News   May 17, 2024
Masterplanned Community Proposed Near Northfield ION in Waterloo
 1.8K     3 
News   May 17, 2024
Sevoy's 1515 Pickering Parkway to Join Pickering's Growing Downtown
 1K     2 
News   May 17, 2024
Canada’s Most Important Transit Oriented Development
 8.6K     9 

2014 Municipal Election: Toronto Mayoral Race

This talk of ranked ballots for 2018 makes me wonder if Ford would have won a ranked ballot in 2010. Ford won 47.1% of the 2010 vote, meaning he was the top pick of nearly 50% of people. AIUI, he just needs to be the second choice on 3% of the remaining ballots to win under the ranked system.

So, how exactly would ranked ballots have prevented Ford in 2010? Of course 2014 is a different animal.
 
Admiral Beez said:
This talk of ranked ballots for 2018 makes me wonder if Ford would have won a ranked ballot in 2010. Ford won 47.1% of the 2010 vote, meaning he was the top pick of nearly 50% of people. AIUI, he just needs to be the second choice on 3% of the remaining ballots to win under the ranked system.

So, how exactly would ranked ballots have prevented Ford in 2010? Of course 2014 is a different animal.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't have.
 
Admiral Beez said:
This talk of ranked ballots for 2018 makes me wonder if Ford would have won a ranked ballot in 2010. Ford won 47.1% of the 2010 vote, meaning he was the top pick of nearly 50% of people. AIUI, he just needs to be the second choice on 3% of the remaining ballots to win under the ranked system.

So, how exactly would ranked ballots have prevented Ford in 2010? Of course 2014 is a different animal.
Click to expand...
We only had a voter tun out of 50% in 2010. So Ford got in with half of half, or a quarter of all possible votes.
I hate first past the post.
Maybe ranked balloting will help to convince people to become more civically involved.
 
AndrewSosna said:
Also, I don't think it is so absurd to think Chow may lead a majority on council that blows the budget. The NDP are known for having poor fiscal policy (and I'm not just saying that on a whim. I've studied their policies and platforms).
Click to expand...

Rather than evaluating Chow against the 20-year-old policies of an NDP Provincial Government, maybe we can find more appropriate precedents. Perhaps the fiscal policies of the last NDP mayor? I consider Miller to be more fiscally responsible than both Lastman and Ford.

Also, again, Toronto is legally prevented from "blowing the budget" (if by "blowing" you mean running a deficit).

js97 said:
and considering resident's ability to pay that increase... That's probably the biggest reason Miller had such a backlash in 2010.
Click to expand...

Car owners were incapable of paying an extra $65/year? Transit riders under the Ford administration have been asked to pay over $10/month more than they did under Miller.
 
Johnny Au said:
Though Smitherman and Pantalone combined had more votes than Ford, there are some Pantalone voters who would put Ford as their second choice (even Pantalone himself), which would mean that Ford would still be mayor.
Click to expand...

Another thing to consider: in practice, 2010's "fringers" tended to do better in Ford-leaning zones than Smitherman-leaning zones. A lot of those, too, might have defaulted to Ford's "outsider appeal"...
 
Silence&Motion said:
Rather than evaluating Chow against the 20-year-old policies of an NDP Provincial Government, maybe we can find more appropriate precedents. Perhaps the fiscal policies of the last NDP mayor? I consider Miller to be more fiscally responsible than both Lastman and Ford.

Also, again, Toronto is legally prevented from "blowing the budget" (if by "blowing" you mean running a deficit).
Click to expand...

Hey there, sorry I didn't respond to this correction earlier in the thread. I meant to concede and admit I stood corrected but I wanted to say more and didn't have the time to write the post (I went to the island airport expansion hearing in Scarborough tonight).

Sincerely, thanks for the correction. I should have been more aware of the legality of deficits in municipalities.

Though, I do stand by my assertion that Chow would manage the budget poorly and subsequently lay taxes on constituents. High taxes deter investment, deterred investment means fewer jobs and economic growth, and fewer jobs and economic growth means less revenue - and less revenue likely means higher taxes. I'm not evaluating Chow on the basis of 20-year-old NDP policy. I'm evaluating her on the basis of the most current policy. I have studied the NDP platform (both federally and provincially here in Ontario) and it is evident to me that their opposition to capitalism manifests itself in policy that works against markets, and not with markets.

Edit: I'm going to respond to the earlier post you wrote in response to me. It was a thoughtful post and I really appreciated the content.
 
Last edited:
AndrewSosna said:
Hey there, sorry I didn't respond to this correction earlier in the thread. I meant to concede and admit I stood corrected but I wanted to say more and didn't have the time to write the post (I went to the island airport expansion hearing in Scarborough tonight).

Sincerely, thanks for the correction. I should have been more aware of the legality of deficits in municipalities.

Though, I do stand by my assertion that Chow would manage the budget poorly and subsequently lay taxes on constituents. High taxes deter investment, deterred investment means fewer jobs and economic growth, and fewer jobs and economic growth means less revenue - and less revenue likely means higher taxes. I'm not evaluating Chow on the basis of 20-year-old NDP policy. I'm evaluating her on the basis of the most current policy. I have studied the NDP platform (both federally and provincially here in Ontario) and it is evident to me that their opposition to capitalism manifests itself in policy that works against markets, and not with markets.

