Kingston Electors Municipal Election Commentary: District vs. At Large elections

[keoadmin]

Recently there has been a push from some former and current City Councilors to move our municipal elections back to the older township method of 'at large' elections of councilors. At large elections occur where individual councilors are elected across the city instead of by district or ward.

This forum is your opportunity to discuss these two methods and give your views on this issue.

The City of Kingston has had either a ward or district system for elections of alderman or councilors for many years. In the recent past, wards even had two elected representatives to allow for a range of views and more opportunities for election to city council.

The surrounding townships tended to use at large elections for their councilors reflecting the looser relationships in more semi-urban and rural settings.

In 1998 the amalgamation of the City of Kingston, Pittsburgh and Kingston Townships included the provision for a Board of Control of four elected at large representatives. Controllers were to aid Council with budget and other administrative issues. But this experiment was largely a failure and did not live up to expectations. The electoral system was changed again and reverted to the local election of all councilors by district. The Mayor has always been elected by an at large election of all electors across the city.

[Observer]

The proposed City wide municipal elections will likely silence the voices of some Councillors who are now elected to our poorer districts. Getting elected at large means the candidates must have high name recognition and deep pockets to conduct a successful campaign.

The ward system has served us well and ensures that the particular needs of the districts and less privileged citizens are accounted for. There is debate around the horseshoe with our current system and the powerful in our society do not always get their way. That is a healthy sign that democracy is alive and well. Let's keep it that way.

[Lydia]

Shouldn't there be a system set up at City Hall where ANY COMPLAINT gets a ticket number, Marked Either Immediately or be dealt with in numberical order of receiving complaint?

Should ANY councilor have to deal with what the MANAGERS of those departments are being paid to do?

Any councilor should set up an Association regardless of what he/she Calls it. Where THEY ALWAYS attend the meetings to get an understand where people want him/her to vote on issues. These meeting should be where ANYONE WISHING TO ATTEND can do so and speak about issues also AT LARGE.

Regardless of whether it is an At Large Election or a District Election. Ground rules should be made very public so We understand what we need to do as taxpayers.

I am still sitting on the fence and starting to lean one way yet to be disclosed.

[Lydia]

While I am still sitting on the fence regarding this one due to the fact that I still don't know how the duties of councilors would change or not change.

I have my own views but it doesn't mean that I am totally correct on how i see things.

Here is a website which does give us some answers to questions that were asked


www.onekingston.ca

Check it out and let us know what you think.

Elections at Large is still being worked out so that we have a win/win situation for all of us.

[Observer]

District Councillors are accountable to their electorate and can be (and often are) voted out if they make unpopular decisions. When I have a local problem I can call my Councillor and expect a speedy response. I doubt I would get much response from a Councillor elected at large. If I have an issue that has City wide implications I can call all the Councillors and have often done so in the past.

At large representation can work well in small towns and townships where most people know each other and there is less diversity. But Kingston is just too big. For example, Sydenham Ward, former Pittsburgh Township, Kingstown, former Kingston Township and Rideau Heights have very different issues and there are wide disparities of income, home ownership etc. which are better served by district representation.

At large elections could possibly result in a majority of Councillors being elected from only one or two districts. They would then have to be superhuman to have a deep knowledge of the whole City. Would Kingstonians really be satisfied with this?

Incidentally the CKWS Poll was very flawed. One person I know managed to vote 5 times. Online polls are highly suspect, selectively advertised, not available to everyone, and should most definitely not be taken as a referendum.

[Lydia]

You made excellent points in your posting, Observer.
The only way a poll really works as far as I am concerned is when someone takes the time to do a telephone poll. Only then can we really get the true results or Do a physical poll with a paper trail.

I am still sitting on the fence on this issue. Some of the councilors on THIS council have been accused of voting according to Political policies and not the way of residents of the ward.

If this is true then what is the benefit of District represntation as compared to At Large where only the wealth will have enough money to back what they want compared to neighbourhoods that are not as well off.

One advantage of At Large is that the residents of the city as a Whole can vote for 12 councilors of THEIR choice as compared to their own district councilor.

