Today Fri Sat
It is forcast to be Fog at 11:00 PM EDT on May 24, 2012
Fog
29°/18°		 It is forcast to be Chance of Rain at 11:00 PM EDT on May 25, 2012
Chance of Rain
28°/18°		 It is forcast to be Overcast at 11:00 PM EDT on May 26, 2012
Overcast
27°/15°

28 Comments

news

Better Ballots for a Better City Council

By Alixandra Gould

20100106betterballots.jpg
Illustration by Brian McLachlan/Torontoist.


On Monday, just as hopefuls began filing their papers to run in the October 2010 municipal election, the Better Ballots Initiative launched its website. The initiative aims to spark a dialogue on how to make Toronto’s City Council elections more relevant, effective, fair, and participatory.


According to the group’s leader, long-time civic activist Dave Meslin, the city is not being properly represented by Council. In a recent blog post, Meslin wrote that “By any measure, our city elections are failing us. Voter turnout is astonishingly low, turnover of Councilors is extremely rare, and our Council is surprisingly white and male for a city that allegedly prides itself on its diversity.” Better Ballots wants to explore ways to more fairly reflect the city’s populace, starting with reform to the electoral system.
Like provincial and federal elections, Toronto uses the First Past the Post (FPTP) system, which rewards the candidate who has more votes than all the others. But Meslin told us that FPTP is a misleading term: “There actually is no post you have to pass. It should be called first to the post,” he said. Often, candidates for Council will win their seat with less than 30% of the total ballots cast—making the fact that they got more than the other hopefuls less than compelling.
Meslin says Better Ballots is not advocating for any one replacement of the FPTP system, but wants to get the discussion going on a variety of possible alternatives. One option the group is considering is ranked ballots, where voters rank their choices, and if no candidate achieves a majority then the candidate with the least votes is automatically dropped off and their votes are reallocated to the second choice listed on the ballot; this is called an Instant Runoff and continues until someone wins a majority. Another possibility is the Single Transferable Vote, a system that uses multi-member districts and ensures proportional results. It uses a ranked ballot and is similar to an Instant Runoff, except that it also has a mechanism where candidates can achieve a “surplus” vote that is proportionately transferred to other candidates, based on voters’ ranked choices.
Another interesting way to make representation fairer, Meslin explains, is to have Borough Councils as they do in cities like Montreal. In this system, Toronto would still have a mayor and council, but subdivisions—or boroughs—of the city would also have their own mayor and council, recognizing the diversity and autonomy of Toronto’s many regions. Meslin pointed out that the divisions could be based on pre-Megacity lines.
Implementing municipal term limits and having a local party system independent from the provincial or federal parties are other ideas involved in the dialogue.
Better Ballots came out of the Toronto City Summit Alliance, a multi-issue activist group, but has always maintained its independence. It prides itself on being bi-partisan, inclusive, and diverse; what unites the people behind it is their advocacy for change. While reform is unlikely by the time Torontonians go to the polls later this year, Meslin aims to keep the discussion around how we vote going in the years to come.
The Better Ballots Initiative will be hosting a series of public forums on voting reform across the city this spring. Sign up for updates here.

Comments

  • rek

    Voting should be mandatory.

  • http://undefined friend68

    In municipal politics, even more so than in federal or provincial, it is essential to have a representative that serves your neighborhood.
    I can’t help but think that when people say that “elections are failing us” it just means that the people they voted for didn’t win.

  • http://undefined Matthew

    Any initiative that might lead to the removal of the disgraceful sham that is the First Past The Post voting system has my support.

  • http://undefined Jonathan R.

    Let me be clear, I support what betterballots is attempting to accomplish.
    However, I’m wary of all the election type sites popping up in the last week or so. TEN was criticized for it’s hidden agenda/hidden contributors, fair enough, they were called on it and they came clean. On the other hand, Betterballots lists it’s members, but a Google check on them will show that some members have run for council and lost (visible minorities/women) Sour grapes? Perhaps.
    I’m just sadden to see how both ‘sides’ are hell bent on deceiving the public with these sites which are suppose to help in the election process but are ultimately promoting hidden agenda/candidates.

