Jimbits
New Member
It looks like Filion will be running again:
http://app.toronto.ca/vote2010/findByName.do?lastName=all
http://app.toronto.ca/vote2010/findByName.do?lastName=all
|
|
|
Toronto Council Races - 2010
- Thread starter ShonTron
- Start date
Juan_Lennon416
Senior Member
He filed his nomination papers earlier this week
Juan_Lennon416
Senior Member
I think it was extremely silly for 4 guys to immediately jump into the race for Ward #42. If anything, only a maximum of 2 candidates should have jumped in. If Councillor Cho does seek re-election, the 4 guys would just wind up splitting the votes 4 ways, and Councillor Cho would easily win.
Last edited:
js97
Senior Member
If any political position requires term limits, it's that of City council.
many of these clowns are just there for a pay cheque, from what I can see, most could care less what happens in teh budget or our city. As long as they vote with the grain and stay out of the news...
Why we have twice as many city councilors as MPs in one ward is beyond me.
think of the savings! what does it cost? about 250k per councillor? (their expense account, wages, assistants, rent)
take out 22 and we just saved 5.5 million a year... perhaps we can spend that in school and recreational infrastructure...
they each have like 4 assistants!
many of these clowns are just there for a pay cheque, from what I can see, most could care less what happens in teh budget or our city. As long as they vote with the grain and stay out of the news...
Why we have twice as many city councilors as MPs in one ward is beyond me.
think of the savings! what does it cost? about 250k per councillor? (their expense account, wages, assistants, rent)
take out 22 and we just saved 5.5 million a year... perhaps we can spend that in school and recreational infrastructure...
they each have like 4 assistants!
billonlogan
Active Member
I am very very happy that Ootes is going.
Why? He served his constituents well and many are sad to see him go.
billonlogan
Active Member
How do you 'worm' yourself back into council? I am sure she will not be the only one on the ballot and will need to persuade enough voters to vote for her. If you can't make a mature statement don't bother posting it.
Juan_Lennon416
Senior Member
Jane Pittfield served Don Valley West very well and when she saw that Miller did nothing in his first term, she was the only right-wing Councillor who had the guts to stand up to him in the last election.
I think the term 'worm' should be reserved for a member of Council who is kicked off City Council for a serious offense (i.e. had a gun in their office), charged, and then tried to get their job back.
I think the term 'worm' should be reserved for a member of Council who is kicked off City Council for a serious offense (i.e. had a gun in their office), charged, and then tried to get their job back.
Last edited:
adma
Superstar
Well, said serious offense could just as well be old-fashioned political corruption--consider somebody like Mario Gentile.
Though I don't think this is the kind of "worm" metaphor intended in Pitfield's case...
Jonny5
Senior Member
Apparently some people think worming your way into something is sinister. Who knew?
I've read a comment, on The Star website I think, that a councillor can back out of the run for mayor and revert back to running for council instead. It also hinted this has happened frequently in Toronto election history.
Is this true? At what date would someone like Pantalone or Mammoliti have to make a final decision about what to run for?
Perhaps it's just a matter of withdrawing from the mayors race and signing up to run for council under the normal deadlines?
Last edited:
Juan_Lennon416
Senior Member
Are Sandra Bussin and Gloria Lindsay-Luby seeking re-election or are they just taking their sweet time filing their nomination papers?
Last edited:
Juan_Lennon416
Senior Member
If it is true, for someone to do that is simply a coward. Mayoral candidates should always ride their election campaigns to the end.
SimonP
Active Member
Not really. In the late stages of most mayoral elections the voters tend polarize around two candidates. Credible candidates get pushed to the sidelines as people start to think strategically about their vote. Thus credible candidates (e.g. Hall in 2003, or Fish and Disero in 1991) can end up playing only a fringe role by the end of a campaign. Staying in is of no benefit, and will only hurt the remaining contender who is ideologically closest.
SunriseChampion
Senior Member
Yes, but what was meant was that reverting back to running for councillor to ensure their cushy seat at City Hall was cowardly and I agree.
Larry Perlman
New Member
I Brought Up The Point On Various On-Line Newspapers
It was my comment, and I posted the theory on-line at various newspaper websites. I called it the "Mammolit Ruse" and it goes like this:
1. An incumbent Councillor (say George Mammoliti) runs for Mayor, without a chance for success, sets up a campaign account and takes in contributions.
