News   Apr 26, 2024
Sustainability Month: ReHousing — A Multiplex How-To Guide Explores What’s Possible in the Yellowbelt
 1.2K     4 
News   Apr 26, 2024
Mattamy's Soleil and Mile & Creek Condos in Milton’s Flourishing Landscape
 297     0 
News   Apr 26, 2024
Galleria on the Park Soon to Welcome First Residents of Masterplanned Community
 839     0 

2014 Municipal Election: Toronto Council Races

Palma said:
You have got to be joking.
Click to expand...

I'm not joking. How is it not class discrimination? If we start requiring degrees to hold public office then nobody but people who've been privileged enough to afford a university education will be able to hold office. Unless we start funding the university education of all Canadians, there's something that is fundamentally wrong about that.

Any job has minimum requirements and that usually includes a degree
Click to expand...

And in the case of public office, that minimum requirement is having the electorate select you to lead their government. And like employers, sometimes the electorate makes dumb decisions. That's the nature of democracy.
 
Last edited:
Johnny Au said:
In a democracy, there is no ban on stupidity.

I wish for a ban on stupidity, but alas, that can never be banned.
Click to expand...
We could at least have a ban on sexual predators like Dimitri running, so that (over) half of the voting public wouldn't be sketched out!
 
TheTigerMaster said:
Mods perhaps we should create threads for individual council races? I have a feeling that a few of the more well known councilors will dominate this thread. That's not fair to residents in the other wards.

Maybe there could be a sub-forum dedicated to the individual 2014 Mayor/Council races, so that Toronto Issues doesn't become one large political forum.
Click to expand...

Not a bad idea at all. For now, at least there's threads for elections stuff separate from the Rob Ford thread.
 
A tweet from Goldsbie:
On Newstalk, Doug Ford suggests that another Ford (but not Krista) will run to replace him on Council.
 
newearthling said:
We could at least have a ban on XXXXXXXX like Dimitri running, so that (over) half of the voting public wouldn't be sketched out!
Click to expand...

...above quote is someone else's opinion and I am not liable for their view. (covering myself from a liable statement)

It is always a slippery slope when you want to disenfranchise anyone from running from political office with a criminal conviction (fyi...I have never been arrested). How about young offenders or people that have received pardons (which are fairly easy to obtain)? How about drunk drivers (Ana Bailao)? Drug offenses? I wonder how many people in City Hall would be excluded based on criminal convictions?

I do not agree with Dimitri and would not vote for him but like any Canadian citizen he should have the right to run in an election.
 
So far the Councillors seeking re-election are Perks, Mihevc, McConnell, Fragedakis, Davis, McMahon, Berardinetti and Ainslie
 
I found it interesting that Berardinetti signed up on the first day when a few months ago she was calling for a shorter election campaign.
 
Juan_Lennon416 said:
So far the Councillors seeking re-election are Perks, Mihevc, McConnell, Fragedakis, Davis, McMahon, Berardinetti and Ainslie
Click to expand...

You mean the incumbants already nominated. I suspect most will run again - with the exception of DoFo, and possibly Moeser, Lindsay-Luby and Cho if he wins the next provincial election as a PC in Scarborough-Rouge River. Stintz if she runs for mayor and doesn't pull a Mammo.

The other wild card is the provincial election. Who knows if other councillors - besides DoFo and Cho - will run and win?
 
Last edited:
I'd be glad to see Lindsay-Luby go. She's been the ward councillor in my parents' neighbourhood for almost 30 years and I can't think of a single useful thing she's ever done. She's always been a slimy opportunist who will just take positions that give her the best chance of getting re-elected.
 
Towered said:
I'd be glad to see Lindsay-Luby go. She's been the ward councillor in my parents' neighbourhood for almost 30 years and I can't think of a single useful thing she's ever done. She's always been a slimy opportunist who will just take positions that give her the best chance of getting re-elected.
Click to expand...

I lived in Ward 9 for a few years, represented by Maria Augimeri since forever. She's been an okay local politican (somewhat useful) but not that great. I've been only tepidly in support because the candidates running against her are usually much worse, like the awful Ford Nation candidate Gus Cusimano in 2010 (who broke several election laws and busted for it).
 
muller877 said:
...above quote is someone else's opinion and I am not liable for their view. (covering myself from a liable statement)

It is always a slippery slope when you want to disenfranchise anyone from running from political office with a criminal conviction (fyi...I have never been arrested). How about young offenders or people that have received pardons (which are fairly easy to obtain)? How about drunk drivers (Ana Bailao)? Drug offenses? I wonder how many people in City Hall would be excluded based on criminal convictions?

I do not agree with Dimitri and would not vote for him but like any Canadian citizen he should have the right to run in an election.
Click to expand...

He was charged and convicted of sexual assault. He was a resident and sexually assaulted patients. He grossly abused his power and authority, and violated women. In his current persona, he is offering courses to men to learn how to sexually manipulate women. He has not shown that he has learned the error of his ways. Calling him a sexual predator is accurate, and I am sure, one of the nicer ways to describe him.

I understand what you are saying. But being in public office is a privilege, and we need people who are ethically/morally strong. We need more criteria for running. Right now, it is basically a popularity contest, and anyone of dubious character can run. I wouldn't want a pedophile or serial killer running either, because those are conditions that are hard to heal.

Stealing because of boredom/poverty, or driving while drunk are easier habits to rehabilitate, than sexually abusing people in a perceived submissive, less powerful role.

I know this all gets into a murky, grey area. Once you start being the moral police, where do you stop? But I think we need to remember the 'privilege' part of public service, and have higher standards. We need visionaries and hard workers to set an example.
 
muller877 said:
It is always a slippery slope when you want to disenfranchise anyone from running from political office with a criminal conviction
Click to expand...
No it's not a slippery slope. Anyone with a criminal code conviction should be barred from serving office. There is no slope. If you are not a criminal, you can run, if you are, you can't.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top