City hall needs a shakeup

Could changing our electoral system help the Toronto of tomorrow?

On Council it’s no secret that we have left- “leaning”, right- “leaning” politicians. The fact that we know they’re leaning means that we are associating their ideas with the political ideology of a political party in other levels of government. We just need to say names: Rob Ford, Karen Stintz, David Shiner, Joe Pantalone, Paula Fletcher, David Miller. We know from the ideas they promote to the provincial candidates they endorse, that they are either left or right.

The voices of Toronto are becoming increasing diverse, culturally, economically and experientially. Over the last few weeks the views and opinions on this blog have made three things perfectly clear:

1. we want this city to be recognized as world-class;
2. the new faces of Toronto are a melange of various cultures and ethnicities, and will represent 60 per cent of the population by 2020 and;
3. the issues and challenges faced by this burgeoning population are not being represented through political leadership

Can our current electoral system address any of this? In a word, no.

Here’s an idea: Scrap the current system and replace it with one in which: a) Politicians must publicly align themselves with a political platform and; b) Proportional representation will be introduced to ensure fair representation of Toronto’s 2.5M residents.

If you’re balking at the idea, then present a better suggestion, because as it stands, the “status quo” is just not cutting it for me anymore.

The reality is that city council is fraught with an underrepresentation of voices and experiences. There aren’t enough women, not enough youth, not enough people of colour and the list goes on. Imagine what a new voting system would do to 20-plus year “career politicians” in our municipal government.

First, it would force them to grab the wheel and turn off the cruise control to retirement. Secondly, it would force them to build stronger relationships with their constituents. Most importantly, it would introduce a level of accountability that guarantees that a career in politics is no lifetime guarantee.

Let’s be real here. To pretend that our municipal system is really non-partisan is to pull the wool over our own eyes. And doing that is frankly doing a great disservice to our democratic process. There needs to be a groundswell that will shake up the look of council by 2020 when the population pendulum swings; only two elections away.

Changing our electoral system to introduce proportional representation might just be the opportunity Toronto needs to reposition itself as world-class.

About Tonika Morgan

Comments

[Larry Gordon]

Tonika, you're right. A proportional voting system is long overdue for Toronto, the provinces and federal levels, too. A proportional voting system in Toronto - and there are a number of ways to design them - could lower the barriers to election to help ensure that a wide range of groups are able to gain representation on the Council - fair representation that is currently denied. The Fair Vote Canada Toronto Chapter is anxious to work with people to bring a fair and proportional voting system to Toronto. To get in touch: office@fairvote.ca.

[Hogtownboy]

Sorry but as Laurie M wrote a whole series of columns the reason that the city concil looks the way it does because it reflect the colour of the people who take the one hour every four years to vote.

[Hynd]

Filling city hall with people by any other means other than direct election, will cause a worse problem than we currently have. You will end up with people appointed because they fill a required quota, as opposed to actually representing a large portion of the voters.
It would be better to allow for parties to be organized and stand on party platforms and to have run-off elections in wards that did not have a clear majority, 50%+ of the vote.
A method of getting voters to actually vote is also required.

[Carlo A]

YES YES YES.. NO MORE INCUMBENTS !! Change is what we want !! No incumbent mayor in October 2010, no incumbent council votes in October 2010..

[Jeff Wood]

Your point that our municipal politicians do not accurately represent the city's constituents is valid. However, your proposed solution (introduce party politics into the municipal arena) would do little to solve the problem. In fact, it would probably make things worse! Just look at the provincial and federal politicians... do you think they, as a whole, are an accurate representation of Canada? Hardly. And, just to pick on the feds, do you think that our current federal government is functioning well, and doing its best for the country and its citizens? If so, you need to look again. So if we really want to make changes to address the discrepancies you mentioned, why don't we try doing some of the following: (a) increase turnover by limiting the number of times a politician can be elected (say, a maximum of two 5-year terms). (b) make it so that each ward must be represented by one man and one woman. (c) create a number of city-wide councillor spots that must be filled by under-30 councillors. (d) create a number of city-wide councillor spots that must be filled by councillors who are Canadian citizens but were not born in Canada. And, finally, recognize that your proposal does nothing to fix the biggest problem in Toronto municipal politics: the fact that our councillors are elected to represent wards, instead of the city as a whole. The only person elected that has a broad-city mandate is the Mayor, who is just one of many when it comes to making decisions that affect the entire city. Ward-centric councillors have no interest in making Toronto a "world-class city"... they have no interest in looking outside of the narrow confines of the ward from which they are elected! I have no problem with some city councillors being elected based on geographical representation within the city, but we need many more that are elected from the city as a whole if we are to ever implement the high-level, and long-term, focus that Toronto really needs to fully mature as a city of the 21st century.