Which method will ensure that the taxpayers won't be paying for studies on issues that have never been finalized in the past 10 years.

Which method will be able to see Council actually accomplish something other than BANS which people ignore and will never be followed.

Now you can see why I am sitting on the fence on this issue.

[Florence]

One of the petitions circulating suggests that at-large elections would be the 'end of Democracy in Kingston'. Get real! You may not like at-large elections but they would certainly NOT mean the end of democracy in Kingston. Overreaction! Yes.

[Civic]

This is the media release from the growing group of Kingston citizens who oppose at large elections in our community.


Save Democracy in Kingston

July 6, 2009

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Former Politicians Join Forces to Support District Electoral System

A group of concerned citizens, Save Democracy in Kingston, is organizing to support the current system of city council election by district.

Over the last few days a number of former councilors, reeves and mayors of the City of Kingston were approached to sign a letter opposing an at large election system for our city. In just a few days 27 former councilors and three former mayors and a former reeve of Pittsburgh Township signed the letter. The names of these former municipal leaders and the letter that they signed are attached.

All of those who signed the letter agreed that: Elections-at-large do not make sense. Elections-at-large are undemocratic. They are a bad idea for Kingston.

Bill Mills, Mayor of Kingston 1959-1964, City Councillor 1955 -1958 said: “The diversity and strength of our representation over the years is a direct result of the accessibility of municipal government to people from all walks of life.”

Vince Maloney, Pittsburgh Township Councillor 1972-78, Reeve 1982 -1985 shared those sentiments and added “I served in an at large system but the city has changed a great deal. We have a larger and more diverse city. We need to ensure all our neighbourhoods have the representation they deserve and need – this won’t happen in an at large system.”

Save Democracy in Kingston will continue to gather signatures on its petition over the next few weeks and to inform people about this important issue.


For more information call Beth Pater at 613-542-1793 or e-mail her at bpater45@cogeco.ca

Backgrounder: Letter signed by former politicians

Former Mayors and Reeves supporting District Electoral System

Helen Cooper
Ken Keyes
Vince Maloney
Bill Mills

Former Councillors supporting District Electoral System

Gordon Allmark
Carol Allison Burra
George Beavis
Bill Bishop
Don Bristol
Claude Clement
John Clements
Rick Downes
Brian Evoy
Mary Fleming
Nancy Foster
Lin Good
Tom Hagerman
Pam Havery Pat Hodge
James Keenleyside
Alex Lampropoulos
John Lukezich
Ian MacInnis
Dave Meers
Lois Miller
Dick Myers
Jim Neil
Beth Pater
Don Rogers
Yuri Tarnowecky
Grant Timmons


Backgrounder

Letter Signed by Former Politicians endorsing District Elections

We are concerned citizens who held municipal office in what is now the City of Kingston. We support the current democratic system where people who live in an area elect a representative for that area. A district city councillor is accountable to residents of that district and has a duty to represent their concerns and to look out for their interests. In Kingston today, every 10,000 residents (approximately) has his or her own city councillor. Every part of the city has a representative on City Council. This is Canada’s respected democratic process at all levels – municipal, provincial, and federal.

Furthermore, election candidates in a municipality with a district electoral system campaign by meeting local residents and getting to know them and their concerns. A campaign does not have to cost a lot of money and can be contested by any civic-minded person who is willing to go door-to-door and meet voters. This is how democracy works best.

In an election-at-large system, political campaigns would require a great deal more money. Going door-to-door in the whole city would be next to impossible so candidates would have to campaign by spending significant amounts of money to make their name known to voters or be celebrities. This is not democracy. This is advertising.

As well, in an election-at-large system, residents in some parts of the city could find themselves without anyone on Council who lives near them or has an interest in their neighbourhood problems. Some neighbourhoods would be ignored as they have low voter turnouts and would not be of interest to councillors elected at-large.

Elections-at-large do not make sense. Elections-at-large are undemocratic. They are a bad idea for Kingston.

