Next Mayor of Toronto?

[nfitz]

Polling is done with samples of less than 0.01%. A turnout of over 40% is more than satisfactory to determine the wishes of the electorate. Particularily when the election wasn't even close! Miller had 57% of the vote, and the next candidate only had 32%. All the polling done before the election gave Miller the majority of the decided vote.

To claim that there is any lack of mandate, or context required for Miller's mandate from the 2006 election is extremely naive.

 

[Whoaccio]

To claim that there is any lack of mandate, or context required for Miller's mandate from the 2006 election is extremely naive.

Which is probably why nobody said he doesn't have a mandate.

 

[nfitz]

Which is probably why nobody said he doesn't have a mandate.

What do you mean then when you say " has to put his mandate in context"?

 

[Whoaccio]

Everyone has to be. Even Obama has come to the conclusion that he doesn't represent the USA, arguably not even a majority of the USA. The representative-ness of any elected official is dynamic, changing monthly and issue by issue, using their victory at a single point in time on a given set of issues as proof of universal support for a four year term is idiotic. They have to change depending on the context.

EDIT: That doesn't mean he is somehow illegitimate or not the Mayor. It just means he has to take an honest reading of public opinion now and on specific issues as opposed to claiming that support for his anti-YTZ agenda in 2002 translates into total support for opposing a tunnel in 2009, or that beating a dead-duck candidate in 2006 implies everyone here loves everything he does.

 

[nfitz]

That's true of any politician, and simply in politics. I think it goes without saying.

 

[Glen]

It's a complete myth that those who vote differ in choice than those who don't vote. Any study looking at this has shown that those who vote generally represent the same as those who don't vote. I'm not sure where you are going with this ... it seems to be a common theme from sore losers that they lost because their supporters didn't bother to vote ... but I've never seen any basis for being significant differences!

Whoaccio has addressed the issue, and quite well I might add. There is still the issue of the differences in expectations for different levels of governments. For the most part, voters view the role of municipal politicians as that of managers. Which is why, IMO, there is a larger tendency for apathy.

 

[GenerationW]

Which is why, IMO, there is a larger tendency for apathy.

Apathy may not be a factor next election if the current anti-Miller buzz continues into next year (and I think it will).

 

[Mystic Point]

If Michael Bryant wins his court case, he will use it as a launching pad to the Mayor's Office. And because drivers are a majority he may end up with the keys to the city.

 

[nfitz]

That would be an interesting twist ...

 

[GraphicMatt]

If Michael Bryant wins his court case, he will use it as a launching pad to the Mayor's Office. And because drivers are a majority he may end up with the keys to the city.

Drivers will vote for him because he was involved in a tragic altercation with a cyclist that led to the cyclist's death?

 

[kEiThZ]

Polling is done with samples of less than 0.01%. A turnout of over 40% is more than satisfactory to determine the wishes of the electorate. Particularily when the election wasn't even close! Miller had 57% of the vote, and the next candidate only had 32%. All the polling done before the election gave Miller the majority of the decided vote.

The West has occassionally not recognized some governments where voter turnout was that low. It's questionable how much of a mandate you have when you win 57% of 40% of the electorate. Most certainly if that happened at the federal or provincial level, it would be considered a disaster.

That does not take away anything from Miller's legitimacy. It just concerns me that people turnout in such low numbers for a government that touches their lives everyday.

 

[Northern Light]

Uhhh, Keithz......

You are aware that Federal and provincial voter turn out are down to 60%'ish....?

And that a the current Federal gov't obtained 36% of the voter turn out?

So 36% of 60%????

21.6% of the electorate

***

vs....57% of 40%....

22.8% of the electorate?

Whose disaster? What legitimacy?

Never mind that Bob Rae was elected with 37% of the vote.....

(before factoring in voter turn out).....

****

I'm not suggesting any politician, of any stripe, has an ideal mandate.

But if the threshold for obtaining a mandate is anything like 50% of the total electorate......I'm not sure if any provincial or federal politician has hit this number in the last 100 years!

Certainly it would be exceedingly rare.

 

[kEiThZ]

^ It's not the relative voting percentages that determine legitimacy, it's the percentage of the population that actually votes. And yes, it's disconcerting that voter turnout is dropping federally and provicially. It could very well impact the legitimacy of governments in this country.

 

[lordmandeep]

people don't trust govts anymore.


Even I don't especially after 9/11 and how the CIA and FBI randomly kidnapped a 1000+ plus people because they were just Muslim and tortured them badly. I met one in India and he now has a mental illness.


Stuff like that really made me lose faith in govt and small stuff like constantly fighting over nothing and having elections every year really is starting to shake my faith.

 

[nfitz]

Drivers will vote for him because he was involved in a tragic altercation with a cyclist that led to the cyclist's death?

Hey, they kept re-electing Edward Kennedy ...