[j-rock]

Every time someone in Toronto uses the phrase "world class", a little piece of me dies. The surest sign that a city is not in fact "world class" is that it spends an undue amount of time thinking and worrying about it. Do you think anyone in New York, Tokyo, London or Paris devotes as much time and energy worrying what the rest of the world thinks? I don't care at all about this overused designation. What I do care about is a city where negativity and cynicism are taking root, whose leaders have become unresponsive and unaccountable, where infrastructure and critical services have been allowed to fall into disrepair. Toronto has some very real and significant issues that need to be sorted out immediately, and some of the suggestions in this article might be a step in the right direction. But can we all please just drop the "world class" stuff?

[ET]

No; your suggestion is completely wrong and irrational. Why? Because you are assuming, without a shred of evidence, that IF you superficially belong to a particular 'identity group', defined as such by skin colour, gender, ethnic background, sexual preferences, religion, etc...that you will THINK in one particular manner as defined by that group.

This superficial supposition ignores that all of us have the same capacity to think critically and logically and that we do not view the world and others only within the narrow horizons of cultural or religious or other identity group beliefs.

[Jim]

What do you mean there isn't enough youth?

How more juvenile can you get than City Council? Another example: Giambrone.

So if 18 year-olds still living with their parents and have no life experience make up 4.5% of the population, are you saying we must have 2 out of the 44 city councillors be in this category? Ludicrous.

The issue is one that the voters must get educated about who they are electing. No I am not talking about reading the carefully crafted self-promotional election literature, but the history of these people and what their history and character really says about them; Not the advertising they use to sell themselves at election time or in the media.

[Peter]

Instant Runoff Voting is the key to better local representation, but the biggest driver for change is actually getting involved. If you want a better city council its not going to happen without organised, concerted action.

[Mike]

Proportional representation will result in the appointment of individuals from party lists that are compiled by a small cadre of people attached to the political parties you propose to more overtly insert into municipal politics. I fail to see how this enhances democracy, and if federal/provincial parliamentary politics is any indication, it will stiffle it.

If the current malaise bothers you, the simple solution would be to introduce term limits for councillors (i.e. 2 terms max) and restrict the myriad of ways councillors use current municipal rules to enhance their public profiles (i.e. sponsoring riding activities with their expense accounts, use of City websites, etc.)

[Leon Marks]

All this politicing will get the city no where. We need a leader like Mel or Hazel.
We need city services to work efficiently and give us the services we deserve.
We need to attract tourism and bring in money. We have to listen to the elected councillors and quit wasting money.

[StevieC]

Proportional representation = tyranny of the minority and the rise of one idea candidates.

I prefer the run-off system. Where the 1st and 2nd place candidates must have a run-off to see which one gets the majority of the votes.

[my viewpoint]

I have an option, how about getting rid of all municipal governments in Ontario to start and allow the Provincial government to take this over. I think we have too many levels of government and too many politicians fighting with one another. This way we will vote for a party and platform at the same time. A different idea but worth a look.

[Thomas Graff]

First, that change is needed, and second, City Council, with 45 members, is too big.

At the same time, for a City with a population larger than six provinces, 22 politicians (as some have suggested, to use the federal /provincial boundaries) is not enough to provide adequate democratic representation and accountability – particularly given that elections are now every four years, up from three years (prior to 1956, terms were only 1 year).