[ePardon]

A petition to Kingston City Council is circulating to encourage City Councillors to retain the current District Electoral System. A resolution for consideration of an at large system has been made by Councillors Foster and Smith for review at the July 14th meeting of Council. Apparently both of these councillors have been past recipients of significant election donations from corporate donors during past elections. This may explain in part their preference for at large elections. Corporate contributions could begin to play a significant role in the election of councillors in at large elections. At large elections would be far more costly for candidates to run. Records of all election donations to all candidates for civic office are available at City Hall from the City Clerk.

A copy of the petition to save District Elections can be found below.

[Lydia]

The next election IS NOT THE BEST TIME TO DECIDE WHICH SYSTEM WE WANT. (DISTRICT OR AT LARGE). These councilors were the FIRST to have dealt with this and so THEY should be the ones that decided BEFORE THEY ARE ELECTED AGAIN.

If these councilors decided on NOT going At Large then they should be acknowledged and told what WE (The Public) will do with them if they choose to run again. Equally so for the councilors who voted FOR the At Large decision. They too should be informed by (US THE PUBLIC) what willhappen to them.

In this household There is a split decision. I am for District representation and My husband is totally for At Large.

Can anyone tell me the answer to one question which MAY sway me to the other side. "When we vote for AT LARGE, Do I get to vote for 12 (TWELVE):confused::confused: councilors who i think will do the best job. OR as I suspect, I will only get ONE VOTE for the person who I like the best?

[Rob Matheson]

Lydia,

Conceptually voting at Large would mean that you would vote for your 12 preferred candidates out of a possible slate of up to 60 or more candidates to chose from.

The 4100 signatures on the petition to keep the current district system was for a reason, as well as all the calls, emails and letters in support was quite an overwhelming groundswell to preserve the current system.

Having researched the two over the past two weeks, at large voting works best in primarily smaller municipalities, while ours works best in cities our size and larger.

Recognizing that the current system is not perfect Councillor Glover and I have put forward a motion that will appear on our next Council agenda for the CAO to report back with a process (including public input) to review the current district system, to ensure that the boundaries and population demographics make sense and are as fair as possible.

Have a great rest of the Summer.

[Lydia]

Thanks Robert, I thought that question needed to be answered. Also I fully support the Councilors who stand by their decisions on which way to go. This council should be the ones that decided this matter. You are all qualified to make this decision instead of pass on debates like other councils did and never accomplished a final outcome.

Having said that I am now interested in learning more about what Bill Glover and you are up to. lmao. Keep us in touch on this site.

Lydia

[Dogma]

Since our Kingston, is made up of island communities. RMC, Queens, North Enders, and the waspy upper class.......

I believe a better system is a so******t or communist system - it would finally develop this community out of the "debate by assumption", rather than a form of debate that is informative and actually leads to results.

Less talk and more community action.

[Lydia]

HAY WAITING A MINUTE HERE. THOSE ARE NOT THE ONLY GROUPS

Since our Kingston, is made up of island communities. RMC, Queens, North Enders, and the waspy upper class.......


What about my groups, the old timers, the lower class, the Westeners. Also what about my friends, the High class, the Easterners, the Southerners.

Don't just include my other friends in the North. Geez:D

[keoadmin]

From Kingston this Week, July 22, 2009

-- Kingston Electors

Election reform shot down at city council

By Emma Taylor

Kingston this Week, July 22 2009

The issue of electoral change came up quickly but, in a rare show of expedition, was shot down by city councillors.

A motion for discussion of district versus an at-large system of city elections didn’t make it as councilors voted 9-4 against even debating the issue at a July 14 city council meeting.

The motion was to have a discussion or debate on the electoral system, and not a motion to change to an at large election, says Mark Potter, a former candidate for King’s Town District.

“Council still shot that down without any public consultation. I think that is just absolutely wrong,” he says.

He attended the meeting and said he wasn’t surprised by the decision but he was certainly disappointed.

“I think it is very unfortunate that the councillors decided to look after their own self-interests rather than serve the interests of the community.”

The four in support of the motion were Leonore Foster, Pittsburgh District; Ed Smith, Williamsville District; Dorothy Hector, Lakeside District; and Mayor Harvey Rosen.

Kingston resident Beth Pater is a member of the group Save Democracy in Kingston that supports the current system of city council election by district.

