2018 Municipal Election: Toronto Council Races

[Avenue]

Apparently Bailao is running in the northern ward, against Palacio. That means at least one fewer John Tory pet. Ideally both need to go.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

More Mammo troubles - from CBC:

Mammoliti, TPA execs 'actively' pushed land deal with inflated $12M price tag

AoD

 

[christiesplits]

Apparently Bailao is running in the northern ward, against Palacio. That means at least one fewer John Tory pet. Ideally both need to go.

If I had to choose between the two, I'd vote Bailao, who has a somewhat more progressive track record, particularly on housing and neighbourhood-level issues.

 

[Skeezix]

She has certainly not endeared herself to residents of Ward 28 during her brief tenure either.

Troisi throwing her full support behind Tory's aborted "Screw residents for the benefit of drivers - let's do road work at night" policy, in direct opposition to the interests of many her constituents and just before Tory backed away from the whole mess, was on my mind yesterday when I watched PC MPPs defending Ford's Greenbelt plans, only to have the rug yanked out from under them when Ford backtracked on the whole mess.

 

[Avenue]

If I had to choose between the two, I'd vote Bailao, who has a somewhat more progressive track record, particularly on housing and neighbourhood-level issues.

She's progressive compared to Carmichael-Gerb maybe. For everything that mattered she voted however John Tory told her to, like any other closeted conservative on the council (McMahon, etc). She never did anything of substance for housing and as for neighbourhood-level issues I don't care for notices she sends me about sharrows on Dewson Street or lame BBQ gatherings in Dufferin Grove Park.

 

[Northern Light]

On a more general note, I'm sure this has been discussed before, but not in some time, where are people on term limits?

I started out opposed to the notion on the grounds that democracy means my right to support whomever I feel is best, even if they've been doing the job for 'x' years; as well out of fear
that institutional memory might be lost.

While I remain opposed to some of the shorter term limits that are bandied about (1, 2 terms etc.) I'm coming around to the notion that councillors that have been around since the 80's or (or over 30 consecutive years uninterrupted is a bit much.

I'm increasingly thinking about something like a 4-term limit that allows someone whose good and popular to be reelected, while at the same time ruling out lifetime incumbency.

Thoughts?

 

[DSC]

On a more general note, I'm sure this has been discussed before, but not in some time, where are people on term limits?

I started out opposed to the notion on the grounds that democracy means my right to support whomever I feel is best, even if they've been doing the job for 'x' years; as well out of fear
that institutional memory might be lost.

While I remain opposed to some of the shorter term limits that are bandied about (1, 2 terms etc.) I'm coming around to the notion that councillors that have been around since the 80's or (or over 30 consecutive years uninterrupted is a bit much.

I'm increasingly thinking about something like a 4-term limit that allows someone whose good and popular to be reelected, while at the same time ruling out lifetime incumbency.

Thoughts?

Term limits DO have the advantage of creating openings for new blood BUT if we do not have experienced Councillors it will be FAR too easy for Staff to pull the wool over Council's eyes. Pam McConnell had been on Council for many many years and was a fantastic councillor who knew how to get Staff to work on her (and her Ward's) priorities. What might be better would be to elect only Councillors who got over 50% of the vote (Proportional representation). I bet that would get rid of some, if not all, of the deadwood Councilors (not all of whom are long-serving!

 

[Northern Light]

Term limits DO have the advantage of creating openings for new blood BUT if we do not have experienced Councillors it will be FAR too easy for Staff to pull the wool over Council's eyes. Pam McConnell had been on Council for many many years and was a fantastic councillor who knew how to get Staff to work on her (and her Ward's) priorities. What might be better would be to elect only Councillors who got over 50% of the vote (Proportional representation). I bet that would get rid of some, if not all, of the deadwood Councilors (nota ll of whom are long-serving!

Dave Meslin has been behind a big push for this across Ontario.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/london-ranked-ballot-1.4095014

 

[Skeezix]

Term limits are the worst possible idea for electoral reform.

First, the entire argument for term limits is based on the premise that voters are too stupid to make decisions. Frankly, that's appalling, and it's a bad argument for people who care about local democracy to be making.

Second, it's the complete antithesis of democratic renewal to attempt to improve local democracy by restricting the voters' democratic rights.

Term limit advocates completely miss the point that democracy means that voters get to choose. Term limit advocates are simply annoyed that voters aren't making the decisions that the advocates would have made in their shoes. Term limit advocates simply assume they know best. Which is a crock.

If a Councillor has been effective, it's up to the voters whether or not to elect them to another term. It should not be dependent on some arbitrary limit which deprives them of that fundamental choice.

If we want to improve local democracy, and reduce the inherent advantages of incumbency, we should be looking at other means of achieving it. Ranked ballots, for one, would go a long way towards that objective, and have the added benefit of not being anti-democratic.