In addition, since Councillors sit on both the city-wide council, and one of the 4 community councils, each one has a full workload that makes it difficult for them to delve deeply into everything that they are responsible for overseeing – this would get worse if we halved the number of politicians and continued to have them all sit on both city wide and community councils

Reducing Council to 22 members would only shift more power into the hands of the city bureaucracy, or into the hands of politically appointed staff.

In addition, the use of the federal riding boundaries for City Wards is inappropriate – these boundaries are changed every 10 years without input from the city, and the boundaries are not based on historic factors or on factors relevant to providing services to those neighbourhoods. It also limits us to a council based factors of 22 – 11, 22, 44, or 66 members.

This City was much better run before amalgamation. While we cannot go back to a pre-amalgamation structure, we could modify the “megacity” into a hybrid between the old and new structures, by redesigning the way the “upper” and “lower” tier Councils are designed and governed.

We really need 2 different types of Council – one to deal with the City-wide services, like policing, fire, waste disposal, roads, public transit and tourist attractions. People serving on a Council dealing with these issues need skills that are quite different from dealing with local planning issues, and it is best to allow voters to vote separately for the people for these responsibilities to provide greater accountability (City wide issues are more left-right ideological issues dealing with service levels and taxation, whereas planning issues deal more with being for or against local redevelopment, or deciding what types of redevelopment is desirable (uses, building heights & aesthetics, heritage designations/preservation, local traffic management, etc.).

An effective and democratic redesign of our City’s political structure should do the following:

1. Have an “upper-tier” Council of between 20 and 30 members, including the Mayor. None of members of this council would serve on any of the “lower tier” Councils. Each Councillor would represent a Ward of equivalent population. This Council would deal with city-wide services (police, fire, TTC, roads, housing, etc.), taxation, economic development & tourism.
2. Divide the City into between 6 and 10 “lower-tier” Councils (or Community Councils or Planning Districts), with boundaries based on historic patterns or on how the City currently provides services (like policing). These Councils need not have equivalent populations. Responsibilities would include zoning and official plan amendments, passing local by-laws (traffic, etc.). People elected to each council would be elected by all voters, not by wards within each district (with a ward system, councilors vote on projects in other wards, things that do not affect the people that elected them – as residents get to vote for only one of many people on council.
3. Use the “Instant Runoff” (also known as preferential ballot or transferable vote) so that each elected person needs to get 50% of the voters. Political donations would be limited so that corporations, unions & lobbyists have less power than today.

[Larry Gordon]

Some people do not understand that proportional (i.e. fair) voting is all about making votes equal. It's about making sure that minority views (or groups) gain appropriate representation, and that majority views (or groups) have only the representation they really deserve, and no more. It's about basic democratic principles.

You can use proportional voting systems with parties or without parties. E.g., in the UK, many NGOs use proportional systems to elect their own boards.

A proportional voting system in Toronto would help ensure that under-represented groups, as Tonika noted, would be able to elect some representatives to the Council. "Proportionality" isn't about parties. It isn't about quotas. It isn't about reserved seats. It's just about trying to make sure everyone's vote is treated equally.

[dave meslin]

Hi Tonika,

Great post! There are indeed many options for electoral reform in Toronto. I'm working with a group called Better Ballots that has just announced a series of Town Hall meetings across Toronto to look at fourteen concrete ideas for voting reform (at least two of which include proportional outcomes).

Check out all the details here: http://www.betterballots.to

Hope you can make it!

[greg]

if voter turnout was better, I believe diversity would be better reflected in city hall. The first step needed is to get people engaged in municipal politics and community activity. 39% of eligible voters bothered to vote in the last election, maybe less. I highly doubt proportional representation will motivate anyone who did not vote before to vote now. This is a major issue to tackle.

Im not a big fan of proportional representation as it is being proposed also. I believe that nobody sould be representing the electorate unless they are directly elected by voters.Facing voters directly is after all the only way politicians are held accountable today anyway (too bad its once every 4 - 5 years) Personally it makes no difference to me if this person carries a similar tan as me or has the same cultural background, ive seen it many times before that having a similar culture to a politician does not guarantee that he will represent you.