“The group formed quite quickly a couple of weeks ago after we learned that a group of people were putting forward the idea of changing our municipal electoral system from one of district representation to elections at large,” said Pater, a former city councillor.

The group members have circulated a petition asking any citizen that was concerned about the change to sign it.

They were able to get the signatures of 27 former councillors, three former mayors — Helen Cooper, Ken Keyes and Bill Mills — and former reeve Vince Maloney.

[Lydia]

I wonder what the next step should be for the supporters of the AT LARGE should be. Do we honestly believe that these councilors would choose to vote any other way??

Althought my household is still divided on this issue, My husband in total support of the At Large elections and me prefering the District Elections, I don't think that COUNCILORS should have the finally say on this.

I believe that those who truly support At Large Elections should continue their fight and proceed to he Provincial and Federal Governments to get this matter dealt with.

Of course the District Councilors who are about their districts would vote again the At Large Elections.

I don't believe that only the Financial well off candidates get their seats because of their money. I am nieve enough to believe that ANY CANDIDATE REGARDLESS OF THEIR FINANCIAL SITUATION can run and win IF THEY ARE TRULY REPRESENTIVE OF THEIR STANDS ON WHAT AFFECTS US IN THIS CITY.

Only problem Kingston has is that the public doesn't trust ANYONE and therefore could not care less what happens here.

[Rob Matheson]

The next thing that supports of at large elections should do..., is perhaps listen to what people want, and what they have expressed in large numbers time and again.

Citizen Initiated Referendum is what the desired outcome of the At Large supporters were after...this is an important item and something I fully support myself.

These referendum usually require a petition to get started, in my research it occures when approximately at least 5% of the population base of a City or community asks for one.

The reverse condition to deal with the "at large" question is what occured. A petition was put forward to retain the current system which had 4100 cititzen signatures (and growing fast). Not to include the independent polling that each Councillor did beforehand, and also not including the ample phone calls and emails that all of us recieved.

It is ironic that a good portion of those ex politicians and current ones that brought this forward without public support or demand for a disccusion on the topic of changing our governance structure, are the same ones that in the past have stated their own objections to Citizen Initiated Referendum, and in fact shot down a motion for a referendum for which there was ample citizen demand in regards to the LVEC.

We do have some improvements that can be made to our district system as it has been 10 years since amalgamation, and a review to ensure that the size and geographic areas are being fairly and properly proportianally dividide has not occured since then.

Instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, perhaps we can focus on something the majority of citizens want, while at the same time ensuring we have the most sustainable, supported, and fair district governance structure we can have.

The supporters of At Large Elections remind me of the PQ'istes in Quebec who just won't take NO for an answer, and keep bringing forward various referendum on separation or sovereignty depending on the verbal language of the day.

4 times now various Councils and Citizens have declined fen masse for valid and various reasons going to At Large elections. Perhaps it is time to move on to something Citizens may actually be interested in?

I will support a Citizen Initiated Referendum that has demonstrable citizen support not one that has the exact opposite, and is being put forward by a minority that have demonstrated that they have voted in the past against referendums, or publically stated their opposition to Citizen Based Referendum...except I suppose when it suits them... and even then cannot get the required citizen signatures petitioning for one.

[Lydia]

Thanks Robert, I could not have said that better myself. You know I will give you heck and I know that you will take it in the spirit it is intended and NOT a personal attack on you.

You said it beautifully. I wanted to let the people who are in favour of the AT LARGE to have the knowledge of what THEY need to do if they are not happy with the Council's decision. You have told him exactly what they need to do.

I agree with you that the people who seem to be for it are the HAS BEEN crowd which the public has voted out, otherwise they would still be there. There are councilors on council that should be the HASBEENS but unfortunately are still there. Oh well!!!! You are correct the present councilors that should be hasbeens have been totally against referendums when it suited them. I wonder why they are so much in favour of this one.

I am still not on either side as yet because as you are well aware that there are discussions happening that will change my mind from one side to the other. It is exactly what you are speaking about when you speak about DISTRIBUTION of populations into districts are equally represented.