Edit: I'm going to respond to the earlier post you wrote in response to me. It was a thoughtful post and I really appreciated the content.
Click to expand...

"Opposition to capitalism"...seriously?
 
AndrewSosna said:
We don't have to trust private organizations. Contracts and proper regulatory oversight (that of which we already use in the public sector) are required for the sake of reaching our goals - not trust. I don't consider the public sector to be all that much more trustworthy than the private sector. I cite the billions of dollars blown away by the provincial Liberals (full disclosure: I'm a member of the federal Liberals, but I have a bad taste in my mouth about the Ontario Liberals. I will vote for them but only because I fear Hudak's sociopathic social policy). E-health, Ornge, gas plant scandal, blowing the Pan Am Games, etc.

Though, I concede there are some initiatives I prefer the state to run almost exclusively. Social programming, and the promotion of public spaces is really important, and I think those are initiatives we should collectively promote and take pride in.

I wouldn't call it "union-busting". I'd call it treating unions equally. The gov't should get the best deal possible with our tax dollars. I am pro union. But I don't believe that unions deserve special treatment, especially in the public sector. I find it offensive that someone is paid more by virtue of their affiliation with the public sector.

I support the privatization of garbage collection and other practical tasks requiring completion in any municipality. Yes, it does lower wages, and I sympathize, but I'd rather pay the savings towards enhanced social programming that can be distributed collectively and targeted more accurately. Firstly, it costs less to implement social programming at the collective level (income supplementation, tax breaks, reductions in user fees, housing stabilization fund for example, subsidized housing, etc) than it does to pay each individual employee more than their market worth. Secondly, some people who are paid above their market worth don't need it as much as others. I'd rather supplemental funding be spent as efficiently as possible, and targeted as accurately as possible. This way we help those who need it most. I am also concerned about income inequality. I think this is the most sustainable way to deal with it. Additionally, when the municipality levies fewer and lower taxes there is more of an incentive for investment.

Admittedly, you know more about Chow than I do. But I have never heard her speak of comprehensive, and realistic fiscal policy. She passionately embraces the NDP platform, and I think that is enough to indicate that she isn't much of a fiscal manager.

I know you're not attacking me. I completely agree that white privilege, in conjunction with the intersectionality of oppression, can colour our view of others in a prejudiced way - even if we have the best intentions. But I don't think I fall into this category. Not only because I have good intentions, but because I am actively aware of my privilege, and I work to overcome any deep, subtle prejudice that may exist within me. Quite simply, I think Chow is a very poor communicator (again, it's not the accent. I have worked with women, and with women of colour in fields where they are the majority - childcare, healthcare, social work). She strikes me as being extremely lofty in her interviews. And the book she wrote as of late was nauseating. Sincerely, I'm not trying to trash her. I legitimately believe she is lofty in her worldview.

I'm not against enacting socially progressive policies. Actually, I'm very much in favour of social programming (hence I want the municipality to negotiate contracts aggressively for the sake of freeing up funds - we cut $4.3mil from the housing stabilization fund and I find that unbelievably heartbreaking). I'm against going as far as I suspect Chow would want to. I fear that would lead to a backlash. We can be socially progressive without embracing the NDP's social policy. I worry that Chow could attain the majority she wants on council, and entirely stifle any opposition.

Regardless of majorities in council or parliament, I believe there is an ethical imperative to compromise, even when you're in power. It harbours a culture of trust, civility, and respect. And personally, I don't think all the conservatives on council are insensitive. I have no time for the Mammoliti's and the Debaeremakers, or the Fords. To me they are grossly insensitive to the plight of those who are deeply in need.

Mind the long post, but you wrote a thoughtful post and I wanted to address its content.
Click to expand...

So, now that we know the mayoral election is all about you and your tenuous grasp of social and economic policy, can we move on? I mean, you sound like someone who agrees with their rich dad about everything but doesn't like the veiled racism and open homophobia.

My favourite part was the suggestion that the public service should be paid less, but then making up for it with social programs. Yes, I'm sure better hours at the local community centre will make up for that $10,000 cut in salary....
 
Frankly I think Ford is being modest. He's also smoked more crack than any other mayor in the room, received more suspicious manila envelopes from drug dealers than any other mayor in the room, has had more search warrants issued to obtain his documents and files than any other mayor in the room, has more connections to the criminal underbelly than any other mayor in the room, and had his powers stripped by more councillors than any other mayor in the room.
 
Came across this:

Stintz-Line.png
 
tiffer24 said:
Ottawa roadshow changes nothing. Delusional thinking intact.

ddale8 9:14am via Web
Ford is told he's "mayor in name only" in Toronto. He says he was elected by more people than any other mayor in the room.
Click to expand...

More "votes" yes but Calgary and Mississauga Mayors came in at 74% of the votes cast where Ford was only 47% - on a significant split. So when Doug goes on about the "largest mandate" in Canada he needs to be careful how he states that.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top