzil Minnan-Wong
Ward35= Michelle Berardinetti
Ward36= Gary Crawford
Ward37= Michael Thompson
Ward38= Glenn De Baeremaeker
Ward39= Mike Del Grande
Ward40= Norm Kelly
Ward41= Chin Lee
Ward42= Raymond Cho
Ward43= Paul Ainslie
Ward44= Ron Moeser
-------------
Not a Ford Majority council, but some may change their colours to get plum positions the Mayor gets to dole out.... Wonder WHO will be TTC Chair? Mammolitti?
--------------
Women jumped from 22% to 33% of council.... will things be more compromise seeking rather than competitive?

Monday, October 18, 2010

How to Fix An Election

How To Fix Our Elections

TEN IDEAS for next time we try the democratic thing, so that the choice of the majority actually gets elected and we have a level field for all:

  1. Ban newspapers from deciding on who they call the front-runners: require that they report on all the candidates at the start of the campaign when registrations close. Short profiles.
  2. Use a Ranked Ballot system where voters prioritize who they'd like to see elected... 1,2,3, etc. This might avoid 20% deciding who gets elected - the way it is now.
  3. Ban public polling being released from January 1 to Election Day: candidates may have their own polls, but would be severely financially penalized if they released information.
  4. Make voting day a statuatory holiday, but make voting mandatory with financial penalties, only exceptions require valid medical waivers. Advance polls would still be available. Would require a 'None of the Above' option for voters to express dissatisfaction.
  5. Ban political parties from endorsing candidates and close the loophole whereby paid party staffers can work on campaigns as 'free volunteers' and inflate election war chests.
  6. City should erect 'Election Kiosks' at intersections and in public spaces like parks, libraries and community centres. Require candidates to post 8x10 sign outlining their platform, same size for all. No more waste production than necessary.
  7. Ban anyone from doing outside work (erecting signs, dispensing litereature, etc.) unless they are over 18 years of age. No more oops! mistakes about flouting election laws.
  8. City of Toronto Election Website should devote a web page to each of the candidates to upload their platforms and information. Allow 311 or a voicemail service to connect callers to 60 second audio pitch of candidates running in their wards.
  9. Limit mayoral debates to one a week in each of the city's 44 wards.
  10. Prohibit a sitting Mayor from publicly endorsing any candidates.
Yes, I know there are a lot of reasons to say no to these ideas, but I ask how well served we have been with the way things go now? Who really sets the stage for an election? Sound-byte scandal mongering media or the candidates and voters? Which do you prefer?

*Update: More voices being heard in the major disappointment the media has been in this election: http://oct25.ca/mediamessup

Tuesday, October 5, 2010

VOTE - SERIOUSLY - VOTE !

Will We See More Voters Actually Vote by October 25 ?
2006 Toronto City Election: Voter Turnout in Ward 18 Davenport = 35%
Number of elgible voters in Ward 18 Davenport = 26, 737 out of 45,620 population
----
2006 Election Results: SIX candidates running...
Adam Giambrone = 6,025 votes = elected by about 22% of elegible voters
- or another way to say it is that 78% of voters didn't want him or didn't care
Simon Wookey = 2,089 (running this year in ward 27, TO Centre-Rosedale)
Jim McMillen = 292
Lloyd Ferguson = 262
Nha Le = 252 (running again in ward 18)
Jim Rawling = 87
... 9,006 people voted = only a 35% turnout
----
2003 Election Results: SIX candidates running...
Adam Giambrone = 5,797 votes
Ana Bailao = 4,537 (running again in ward 18 in 2010)
Hotencio Fotopoulus = 387
Nha Le = 234
Cynamin Maxwell = 155
Anna Salaverry-Chuquihuara = 141
.... 11,250 people voted
---
It seems that since only HALF of our ward population can actually vote, and that LESS THAN HALF of those who can vote do vote, and that anyone can get elected with just about TWENTY PER CENT of the people voting for that person...... isn't there something wrong with our democracy?
-
I would advocate mandatory voting, but only if it allows a choice of 'NONE OF THE ABOVE' so we truly know the will of the people.
-
The Better Ballots group http://www.betterballots.to/ has been looking at ways to improve our democracy so that the public will is actually reflected in the people we elect. This group not only questions why a diverse city like Toronto is not reflected in those who sit in power at City Council, but also why we don't find better ways to elect our representatives.
-
RANKED BALLOTS ( or preferential voting) is something I believe in. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferential_voting It essentially means picking your favourites by numbering all candidates 1,2,3,4, and so on. This avoids the 'first past the post' system of whoever gets the most votes in a race wins. Why is that unfair, you ask? Well if you have say - 12 - candidates running, some with similar platforms, 11 of them can split the vote letting the victors slip through, even though if asked voters will not want that dissimilar platform elected.
Until this is a reality, anyone who can get just 5,350 votes can win this election
-
Until that happens, Voters must ALWAYS VOTE SERIOUSLY !
Those that do not even vote can still be hurt by the person they let get elected by not voting
Those that do vote, must carefully compare the promises and platforms of all the candidates and choose the one that best represents what they want. Who is closest, in total, of the one you want to represent you?
===
PLEASE! VOTE CAREFULLY AND SERIOUSLY. EVERY VOTE COUNTS.
WE NEED BETTER VOTER TURNOUT ON OCTOBER 25 .... because ...
DAVENPORT DESERVES BETTER
Not our ward, but next door in Ward 19 they had some fireworks that prove debates aren't always boring: http://tinyurl.com/28yx2qa Example: Incumbent Chris Bolton got caught sending his campaign literature home with school children - bombshell dropped by Michael Sims. And just why is Mike Layton's signs including a vote for Chris Bolton too?