That might mean having FEWER districts. What is your views on that prospect. I wonder what would happen if that should happen.:):)

[jason]

I think the AT LARGE question is dead and any thoughts on a different system not yet on the table.My guess is that most people don't think the system is broken so why tamper with it?We must be careful to distinguish between differences in opinion and thoughts on the system. I think that those who want to change the system actually dislike the perceived leaning to the left of the current council., if 'leaning to the left' can be construed as being anti-business. Is the current council anti-business? The COuncillor for Kingscourt Strathcona is on record as distrusting business.Is that the same as being anti-business?

[Lydia]

This message is from Fair Vote Canada FYI:
````````````````````````````

.....there will be a Democracy Demonstration at 1pm on Jan 23
on the Market Square (behind City Hall), against the prorogation of the parliament.

[Lydia]

January 23 - No Prorogue rallies

In the coming week, we have an extraordinary opportunity to mobilize Canadians for electoral reform.

We need your help!



Dear Friends, Supporters and Members of Fair Vote Canada,

This Saturday, thousands and probably tens of thousands of Canadians will be at rallies across the country to protest the proroguing of Parliament. See noprorogue.ca for a list of 60 communities where rallies and activities are planned.

These rallies and the prorogation debate will dominate political news in the coming weeks.

But as we know, whether the House of Commons is sitting or not, that chamber is not democratically representative of Canadian voters. We have yet to achieve representative democracy in Canada because our political leaders continue to impose on us the world’s worst, most obsolete voting system.

It’s time to transform the debate over prorogation into a loud, nationwide demand for electoral reform.

You can help make it happen, by taking action in one or more of these ways:

1. Download and make several copies of the Declaration of Voters’ Rights. Get at least 10 or more signers in the coming week and mail the completed forms back to Fair Vote Canada. If everyone receiving this email did this, we could quickly produce the largest ever public demand for fair voting. People can also sign online, but we can dramatically boost our numbers with paper signatures.

2. If you are going to a rally, check the list below to see if a local Fair Vote Canada chapter will be active at the rally. If so, get in touch with the contact person about helping with flyer distribution or Declaration petition-signing at the rally.

3. If you are attending a rally not listed below, download and photocopy our Why Don’t Politicians Listen? flyer and the Declaration of Voters’ Rights. Distribute flyers and take a clip board to get signatures on the Declaration.

4. Last week Fair Vote Canada sent letters to the party leaders and MPs, calling for extraordinary joint action on electoral reform. Contact your MPs, forward a copy of the appropriate letter (one for the governing Conservatives, another for the opposition parties) and ask for their support.

Yours for a democratic Canada,

Bronwen Bruch

President

Fair Vote Canada



Fair Vote Canada chapters are planning an organized presence at the following rallies. To link with the chapter, contact the volunteer coordinator. (Individual Fair Vote Canada members and supporters will likely be at all other rallies, too, but you will need to take your own materials.)

Toronto, ON: Mark Greenan – markgreenan@gmail.com 647-993-3073

Ottawa, ON: Julien Lamarche – julien.lamarche@gmail.com 613-237-0976

Simcoe County, ON: Eleanor Alexander – Eleanor_alex@yahoo.ca 705-794-4747

Waterloo, ON: Anita Nickerson – onetann@hotmail.com, 519-568-7655

Oakville, ON: Brian Hopkins – brianhopkins2@sympatico.ca 905-257-6756

Edmonton, AB: Doug Bailie - dbailie@shaw.ca

Regina, SK: Gord Hunter – gfh@sasktel.net 306-949-8514

Prince Albert, SK: Rick Sawa – rj.sawa@inet2000.com 306-961-7894

Saskatoon, SK: Sandra Findley – sabest1@sasktel.net 306-373-8078

[Lydia]

Importance of local reps a shallow argument for existing system


The following has been printed in the Whig and the Toronto Star.

Something we could consider if we want the government we deserve.

When the Ontario referendum on proportional representation failed in 2007, one of the arguments in favour of our existing first-past-the-post system was the importance of our local representatives.

Paul Schliesmann's article "We're being punished" (Feb. 24) shows how shallow this argument is.

The "punishment" in the title is the closure of the Bridge House, presented as Kingston's punishment for not having a Conservative member of Parliament right now. According to this point of view, we elect members of political parties that, when in power, reward the districts that vote for them and punish those that vote against them.
