2018 Municipal Election: Toronto Council Races

[Admiral Beez]

I'm not a fan of term limits, but I was thinking of another solution:

Have fewer wards than what we currently have - something like 32 or 36. Small enough that there's access to a local councillor, but larger wards than currently.

Local ward councillors may only run for three terms. That's enough for a balance of institutional history and enough time (12 years) to get some projects through on one councillor's watch. At the end of those three terms, that ward councillor could run for a regional councillor position - 8 or 9 regions, or, at-large. Those positions have no term limits.

A very good city councillor could run for a promotion, and have a much larger area. The mayor's executive and committee chairs could then have to come from those regional (or at-large) councillors. The regional or city-wide council seats would be open to any candidate, but it would be a place for remarkable local politicians who are known outside their wards. It also forces the mayor to not snub parts of the city - something Lastman and Tory are notable for. (Miller had broad suburban representation in his inner circle.)

I like it. Add ranked ballots and you have it, I'd say.

 

[Skeezix]

Local ward councillors may only run for three terms. That's enough for a balance of institutional history and enough time (12 years) to get some projects through on one councillor's watch. At the end of those three terms, that ward councillor could run for a regional councillor position - 8 or 9 regions, or, at-large. Those positions have no term limits.

That's just as bad. It still imposes arbitrary and undemocratic restraints on the choice of voters. It just seems bizarre that constituents can be told that they can no longer vote for a popular and capable representative who is shepherding a number of local projects, and the only consolation is that they can still vote for that person in a regional or at-large role where the representative, if elected, would no longer have the same ability to focus on those local projects of importance. That doesn't help anyone.

In trying to improve local democracy and accountability, we shouldn't be telling voters who they can and can't vote for.

 

[Skeezix]

Add ranked ballots and you have it, I'd say.

Yes - ranked ballots are a no-brainer.

 

[ADRM]

Or they simply come back a cycle later, like Putin!

...or just change the rules like Bloomberg. I mean Putin. No, wait, Bloomberg.

 

[BurlOak]

Definitely in agreement that we need to work on ways to reduce the advantages of incumbency without introducing strict term limits. Don't want to thrown the baby out with the bath water. We've had a few great councilors that I would rather keep on until they're not doing a good job anymore.

Reducing the number of Councillors is the key to reducing the incumbency advantage. With 40+ councillors, there is no way the media can scrutinize any of the wards or councillors. The Mayor gets coverage and gets elected by a relatively informed public. The councillors are voted in purely on name recognition.
Reducing the number of Councillors would help. Aligning wards with federal/provincial ridings helps so that people know what ward they are in.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Reducing the number of Councillors is the key to reducing the incumbency advantage. With 40+ councillors, there is no way the media can scrutinize any of the wards or councillors. The Mayor gets coverage and gets elected by a relatively informed public. The councillors are voted in purely on name recognition.
Reducing the number of Councillors would help. Aligning wards with federal/provincial ridings helps so that people know what ward they are in.

Extensive media scrutiny didn't help prevent those with egregious and consistent breaches of ethics, decorum and low performance from getting re-elected.

AoD

 

[adma]

Of course, Mammoliti gets relected not because of the lack of term limits, but by the idiocy and complacency of his constituents.

Or, the inadequacy of his opponents.

 

[WislaHD]

Another option is to reduce the number of wards and increase the number of councillors per ward to 2 or 3.

Like this, we deal with incumbency advantage by allowing multiple popular candidates be able to be elected in a ward. I have faith that over time, good councillors will remain while the bad ones will be cycled out.

Having multiple councillors per ward means that constituents have 2 or 3 councillors representing them as opposed to one, as well as allowing for multiple political voices/factions to receive representation in a ward.

 

[pman]

Or, the inadequacy of his opponents.

Nope, it's the voters. A chimp would make a better councillor than Mammo - less idiotic posturing and way more dignity.

 

[BurlOak]

Another option is to reduce the number of wards and increase the number of councillors per ward to 2 or 3.