  • http://undefined Andrew

    Torontonians more or less convincingly defeated the provincial MMP initiative in 2007, by an only slightly smaller margin than the province as a whole.
    An alternative voting scheme may be a good idea, sure. I voted for it in 2007. But it’s unseemly to keep bringing this up when the people have clearly stated that they don’t want it. Can we please move on?

  • http://undefined Green Sulfur

    Jonathan, you need to take off that tinfoil hat for a moment and get back to reality. How is it remotely comparable to have an election news site with no name attached to it and an issue-based campaign site that describes an agenda and lists the key players?

  • rek

    “Clear” is not a word I’d use to describe anything related to the MMP campaign.

  • http://undefined Svend

    If it’s possible to have instant run-offs, why wouldn’t we do it?
    When parties choose their leader they do several ballots until one gets 50%. They believe the one who gets the most votes on the first ballot isn’t the best choice to lead the party as a whole and that makes sense.
    So why do we feel otherwise when voting for municipal, provincial or federal candidates?

  • http://undefined the_yellow_dart

    Allowing those who don’t care about politics to stay home means that those of us who actually care about it can make more of a difference. Would you really want to drag cranky people to the voting booths just so they can place an X beside a random name?

  • http://paul.kishimoto.name Paul Kishimoto

    Strictly defined, democracy does not mean “a system wherein the people who care choose their government by voting.” Also, I don’t doubt that an argument against womens’ suffrage was that women weren’t likely to be well-informed/care enough to vote ‘properly’; you can see the parallel even though that was about allowing—not requiring—them to vote.
    Australia has used compulsory voting since 1925 and hasn’t seen fit to repeal it.

  • http://www.torontoist.com David Topping

    Past performance is no necessary indicator of future success when what determines success is the public opinion…it seems a bit silly to me to say, “well, we tried out voting reform of any kind exactly once, and a majority weren’t for it, so let’s just never try it again.”

  • http://undefined scottd

    I still have yet to find any evidence in Meslin’s posts that any of his changes would actually increase voter turnout or interest. I find that people who are interested are already interested.
    All these run offs and a return to many little fiefdoms approach may sound better but is it really? I would not argue that pre-amalgamation was more democratic and todays Community Councils tend to just be a rubber stamp device.
    While I laud the civic involvement of Meslin his solutions dont get at the real issues, 1. A lot of people will never care, 2. whatever system you have in place, it is the deal making and cronyism after the election which is part of the political process since day 1 that makes people not care.
    The solution is not the process but an understanding of how to capitalize on self interest of the voter; the same self interest that creates the conditions that Meslin doesn’t like. Self interest can even take the form of not voting. Taken to the extreme, even mandatory voting has not lead to more democracy or better government.

  • http://undefined Matthew

    I’d like to see FPTP win an electoral reform campaign where FPTP was used to choose the preferred voting method. But of course, the people making the rules never use FPTP to decide anything that really matters.

  • rek

    Higher voter turnout won’t change how often elections are held, or increase the number of referendums (both “more democracy”), and doesn’t mean voters will care about who they vote for or reward/punish them in subsequent elections (“better government”) — but it isn’t meant to. All it does is give us a government with a proper, majority, mandate, one that more accurately represents the population (not just voters) at large.
    And while you can’t make people care, but you can make them vote (or pay for not voting come tax time).

  • http://undefined rek

    Or we could change the rules so you need 67% (or whatever the figure was) to win.

  • http://undefined Andrew

    That’s true! But to come back within a few years of a referendum and tell the voters, “You mustn’t have understood the question, so let’s do this again,” strikes me as condescending. It would be awfully easy to tick the “no” box again. And look at what happened in BC: a narrow loss in 2005 turned into a landslide in 2009.
    Alternative voting schemes have failed everywhere the question has been asked: BC 2005, PEI 2005, Ontario 2007, BC 2009. It’s the John Tory of referendums: a good idea in theory, but has somehow acquired the stench of loserhood. It’s time to take a break for a decade or two and direct these political energies elsewhere.