Sunday, March 7, 2010

Your City, My City - Toronto Star

Congratulations to the Toronto Star for trying to reach out and involve people in upcoming municipal elections. http://www.thestar.com/YourCityMyCity

They are trying to kick-start debate by having bloggers, columnists and commentators speak to issues relating to our city. It is worth following. Here are some examples:

Why Youth Doesn't Vote : In the last city election (2006), city wide turnout was a mere 39.3% (It was only 35% in Davenport). Anita Li says it is not because youth don't care, but rather: A: They are cynical of politicians who don't follow through on promises and B: There is not easy access to interesting and relevant election information.
*Update article in The Star: http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/article/863162--the-39-per-cent-problem

My opinion is that this is naive and a false argument. We are stuck with the system we have right now (though it could benefit from some significant changes):

"No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time" - Sir Winston Churchill, British politician in a 1947 speech.

Information about the election is available. It is and will be in our major newspapers, on radio call in shows, on television stories as well as online. I believe there will be more information available this election than ever before. The one sticking point - and this affects Davenport - is that it will be almost entirely in English, where less than 40% of people say their mother tongue is English. What about the 25% who speak Portugese? Or the other languages in the ward: Spanish, Chinese, Italian, Vietnamese, French, Punjabi, etc ?

There really is an issue in how we can talk to and more importantly, hear from, our citizens in this ward. I am STRONGLY in favour of more and better consulatation on issues that affect us.

Money Shouldn't Be Everything : Rahul Bhardwaj makes an appeal to not have a negative, everything that is 'bad' about our city campaign that focuses only on money issues, "whether it be municipal finance, spending, taxes or public wages". He says that if we want to have a great city, it takes vision and innovation.

I agree, but only to a certain extent. City government should be all about improving the quality of life for its residents, not just about bigger budgets and growth. There has to be a vision of something greater: where we want to be in 5, 10, 20 years. What we do should reflect our values. However, poor handling of finances and adding burdens of taxes (whether that be in the form of 'user fees' or property taxes) does affect quality of life. The city has to be smarter about where and how money is spent.

The Star's Christopher Hume, a very experienced regular commentator on urban issues and architecture, also did an interesting story about how "Toronto's 'little' details (are) a big deal for residents": http://www.thestar.com/yourcitymycity/article/776192--hume-toronto-s-little-details-a-big-deal-for-residents

He talks about many things I firmly believe in: that we citizens care about it being safe to cross the street, that our snow has been cleared and garbage picked up, that there is somewhere to walk the dog or a bench to sit on. We care about the TTC and whether we can get from point A to point B comfortably and consistently. I think we are willing to pay for that, IF WE GET THE SERVICE !

Make 'Em Work For Your Vote! : Dan Bordonali makes a plea for citizens to not just go for name recognition (Adam Giambrone?), but rather make the effort to conduct the pitch for your vote into a job interview. You are the boss. Ask candidates tough questions, find out if you want them to work for you. It takes work on your part, but it is what will make for a better city.

I agree completely.