Should municipal elections have party politics?

[BurlOak]

Voter turnout was even worse in areas outside Toronto - in the 30% range. The Toronto media is so strong that there is some degree of coverage of their Mayor race that people can get motivated to vote. In the surrounding regions, there is little information and people do not rush to the polls when they are not knowledgeable.

GTA voter turnout

Maybe party politics is more important for these areas to allow for an informed electorate.

I haven't seen anywhere whether everyone who voted for Mayor also voted for councillor. I know many who only voted mayor and left the rest blank. I wonder what the voter participation was for Councillor, Trustee, etc.

 

[syn]

I don't believe party politics is a good solution for Toronto. It would be best to keep things as non-partisan as possible.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I don't believe party politics is a good solution for Toronto. It would be best to keep things as non-partisan as possible.

There is another very good reason to keep formal party politics out of it - the municipal level of government needs to work with both Federal and Provincial counterparts for funding. Overt labelling could be deterimental to that. We also need to consider the issue of scale - does it really make sense to have such a large council for every single little decision? The case for a quasi two-tier system (beefed up community councils with actual decision making powers for local issues, defined by a smaller "executive" drawn from council members at large) within the framework of the existing megacity might be a solution to the long standing issue of paralysis.

As to the issue of term limits - 3 terms is probably sufficiently long, and it's something that should be built into the Municipal Act.

AoD

 

[StatGeek]

I don't like party politics. I like the ability to make odd bed fellows in trying to grab council vote without people just rubber stamping the party line.

 

[King of Kensington]

I think Toronto should grow up and allow formal slates/parties to run. This "party politics has no place at City Hall" line massively benefits incumbents and ensures that people like Palacio and Mammoliti will hang onto their seats forever.

 

[freshcutgrass]

For the kind of very local work done in municipal politics, it is important that councillors always have a "free vote", so it's a thumbs down for municipal level partisan politics.

 

[BurlOak]

There is another very good reason to keep formal party politics out of it - the municipal level of government needs to work with both Federal and Provincial counterparts for funding. Overt labelling could be deterimental to that.

Does this mean that the Province should not have Party politics (and be like NWT), or does it mean that the Province never has to work with the Federal government.

We also need to consider the issue of scale - does it really make sense to have such a large council for every single little decision? The case for a quasi two-tier system (beefed up community councils with actual decision making powers for local issues, defined by a smaller "executive" drawn from council members at large) within the framework of the existing megacity might be a solution to the long standing issue of paralysis.

I actually think this may work. I always thought that there should be half as many Councillors (say 24), and each would get one vote. Then each Community Council would have 1 reeve (sub-mayor) with their vote worth about 3. Local issues would be handled here and maybe 2 or 3 votes could escalate an issue to full Toronto Council. The mayors vote would be worth maybe 9 and all Councillors, Reeves and Major would participate at the Toronto level.

 

[King of Kensington]

I agree with the idea of turning the community council areas into "boroughs."

As for party politics, I don't know why having 44 ward healers is so superior to a party system.

 

[diminutive]

I'd say on balance allowing municipal parties at the local level are a good idea. Institutional structures aren't determinative of actual outcomes, but the party system does improve accountability and political legibility.

Parties would have several benefits. 1.) They would force candidates to adhere to an explicit campaign. 1.a) That campaign will [usually] be centred on political promises, not personality. 1.b) Parties would have to make campaigns which speak to the entire electorate in addition to specific ward matters. 2.)parties improve accountability as it is easier to hold a political party accountable for results than an individual politician, who can often [legitimately] claim that they did the best they could. 3.)Parties can reduce incumbency in that challengers can rely on the institutional, financial and human resources of their party to challenge an incumbent, which is hard to do as an individual.

There are obviously cases of political party systems NOT working well, too (Montreal, Italy, South Korea...). Weak party systems can get coopted by rich or powerful cliques who constantly create new parties in order to avoid responsibility for their last party's mistakes. If parties have closed list appointment systems they can function as reward machines for political elites, forcing the electorate into 'Kodos vs. Kang' choices. If one party is hegemonic it can create issues where the primary (open or closed) is more significant than the actual election, which will tend to favour extremists within the hegemonic party rather than centrists (e.g. US municipal politics). So any party system would have to be carefully designed.

I think several features could mitigate flaws. 1.) Allow National/Provincial parties. Local parties can form if there is demand, but you don't want a weak party system where parties are continually churned and voters can't seek accountability from the political party. 2.) Force open primaries so that the parties don't become systems for distributing rewards. 3.) Strong party discipline, so that voters can reasonably expect elected officials stick close to their political promises. 4.)Distributive and remedial party financing regulations, to stop one party (the 'Toronto Liberals', presumably?) from dominating. 5.)Requirements that parties run candidates in >80% of wards, to encourage pan-municipal platforms.