  • http://undefined Andrew

    So none of the political offices in the land matter?

  • http://undefined rek

    Yes. Yes I would.

  • http://undefined shaun

    The referendum in 2007 was designed to fail. The people charged with organizing and promoting the issue were completely inadequate and unqualified, there was barely discussion of it in the media, and the government agency involved with processing literature regarding the referendum refused to print or mail out (extra) material long before the election was held.
    Secondly, the referendum should have been held on its own and not during an election, and the 60% threshold needed to win should have been 50+1%.
    Lastly, most of the major political parties in this country do not support proportional representation and wanted the referendum(s) to fail. These are the same people in charge of organizing and executing them. The skeptic in me thinks if the referendums had any chance of changing anything, they would never have been held.

  • http://undefined renodane

    The main issue is the overwelming power sitting councilors have to get themselves re-elected. Until term limits or some other form of leveling the playing field so that new ideas and faces can be heard, is instituted. Voter turnout and democracy will continue to decline as will the quality of our lives and life in this city we all say we love.

  • http://undefined renodane

    We need a refercensus. The referendum process should not be at the whim of the sitting government of the day, and as we all know only a fool would change things when they’re on top. Harper is the best recent example of this. If we use the machinery of the census and add referendum questions in a limited number say five per census. We can achieve democratic renewal, all will have their opinions counted and the government of the day will be required to enact the will of the true majority because all will legally be required to respond. Furthermore because of the time frame, questions can be properly debated and voted on at the individual’s pace and pleasure, not on a dictated day. This type of mecanism is truely need to save our parlimentary model from the ambitions of the people in it.

  • http://undefined Gary Dale

    With wards of 60,000 people, the idea of a neighborhood representative is a joke. I have a dozen neighborhoods within a 15 minute walk, each with a distinct character. And that’s just a small section of the ward.
    We need to think instead of communities. I’m not talking of communities in terms of geography however, but rather of interests. Tenants in townhouses have different interests than homeowners in mini-mansions. Highrise tenants are different from rooming-house owners.Immigrants with English as a second language have different concerns from fifth-generation Canadians whose distant ancestors emigrated from England.
    Relying on geography to define politics merely gives incumbents a monopoly on delivering services, which they then use to establish a stranglehold on their positions.It’s actually rather ironic that the people who most strongly defend the idea of a “local representative” also generally decry “government monopolies” and praise private sector competition.
    Interestingly, no matter where you are in Toronto, you can be pretty sure that you’re almost as close, if not closer, to the representative in another ward as you are to your own “neighborhood representative”.

  • http://undefined Gary Dale

    Be careful what you wish for. You might get it. While first past the post (fptp) is a really bad voting system, there are worse.
    Instant run-off voting (IRV), for example, generally produces the same results as first past the post, it can and sometime does, produce far worse results. There is a reason why it is so unpopular – it doesn’t work.
    France’s two-round voting is another system that really doesn’t work very well. Like IRV, two-round voting works against electing women and underrepresented minorities. It simply reinforces the strength of the largest voting blocks.
    We need to look beyond quick fixes and design a voting system that really works for Toronto.
    Better Ballots came up with some good ideas. IRV was the exception to that. Better Ballots also left off some ideas that deserve study, such as changing the way election campaigns are financed.

  • http://undefined Gary Dale

    If elected officials mattered, why aren’t they deciding the issue of voting systems? The truth is, they are. They just do it in such a way as to ensure it’s defeat.
    For example, in Ontario, Elections Ontario was not allowed to talk about anything but the mechanics of voting. The media on the other hand went on a rampage against MMP. Despite that, MMP got as much support as the Liberals. However, the Liberals won while MMP lost.
    I even met several people who told me they were voting against the proposal simply to “get back at McGuinty” for not telling them about the referendum, not realizing that was exactly what McGuinty wanted.
    A major part of the the media campaign, apart from outright lies about MMP, was to suggest that if MMP was voted down another system would be be brought forward for consideration. Exit polls showed that while the majority of voters were in favour of elector reform, they simply didn’t like the exact proposal on the table.
    Various polls also showed that people who thought they knew about MMP tended to reject it, while people who could actually demonstrate some knowledge of it accepted it.
    In short, the referendum result in Ontario showed the power of the media in influencing referendums.
    The B.C. results were different. STV won the first referendum by all meaningful measures. However the Liberals had set an impossibly high barrier to acceptance. In the second campaign, the media decided to get involved using the same tactic that worked so well in Ontario..Plus the Liberals had a really bad riding map drawn up, so that voters were actually voting more on the exact riding boundaries than the idea of STV.
    Of course the second referendum failed.
    WHy not do a two-stage process like they did in New Zealand? First hold a referendum on the need for electoral reform. Then have referendums on the various proposals until one gets a majority? Or simplify the process and use a ranked ballot for the various choices.

