News   May 17, 2024
Masterplanned Community Proposed Near Northfield ION in Waterloo
 2.2K     3 
News   May 17, 2024
Sevoy's 1515 Pickering Parkway to Join Pickering's Growing Downtown
 1.4K     2 
News   May 17, 2024
Canada’s Most Important Transit Oriented Development
 9.9K     10 

Political Landscape of Toronto (including Ward Boundary Review)

animatronic said:
An even simpler solution would be to align the wards and federal boundaries one for one, but fat chance seeing that happen...
Click to expand...
That's why it should not be council that decides. Federally it was not the sitting party that changed the ridings afterall
 
Well, there could still be some small degree of gerrymandering. When the current wards were first created/imposed by Queen's Park, it was still up to Council to decide how best to divide each riding into two wards. Lots of backroom negotiations took place.
 
Skeezix said:
Well, there could still be some small degree of gerrymandering. When the current wards were first created/imposed by Queen's Park, it was still up to Council to decide how best to divide each riding into two wards. Lots of backroom negotiations took place.
Click to expand...
I'm sure there will be a lot of behind the scene dealings especially among ally councillors whose new wards merge or intersect. For instance, Palacio and Bailao are both card carrying Liberals who rely heavily on the same volunteer and financial base. They do not want to run against each other.
 
Since the consultants' proposal is different from each of the five alternatives they put out for comment, there really should be a process for public feedback.
 
Jennifer Pagliaro @jpags
Tory says if they get into individual requests on ward boundaries it could be . . . Thompson finishes: "Gerrymandering?"
Click to expand...
Jonathan Goldsbie @goldsbie
At the Mayor's request, Thompson and Ainslie withdraw their motions.
Click to expand...

The last thing we need is councillors shaping their own wards...
 
By not matching the federal boundaries, we are essentially asking Councillors to draw up their own boundaries. Of course they are going to make those boundaries as beneficial to themselves as possible.
 
mjl08 said:
Council was debating the ward boundaries this morning. Based on Jonathan Goldsbie's tweets, it sounds like the revised 47 ward option is the most popular option, despite Tory's preference for the 44 seat status quo.
Click to expand...

Its at Executive Ctte this morning.

Will go to Council in November, I believe.
 
WislaHD said:
I hope the revised 47 ward option is selected.
Click to expand...

The prospects are bleak. Even before staff have had their turn to speak, Tory-allied councillors are already critical of the staff recommended proposal. Which by the way, even after the mayor unilaterally sent the consultants back to the drawing board because he didn't like what they proposed, they still recommend 47 wards as it would best achieve voter parity. Most of the debutants also spoke in favour. Even the Annex Residents Accociation (which Tory is a paid member of) support 47 Wards. Yet here he is again lying to the media, that residents don't want more councillors. He disagrees that his push for 44 wards is political, saying it's "based on substance" (again, this is against staff recommendations).

No matter what happens today, staff say the new boundaries are unlikely to be in place before he next election. Consultants had met the original timeline set out by staff, but because Tory bushed back and asked them to come back with 44 ward option, this move has now pushed the timelines beyond 2018. For another 4 years, downtown residents will continue to be underrepresented. Their overworked councillors will continue to be burdened by large populations and development proposals. All thanks to John Tory's politically motivated manipulation of democracy. When asked by the media about this, Tory says he doesn't apologize for delaying ward boundaries process.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top