News   May 24, 2024
Shoppes on Steeles Redevelopment Proposed in Markham
 8.1K     2 
News   May 24, 2024
Architects and More Open Up for Doors Open
 1.2K     0 
News   May 24, 2024
Lifetime Developments Goes Beyond Construction to Build Community with the Lifeline Foundation
 466     0 

Mayor Olivia Chow's Toronto

AlvinofDiaspar said:
Not wrong - what they should require is at least 10 signatures from each ward in the city.

AoD
Click to expand...

Geographically balanced, but expensive and cumbersome, its a big deal to ask a lesser-known candidate, say a Chloe Brown who ran her campaign on a shoe string, to get to all 25 wards within the window prior to a filing deadline.

I prefer to keep democracy a bit more open than that.

I'm perfectly comfortable with raising the minimum number of signatures to 100. I think that would at least curtail the candidate numbers by 1/2.

If you wanted to require the signatures must come from at least 5 different wards, I wouldn't oppose that either.

I think its a baby/bathwater scenario.

While I'd rather see a small number of candidates on the final ballot (say, under 10), I also really like the low barrier to entry, such that people don't have to fundraise millions, or be backed by a party in order to raise issues and challenge presumed front runners.

Any which way, we need ranked ballots.
 
Last edited:
Northern Light said:
Geographically balanced, but expensive and cumbersome, its a big deal to ask a lesser-known candidate, say a Chloe Brown who ran her campaign on a shoe string, to get to all 25 wards within the window prior to a filing deadline.

I prefer to keep democracy a bit more open than that.

I'm perfectly comfortable with raising the minimum number of signatures to 100. I think that would at least curtain the candidate numbers by 1/2.

If you wanted to require the signatures must come from at least 5 different wards, I wouldn't oppose that either.

I think its a baby/bathwater scenario.

While I'd rather see a small number of candidates on the final ballot (say, under 10), I also really like the low barrier to entry, such that people don't have to fundraise millions, or be backed by a party in order to raise issues and challenged presumed front runners.

Any which way, we need ranked ballots.
Click to expand...

Well if they aren't willing to put in the leg and groundwork they have no business running for mayor of the entire city - and honestly I think even the 10 per ward suggestion was too low a bar.

AoD
 
  • Like
Reactions: DSC
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Well if they aren't willing to put in the leg and groundwork they have no business running for mayor of the entire city - and honestly I think even the 10 per ward suggestion was too low a bar.

AoD
Click to expand...
I agree, a Mayor is supposed to serve (and thus know) the whole City. If someone cannot get 10 signatures (from voters) in all 25 Wards I really doubt they will get votes either. The idea may have come from Holiday but it may be the first (reasonably) sensible thing he has ever suggested!
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot 2023-07-18 at 11.19.35.png
    Screenshot 2023-07-18 at 11.19.35.png
    784.2 KB · Views: 33
I think having a platform with a rough budget should be higher on the list of requirements than random signatures of 0.003% of the city. But I'll take what I can get I guess.
 
Honestly, having the bar set alot higher is not a bad thing.

I agree that the ability to participate in elections is the cornerstone of democracy, there is also a need to be realistic.

Honestly, how many times have John Turmel and Kevin Clarke run in elections with no hope of winning?

To avoid vote splitting there needs to a higher bar to enter, maybe not a buttload of signatures but perhaps a higher fee? Make it so that only serious contenders can enter the race as opposed to those who only want to say they were on the ballot.
 
Frankly, the way it is right now is pretty democratic. Anyone of any stripe can sign up; it doesn't require a lot of money or signatures, and has a relatively low fee to cover the administration costs (but even that should be covered by the city, IMO). Municipalities are as close to a proper democracy as we get in this country. Yeah, it's gonna draw in the likes of Chris Sky or the regulars like Kevin Clarke, but an elected leadership position shouldn't depend on how many friends you can get to sign a sheet of paper or how much money you have either.

I say leave it alone.

That said, a proper democratic election requires a candidate win 50%+1 votes, and candidates shouldn't be able to count on vote-splitting to get into power.

We need ranked ballots or runoffs, now. I'm tired of politicians promising electoral reform and not delivering.
 
zang said:
Frankly, the way it is right now is pretty democratic. Anyone of any stripe can sign up; it doesn't require a lot of money or signatures, and has a relatively low fee to cover the administration costs (but even that should be covered by the city, IMO). Municipalities are as close to a proper democracy as we get in this country. Yeah, it's gonna draw in the likes of Chris Sky or the regulars like Kevin Clarke, but an elected leadership position shouldn't depend on how many friends you can get to sign a sheet of paper or how much money you have either.

I say leave it alone.
Click to expand...

I agree w/the bolded, but can't go quite as far as 'leave it alone'; 100+ names on a ballot is excessive. Its not merely a bureaucratic hassle, it really does leave many people who are only casual observers of politics confused and can actually discourage voting.

But that said, as I noted above, I'm in favour of raising thresholds for entry only modestly, so as not to impair the unique level of democracy experienced at the municipal level.

zang said:
That said, a proper democratic election requires a candidate win 50%+1 votes, and candidates shouldn't be able to count on vote-splitting to get into power.

We need ranked ballots or runoffs, now. I'm tired of politicians promising electoral reform and not delivering.
Click to expand...

On this we can 100% agree
 
DSC said:
Now the lobbying and begging will begin!

Council Member Appointments
Date: July 12, 2023
To: City Council
From: Mayor Olivia Chow

RECOMMENDATIONS

Mayor Chow recommends that:

1. City Council direct the City Clerk to canvass Members of Council for their interest in appointment or reappointment to Council committees, local boards, City corporations and external agencies and report to a special meeting of the Striking Committee to be called for the purpose of recommending a new slate of appointments for Council consideration.

SUMMARY AND COMMENTS This recent by-election provided an incredible opportunity for all of us to hear more about people's priorities across our city. In the face of a deepening housing crisis, a sense of unease in our communities, and a transit system that is less reliable, it has become harder and harder for people to get by. People are being squeezed out of our city and far too many are being left behind. And we, as the City, are struggling financially with a budget hole left behind by a global pandemic and the longstanding need for a new deal for cities. This election people sent a clear message that they want life to improve in our city. They are calling on all of us to find the determination to work together to help change course. I not only believe that this is possible, I know it is absolutely necessary. Over the last few weeks I have had the distinct privilege of sitting down with Members of Council to hear directly what their priorities are for their local communities and for our city. There are many more conversations to be had in the coming days. And it is through these conversations that I have been made even more hopeful for the future of our city because I can see clear common ground across City Council. As we continue the term but also begin it anew, it is incumbent on us to find unity of purpose so that we can chart a better way forward.
Click to expand...
I assume that Olivia will announce the new Members of her Executive Committee soon after this week's Council ends and that the Striking Committee will meet in a week or 10 days to assign the Committee (and other) members. It will be VERY interested to see who gets what!
 
Northern Light said:
I agree w/the bolded, but can't go quite as far as 'leave it alone'; 100+ names on a ballot is excessive. Its not merely a bureaucratic hassle, it really does leave many people who are only casual observers of politics confused and can actually discourage voting.
Click to expand...
There was no incumbent and it was a by-election; both of which mean generally lower turnout and thus greater chances of a lower-profile candidate getting better numbers. Candidates numbered more than 3x those that were on the ballot last year.

It was excessive, but it was an anomaly. No need to change policy for an exception and not the rule.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top