Filling seats with unelected individuals is a bad idea and will be an open invitation to curruption, cronyism, and it brings a new level of unaccountability in the political spectrum. We've seen how the appointment of senators at the federal level have become very controversial for the same reason.

[John Richardson]

This is an interesting article – thanks for writing it.

I would like to offer the following thoughts:

1. Democracy is not a spectator sport. It requires participation and requires the electorate to assume the responsibility of voting. We have the City Council that we do because of low voter turnout. Nobody should complain about City Council if they didn’t bother to vote.

2. No candidate should be elected because of his or her: gender, race, religion, or ethnic origin. If people of a certain characteristic want their City Councillor to have that (be of a certain age, etc.) characteristic – then they should encourage a candidate of that characteristic to run. They must then take the time to vote for that candidate. Democracy includes the responsibility to participate. Martin Luther King in his “I have a dream” speech said:

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

3. There should be no quotas on City Council for members of specific groups. There is not a single “white male” perspective. There is not a single “under 25” perspective, etc. Within in any group you will find a number of perspectives.

4. It is NOT important that Toronto be “recognized as world-class”. What matters is what Toronto actually is. The test is NOT whether Toronto is “world class” (whatever that means). The test is whether Toronto “works” for its residents.

5. The “first past the post system” (where the candidate with the largest number of votes wins) is not effective. It allows for candidates to win with less than a majority of the votes. I suggest that there be “run-offs” until a candidate with the majority of the actual votes wins. For example, the current councillor in Ward 29 won with only about 20% of the votes from eligible voters. (Only about 1/3 of eligible voters voted. Of this 1/3 he received less than 50% of those votes.) We do need electoral reform. That reform must have the effect of encouraging people to vote. Betterballots.to is raising many of these issues in a thoughtful and effective way.

6. Political parties must be kept out of municipal politics. It is essential that our elected politicians have their allegiance to the people and not to the parties. Obviously individual candidates will have their bias to the “right” or to the “left”. That’s reality. But, once parties become part of the political process, candidates are required to satisfy the party first and their constituents second. As Scott Brown said in his recent campaign for the Massachusetts Senate seat vacated by the death of Ted Kennedy:

"It's not the Democrats' seat - It's the "peoples' seat."

7. Contributions from unions and corporations are no longer allowed. It’s time to end the practice of political parties endorsing municipal candidates. The NDP has been very active in endorsing candidates for City Council and for Mayor (Jack Layton in 1991). An endorsement from the “NDP machine” is worth far more than monetary contributions from unions and corporations. The “machine” is able to bring volunteers and lots of manpower to their cause. In 2006 the NDP endorsed and campaigned for an otherwise unknown candidate in Ward 29. This candidate came within 20 votes of defeating Case Ootes (the current Ward 29) councillor. If we are going to ban donations from corporations and unions then we should also ban the involvement of political parties in Toronto elections. For an interesting article on this point see an article written by Jeff Cowan in the National Post on November 18, 2006. It's called: "Province urged to allow municipal political parties"
canada.com/nationalpost/news/toronto/story.html?id=b45be47b-3456-45e7-a1c5-e1cc3345f9b0#Comments

8. There should be term limits for Councillors. There are at least three reasons:

First, it is very difficult to “unseat” an incumbent. City Councillors are able to campaign “at the taxpayers expense” from the moment that their term begins. They are constantly in the news and distribute flyers (and other “sacred instruments of publicity”) to their constituents on a continual basis.

Second, a vibrant democracy requires new blood and new ideas. This can happen only with turnover in the composition of City Council

Third, people cannot be encouraged to view serving on City Council as an “annuity for life”. Their pay is decent (the fact that Toronto Councillors earn less than Mississauga Councillors is irrelevant) and their pensions are better than most. The residents of Toronto cannot be expected to provide “lifetime” employment for City Councillors.

John Richardson – Candidate for City Council – Ward 29