 

[Northern Light]

Term limits are the worst possible idea for electoral reform.

First, the entire argument for term limits is based on the premise that voters are too stupid to make decisions. Frankly, that's appalling, and it's a bad argument for people who care about local democracy to be making.

Second, it's the complete antithesis of democratic renewal to attempt to improve local democracy by restricting the voters' democratic rights.

Term limit advocates completely miss the point that democracy means that voters get to choose. Term limit advocates are simply annoyed that voters aren't making the decisions that the advocates would have made in their shoes. Term limit advocates simply assume they know best. Which is a crock.

If a Councillor has been effective, it's up to the voters whether or not to elect them to another term. It should not be dependent on some arbitrary limit which deprives them of that fundamental choice.

If we want to improve local democracy, and reduce the inherent advantages of incumbency, we should be looking at other means of achieving it. Ranked ballots, for one, would go a long way towards that objective, and have the added benefit of not being anti-democratic.

I'm completely amenable to your view.

Although......voters who have voted for 'Mammo' o'er the years do deserve to be looked at w/suspicion! LOL

 

[christiesplits]

I'm certainly open to term limits, but it is way below on my list of needed democratic reforms. I think ranked ballots, fighting voter apathy and reforming archaic/unenforceable election financing rules are of a much greater importance.

 

[BurlOak]

If we want to improve local democracy, and reduce the inherent advantages of incumbency, we should be looking at other means of achieving it. Ranked ballots, for one, would go a long way towards that objective, and have the added benefit of not being anti-democratic.

I'd say the way to improve it would be fewer Councillors and/or less power.

Each Councillor (and mayor) has the same 1 vote, but it is not reasonable for the media to cover all 40+ wards. The major race is covered and voters make (relatively) informed decisions when they cast the ballot. For Councillors, it is all name recognition. With fewer wards, it is more likely that the Toronto media would cover each ward and voters would be better informed. Also, if Councillors had less power, then the major (who was elected with a strong mandate) would be in a better position. I think another tier of Councillor (maybe call them "deputy major"), one per Community Council, with power between that of major and Councillor would also result in more exposure for the electorate to make this decision.

 

[Skeezix]

I'd say the way to improve it would be fewer Councillors and/or less power.

Each Councillor (and mayor) has the same 1 vote, but it is not reasonable for the media to cover all 40+ wards. The major race is covered and voters make (relatively) informed decisions when they cast the ballot. For Councillors, it is all name recognition. With fewer wards, it is more likely that the Toronto media would cover each ward and voters would be better informed. Also, if Councillors had less power, then the major (who was elected with a strong mandate) would be in a better position. I think another tier of Councillor (maybe call them "deputy major"), one per Community Council, with power between that of major and Councillor would also result in more exposure for the electorate to make this decision.

Toronto Council used to have a Board of Control, which was effectively a cabinet whose members exercised a considerable amount of influence over Council decisions. It didn't work all that well, as it tended to be resistant to change. Hard to say if that model would have traction, or work differently, today.

The number of Councillors is the least of our worries. I have yet to hear a compelling argument as to how reducing the number of Councillors would help anything, other than debatable optics arguments. We'd be better off looking at the Vancouver model, and possibly having Councillors-at-large for specific areas of the City, rather than fussing over arbitrary numbers.

 

[Skeezix]

I'm completely amenable to your view.

Although......voters who have voted for 'Mammo' o'er the years do deserve to be looked at w/suspicion! LOL

Mammo is the poster child for term limit advocates.

But at the end of the day, those voters have the right to keep returning him to Council. But if we had ranked ballots, for example, it would be easier for opposition to Mammo in the ward to coalesce behind one candidate. We shouldn't have to go through what Beaches residents did with Bussin, where she was finally unseated only after a number of candidates voluntarily withdrew to support MMM.

 

[BurlOak]

Toronto Council used to have a Board of Control, which was effectively a cabinet whose members exercised a considerable amount of influence over Council decisions. It didn't work all that well, as it tended to be resistant to change. Hard to say if that model would have traction, or work differently, today.

The number of Councillors is the least of our worries. I have yet to hear a compelling argument as to how reducing the number of Councillors would help anything, other than debatable optics arguments. We'd be better off looking at the Vancouver model, and possibly having Councillors-at-large for specific areas of the City, rather than fussing over arbitrary numbers.

Was "Board of Control" elected?

Councillors at large might work. What I suggest is ~25 Councillors, 4 "Deputy Mayors" and 1 Mayor. You have multiple representation, so even if your Councillor is sub-par, you have another avenue to have your voice heard. The Mayor and 4 Deputies will have intense media coverage, so people will be informed when they make this choice. Even the 25 Councillors will get a bit more media coverage that the 44 do now - meaning a slightly more informed public.