2. Most (if not all) expenses are directed to the incumbent Councillor's Ward in the form of posters, flyers, signs, etc.
3. Sometime before the September 10, 2010 deadline (probably in the summer after signs are allowed to be erected), the Mayoral candidate "changes his mind", de-registers as a Mayoral candidate (full refund) and then registers as a candidate for Councillor.
4. The Mayoral campaign account is closed (all spent) and a new "Councillor" account starts. The candidate then asks THE SAME CONTRIBUTORS to help him with the Councillor campaign. A contributor could potentially give a maximum of $750 to BOTH campaigns.
5. The Councillor candidate then floods the Ward with posters, flyers, signs, etc. The old Mayoral signs, posters and flyers are not taken back (even if they could be).
6. The City of Toronto refunds 75% of contributions to both campaigns after the election.
7. The candidate stays within the limits of election contributions and expenses, while enjoying significantly more funds for campaign purposes. It is all above board and legal (a so-called loophole in the Municipal Elections Act).
Ethical?...perhaps not.
Although I call it the "Mammoliti Ruse" as George Mammoliti's chances of becoming Mayor are nil, the theory could potentially be applied to other incumbent Councillors running for Mayor (such as Adam Giambrone, Joe Pantalone and others not yet committed to running).
As this upcoming election will test all incumbents' chances of survival (given the bad reputation of Toronto City Council, especially since November 2006), many may become desperate enough to pull the "Mammoliti Ruse".
I would suggest the media and all Toronto residents ask their Mayoral candidates the following question, point-blank: Will you stay on as a Mayoral candidate for the duration of the campaign? In numerous articles George Mammoliti has stated that he could potentially run for Councillor at a later date.
Of course, anything is possible and the theory may not necessarily be applied (it is sleazy, is it not?) and may also backfire, but desperate times sometimes call for desperate measures.
In fact, I wouldn't put it past ANY incumbent Councillor in Toronto...
It was my comment, and I posted the theory on-line at various newspaper websites. I called it the "Mammolit Ruse" and it goes like this:
1. An incumbent Councillor (say George Mammoliti) runs for Mayor, without a chance for success, sets up a campaign account and takes in contributions.
2. Most (if not all) expenses are directed to the incumbent Councillor's Ward in the form of posters, flyers, signs, etc.
3. Sometime before the September 10, 2010 deadline (probably in the summer after signs are allowed to be erected), the Mayoral candidate "changes his mind", de-registers as a Mayoral candidate (full refund) and then registers as a candidate for Councillor.
4. The Mayoral campaign account is closed (all spent) and a new "Councillor" account starts. The candidate then asks THE SAME CONTRIBUTORS to help him with the Councillor campaign. A contributor could potentially give a maximum of $750 to BOTH campaigns.
5. The Councillor candidate then floods the Ward with posters, flyers, signs, etc. The old Mayoral signs, posters and flyers are not taken back (even if they could be).
6. The City of Toronto refunds 75% of contributions to both campaigns after the election.
7. The candidate stays within the limits of election contributions and expenses, while enjoying significantly more funds for campaign purposes. It is all above board and legal (a so-called loophole in the Municipal Elections Act).
Ethical?...perhaps not.
Although I call it the "Mammoliti Ruse" as George Mammoliti's chances of becoming Mayor are nil, the theory could potentially be applied to other incumbent Councillors running for Mayor (such as Adam Giambrone, Joe Pantalone and others not yet committed to running).
As this upcoming election will test all incumbents' chances of survival (given the bad reputation of Toronto City Council, especially since November 2006), many may become desperate enough to pull the "Mammoliti Ruse".
I would suggest the media and all Toronto residents ask their Mayoral candidates the following question, point-blank: Will you stay on as a Mayoral candidate for the duration of the campaign? In numerous articles George Mammoliti has stated that he could potentially run for Councillor at a later date.
Of course, anything is possible and the theory may not necessarily be applied (it is sleazy, is it not?) and may also backfire, but desperate times sometimes call for desperate measures.
In fact, I wouldn't put it past ANY incumbent Councillor in Toronto...