Like this, we deal with incumbency advantage by allowing multiple popular candidates be able to be elected in a ward. I have faith that over time, good councillors will remain while the bad ones will be cycled out.

Having multiple councillors per ward means that constituents have 2 or 3 councillors representing them as opposed to one, as well as allowing for multiple political voices/factions to receive representation in a ward.

That might work.
We have 4 or 8 wards (1 or 2 per current community Council) and we elect 6 to 3 Councillors per Ward (roughly 1 Councillor for every about 110,000 constituents).

 

[WislaHD]

That might work.
We have 4 or 8 wards (1 or 2 per current community Council) and we elect 6 to 3 Councillors per Ward (roughly 1 Councillor for every about 110,000 constituents).

I imagined more wards personally.

But it does raise an interesting question. Going by your numbers, yes it is 1 Councillor per every 110,000 constituents which sounds bad in my opinion, but those constituents also have access to potentially 3 representatives in their ward as opposed to just 1.

What that does is eliminate one of my central arguments against cutting the number of city councilors (an idea I usually object to), which is the lack of representation.

 

[christiesplits]

While I'm certainly favour in a redrawing of wards, I could be convinced that we should keep the current 44 total (redrawn) and simply give each councillor another constituency assistant.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I imagined more wards personally.

But it does raise an interesting question. Going by your numbers, yes it is 1 Councillor per every 110,000 constituents which sounds bad in my opinion, but those constituents also have access to potentially 3 representatives in their ward as opposed to just 1.

What that does is eliminate one of my central arguments against cutting the number of city councilors (an idea I usually object to), which is the lack of representation.

I am not sure what it would achieve necessarily - other than create a situation where you will have 3 representatives that will all enjoy the advantages of incumbency while complicating how issues within a ward will be dealt with (and you know said councillors within the same ward will fight among themselves given how interests will align - how will staff deal with that?)

Honestly ranked ballot is the best choice IMO.

AoD

 

[animatronic]

I wrote this last year in the ward boundaries thread - still stand by the analysis:
----
Read back through the report and the biggest missing piece is the lack of attempt at a bottom-up analysis of optimal ward size. It gets mentioned briefly but says there's no consensus and moves on. There are three main functions of council:

- executive (the various chairs and executive committee)
- legislative (debating and passing bylaws)
- representative (constituency work)

Executive role means enough councillors to take on 'cabinet' positions, which is probably about a dozen or so. So that's the lower bound.

Legislative needs enough councillors to fill all the committees and debate in the round, though not so much that they get bogged down in a non-partisan environment. That probably means a minimum of two dozen or so, but almost certainly less than we have now.

Representative is the tricky one, because even at current sizes there's too much for a councillor to personally stay on top of. More relevant is the maximum span of control a councillor can manage with a team of effective assistants. My guess is you could reduce the number of councillors while redistributing the current staff and not see a degradation of service. Also, as services such as 311 expand (and Ford types kindly go away) there should be less routine work being inefficiently handled at the constituency offices. NYC has 51 districts averaging 165k each, but there are borough politicians as well. Applied to Toronto that would result in a council size of 16.

So unless you want to decouple the legislative and representative roles (say by adding a second tier of borough reps), or introducing party discipline, the best answer is probably around three dozen non-partisan councillors staffed with properly funded, professional and accountable offices. But I have no data to back that up...

 

[adma]

Nope, it's the voters. A chimp would make a better councillor than Mammo - less idiotic posturing and way more dignity.

When I refer to "inadequacy of his opponents", I don't mean inadequacy at doing the job; I mean inadequacy at conveying the message that such-and-such particular candidate is THE one to defeat Mammo. (Clearly, Nick Di Nizio failed to communicate that message in either 2010 or 2014, much less whomever "progressives" supported/endorsed in either election.)

And generically speaking, if one's to blame the voters and articulate unflattering comparisons to chimps et al, I wouldn't look to such a person as a clue to unlocking Mammo's iron grip.