  • http://undefined Gary Dale

    Instant Run-offs (IRV) aren’t the same as real run-offs. For one thing, you can’t change your vote between rounds. While in a real run-off election, you can always vote honestly on the first ballot (and on many subsequent ballots), you don’t have that ability in the Instant variety.
    All run-off systems have the “feature” that there are many ways to get to 50% of the vote. It really depends on the order candidates are dropped. IRV forces voters into tactical voting the same way first past the post does.
    To use the example of the current Toronto mayoralty election, Ford is the first choice of the largest block of voters. Smitherman is asking voters to vote tactically for him to prevent a Ford victory. If enough voters do, he will win. However, if voters decide that Smitherman is simply Ford light and switch their votes to Panatalone, he could win.
    Under IRV, almost the same thing happens. If Pantalone gets dropped from the ballot first, his votes will likely go to Smitherman which could put Smitherman over the top. However, if Smitherman is dropped before Panatalone, enough of Smitherman’s votes could go to Ford (the other angry candidate) to give him the win.
    Therefore, Pantalone supporters will be pressured to put Smitherman first.
    Under a real run-off, you would get to see the actual results after the first ballot. If Smitherman really was far ahead of Pantalone, then Pantalone could be persuaded between rounds to drop out in favour of Smitherman, Or Smitherman could be persuaded to publicly declare for Pantalone, which would carry enough weight with his supporters to prevent the Ford win.
    However, none of these systems, first past the post, run-offs and IRV, are very good for electing more than one position.They simply aren’t very good at representing the views of a diverse population.
    Interestingly, if you consider even a single position over time, they don’t work out very well there either. Always electing the “majority” candidate ignores the various minorities. Without turning this into a lecture on electoral system, there are ways to handle even single-positions proportionally.

  • http://undefined Gary Dale

    Last election only 39% of the people voted. Groups with the lowest turnouts are those with the least representation and the least ability to get represented under our current system.
    Mandatory voting won’t give them that representation. All it will do is punish them. Some religious groups also oppose voting. Mandatory voting will not likely survive a charter challenge. At best it will simply increase the number of spoiled ballots.
    Fix the reasons people don’t vote by making every vote count. Bring in a fair voting system and address the other barriers to getting minority candidates elected.

  • http://undefined Gary Dale

    Multimember wards or some other form of competition between councilors would help.
    Also we can try reversing the City’s political contribution reimbursement mechanism, so that campaigns are given a top-up based on contributions, rather than contributors given a rebate. It works out to the same amount but people are more willing to give $25 to a campaign then $100 with a $75 rebate later.
    Proportional representation, so that everyone’s vote counts is essential.This can be implemented with or without political parties.

  • http://undefined Gary Dale

    Direct democracy worked in Athens because every citizen was required to attend the debates before voting. We use representative democracy because there is no way we can all spend that much time studying each and every issue.
    Appeals for more referendums simply gives the media even more power to control the political agenda. It appeals to the gut, not the intellect.
    We elect politicians to do the job we don’t have the time or expertise to do ourselves. What we need is a way to empower our politicians to work for us. I suggest:
    - Proportional representation because it reduces the power of political parties by taking away safe seats. You need good candidates, not just a good leader, to attract votes.
    - bans on corporate influence, such as lobbying, political contributions (done in Toronto, Manitoba and Quebec but not the rest of Ontario), and controls over media campaigns.