In this case, the election of Peter Milliken in the 2008 election did not help. Instead of voting for whom they think is the best representative, Kingstonians should have read the surveys, guessed that the next government was to be Conservative, and voted accordingly for Brian Abrams, the Conservative candidate. So much for freedom of choice.

With this view of our system, even voting for the right representative at the wrong time can be bad. Indeed, Kingstonians will remember a 2006 town hall meeting when mayor Harvey Harvey Rosen read a letter of Milliken, our Liberal representative in a Liberal government. The letter stated that federal funding for the Kingston Regional Sports and Entertainment Centre would be given due consideration, and drew considerable applause. The vote to proceed with the project was passed with the hopes that such funding would materialize.

Later, the government had changed, and with construction underway, no federal money was forthcoming.

Thus, if we view our MPs as local representatives, it is hard to find any benefit to free elections in a multi-party system, that is, democracy as a whole. Another point of view presents our elected representatives as policymakers grouped in parties sharing common views. The two roles -- local representative and policy maker -- are sometimes incompatible. For instance, if Abrams had been elected as Conservative MP for Kingston and the Islands, would he even have listened to the pleas of the board of Bridge House? And if so, would he have gone to his party to ask that it change its views and policies?

According to the article, the Conservatives (called the Stephen Harper government) have tough-on-crime policies, under which the prison system has seen a swing to a more punitive orientation. This is contrasted with the view that "family visits are important for helping prisoners prepare for release and reintegration into their communities," which was presumably shared by the previous governments who established and maintained fundings for the Bridge House.

Along with MPs with conflicting roles, our system has brought us mostly fake, single-party majorities and a growing emphasis towards adversarial stance rather than compromise and consensus- seeking. Thus it is common to see a government destroy the accomplishments of its predecessor, be it for ideological reasons or because their beneficiaries voted on the wrong side.

The alternative would be proportional representation, under which the absence of a single-party majority would be standard rather than a chaotic interlude between artificial majority governments. The parties would have to adapt, and coalition governments would become the norm rather than a pretext for prorogation. So, the policies of previous governments could be revised and adjusted, but there would be neither the incentive nor the power to destroy them for no reason, to have them replaced by something that would in turn be destroyed when the next government comes.

Claude Tardiff Kingston

[leenco12]

You made excellent points in your posting, Observer.
The only way a poll really works as far as I am concerned is when someone takes the time to do a telephone poll. Only then can we really get the true results or Do a physical poll with a paper trail.

I am still sitting on the fence on this issue. Some of the councilors on THIS council have been accused of voting according to Political policies and not the way of residents of the ward.

If this is true then what is the benefit of District represntation as compared to At Large where only the wealth will have enough money to back what they want compared to neighbourhoods that are not as well off.

One advantage of At Large is that the residents of the city as a Whole can vote for 12 councilors of THEIR choice as compared to their own district councilor.

Which method will ensure that the taxpayers won't be paying for studies on issues that have never been finalized in the past 10 years.

Which method will be able to see Council actually accomplish something other than BANS which people ignore and will never be followed.

Now you can see why I am sitting on the fence on this issue.
One of the petitions circulating suggests that at-large elections would be the 'end of Democracy in Kingston'. Get real! You may not like at-large elections but they would certainly NOT mean the end of democracy in Kingston. Overreaction! Yes.

[Lydia]

leenco12
Please understand that I am certainly NOT circulating a petition that suggests that a AT-LARGE ELECTION would be the "End of Democracy in Kingston. You are 100% correct when you say that it is very much an OVER REACTION on the people who have this petition going.

Good on you for bring this to the public's attention. Personally, I would never sign such a petition in any way.

Like I said, I am still sitting on the fence on the issue, until people with far more experience in both system come out, just like you have, and presented the public with the REAL facts on both systems and not just OVER REACTION.

Thanks leenco12 again for letting the public know about this. I might have presented the threads and postings but that doesn't mean i am supporting one side over the over YET.