I'm sure there are others, but I think it's quite possible to design a well-functioning party system. I think the dominant view within comparative politics is that a strong, transparent and balanced party system is an essential component of democratic governance. Individual or "non-partisan" systems suffer from some inherent flaws, which tend to produce ridiculous outcomes like RoFo or the Legislative Assemblies in the Territories.

 

[kEiThZ]

I think Toronto should grow up and allow formal slates/parties to run. This "party politics has no place at City Hall" line massively benefits incumbents and ensures that people like Palacio and Mammoliti will hang onto their seats forever.

Concur. Don't get the line that party politics is inappropriate at the municipal level. For Aurora? Sure. For Toronto, the sixth largest government in Canada? Not so sure.

I'm not even sure about the idea that governments would clash if different parties. How much does that happen now with the Feds and the provinces? And is any of that better than today where municipal politicians are largely ignored because they are unaffiliated.

 

[kEiThZ]

I think like this. Somebody like Rob Ford would never have been endorsed by a political party on their ticket. Even the Conservatives. And forcing him to run as independent would have all but ensured that he didn't win.... Certainly not with 47% of the vote.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Concur. Don't get the line that party politics is inappropriate at the municipal level. For Aurora? Sure. For Toronto, the sixth largest government in Canada? Not so sure.

6th largest government in Canada with no corresponding taxation and regulatory powers, I might add. Do we really need party politics to decide where to put speed bumps?

I'm not even sure about the idea that governments would clash if different parties. How much does that happen now with the Feds and the provinces? And is any of that better than today where municipal politicians are largely ignored because they are unaffiliated.

Municipal politicians are largely ignored because there are no powers vested in the constitution (i.e cities are the creatures of the province). Where they aren't it is due to their sheer force of personality (e.g. Hazel) and their ability to influence/command the electorate.

I think like this. Somebody like Rob Ford would never have been endorsed by a political party on their ticket. Even the Conservatives. And forcing him to run as independent would have all but ensured that he didn't win.... Certainly not with 47% of the vote.

Except that basically entrenches old parties at the municipal level, and I am not sure if that's a good thing given municipal government can and should play the role of political innovation. There are far easier ways to prevent individuals like Rob Ford, not the last of which is confirmation by the council at large.

AoD

 

[typezed]

I think like this. Somebody like Rob Ford would never have been endorsed by a political party on their ticket. Even the Conservatives. And forcing him to run as independent would have all but ensured that he didn't win.... Certainly not with 47% of the vote.

The Rob Ford before the 2010 election probably couldn't, because he was regarded as a lone wolf. The Rob Ford in the year before the 2014 election probably couldn't, because he was damaged by his private behaviour as a crack addict. But the Rob Ford in between, the one who had the province and feds kneel to him because he wouldn't stop shouting "subways, subways, subways", the one who in his first year or two had his way on council because no one could really account for his strange pull with the "real" people, he could. I don't see reason why someone like the Ford's, preaching their rhetoric but perhaps slightly more controlled in their personal behaviour, couldn't start a successful loon party like Social Credit, Reform, Wildrose, the Tea Party. There's 30 - 40% of the population of Toronto ready to support anyone who will tell them they'll take 50 bucks off their taxes, and are receptive to messaging that targets some slippery other like the "elites".

 

[animatronic]

The Rob Ford before the 2010 election probably couldn't, because he was regarded as a lone wolf. The Rob Ford in the year before the 2014 election probably couldn't, because he was damaged by his private behaviour as a crack addict. But the Rob Ford in between, the one who had the province and feds kneel to him because he wouldn't stop shouting "subways, subways, subways", the one who in his first year or two had his way on council because no one could really account for his strange pull with the "real" people, he could. I don't see reason why someone like the Ford's, preaching their rhetoric but perhaps slightly more controlled in their personal behaviour, couldn't start a successful loon party like Social Credit, Reform, Wildrose, the Tea Party. There's 30 - 40% of the population of Toronto ready to support anyone who will tell them they'll take 50 bucks off their taxes, and are receptive to messaging that targets some slippery other like the "elites".

A provincial Ford Nation Tea Party is the next step after Doug loses to Christine for the PCPO leadership.

 

[Greg Banks]

IIRC wasn't there an attempt at slating in the late '60's early '70's with Jaffary, Sewell, Crombie, C Vaughan as its nucleus as reformers?