Summer season ending

Good morning, the summer season is coming to an end meaning politics season is ramping up.

There are many elections to look forward to over the next few weeks.

Sweden goes to the polls early in September, it looks like the Left alliance will win placing the Social Democrats back in government, but the Neo-Nationalist Swedish Democrats are doing very well in polls, and while they can not win due to a lack of coalition partners, they could still place well.

New Brunswick votes later in September, and trends show the PC Party could pose a serious challenge to the sitting Liberals. It will be interesting to see if the Greens hold on to their only seat, or of the Reform-Alliance like Peoples Alliance can manage to pick up a seat.

Quebec votes in October, I've included a prediction map below:

Note this is a "prediction" which means it's not held to the same high standard I hold my projections to, and should be viewed in that context. The map, as well, is a work in progress.

I've had some questions as to why I've "reversed" the colours, using "Federal" colours instead of the more traditional PQ as darker blue and CAQ as lighter blue. The answer is, in part, found in the question.

It's easier to understand if a single template and palette of colours is used, and as such, it is desirable to use this in every province, every time. So when/where/why is that not done?

There are some parties that do not like the 'traditional' colours. The Saskatchewan Party operates as the main right-wing party in Saskatchewan, but due to history (there still is a Saskatchewan PC Party in existence) it does not use blue, and instead, uses Green. Given that it is a major party (the current government) it, as such, has widespread support (meaning people who like the party are more likely to be readers, VS, supporters of the Sask PCs) and as such, I usually will use some sort of Green for the party on maps, but have been known to make them Blue when I can get away with it.

The BC Liberals have a tradition of being right-wing as well, and could claim blue, and even use it sometimes in their own media. The Yukon Party refused to use Blue for a time.

Using a colour the party does not use becomes much easier when that party is smaller. I can, for example, use the "NDP Colour" for QS due to the weakness of the Quebec NDP.

It is therefore directly a result of the PQ doing so poorly that has caused me to use this colour scheme in this election. This kind of Red-vs-Blue, Liberal-vs-Tory story is simply easier for some to understand. It also makes clear a CAQ victory, beyond putting a former (and maybe still current) Separatist in power, would also put a decidedly right-wing party in power in Quebec.

Looking to the past for a Ford analogue

I'm going to direct you to a post I wrote over a year ago that was originally in response to what Trump would be like as President.

https://teddyonpolitics.blogspot.com/2016/09/looking-to-past-for-trump-analogue.html

In the context of this post (again, in this context of this post, I am not saying that this applies in any other context) Ford is Trump.

In short, as a spoiler, Ford is like Australian Premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen.

To quote from that earlier post

When police were caught on TV assaulting a protester by hitting her on the head with a baton, Joh gave them a pat on the back. The protesters, enemies of 'order', were the bad guy. This plays well because the majority of people who vote have never taken a part on any mass demonstration of this sort. They can not identify with the protester, but they can identify with fear. Who is it they fear? Not the policeman, who is their neighbour, their friend, but with the protestor, who is behaving in a way that seems incomprehensible.

Joh's control was in the press. While he did not force opposition off the air, his strategy was one of a showman. Joh used television to gain control not of the executive machinery, not of craftily devised legislation, but to gain control of society and the voters themselves.

Hence all the "fake news" out there these days.

Toronto - what I would do

First, I want to share a new map I've made of Toronto's 25 ridings, filled with my "prediction" of the election, with all the caveats that predicting councillor elections is both nearly impossible, and, aligning council candidates with mayoral candidates is, at times, even less possible.

So, what would I do with everything Ford has done. Lets presume his changes pass the Legislature; and, suddenly, I somehow find myself Premier, and, control a majority of the Legislature. What would I do?

The answer is both simple, and something I've felt Toronto has needed for a long time. I've even proposed it back when then councillor Rob Ford wanted to cut the number of councillors in Toronto.

For starters, I would make no changes to the council election. Toronto would have 25 wards, which would each elect a single councillor. I would change the Mayoral election.

Before I begin, keep in mind that Ford extended the deadline to September, and I would apply this to the Mayoral race, so that there is plenty of time for people to enter the race for Mayor.

For the winner, there'd be no changes. If you win the Mayoral election, you become Mayor. The process, however, would be radically different.

First off, instead of marking an X for who you want to see as Mayor, and the first person past the post becoming Mayor, you would now rank the candidates.

There would then be not one, but two counts for Mayor.

The first would be a simple preferential ballot with a single winner, the person who takes 50%+1 of all votes after, if needed, multiple rounds of counting.

Following this, a second count would begin for Toronto's 7 at-large councillors. The Mayor has already won, and as such, the first step is to re-distribute his ballots. Then you would elect the 7 at-large councillors using STV, similar to how Australia elects its Senators.

The largest downside to this is that while the Ward elections and even the Mayoral election could and would likely be finished on election night; calculating the At-Large results would likely take an additional day of counting.

There are, however, significant upsides. First, you go from 25 to 32 councillors. This whole idea of just adding 7 extra councillors is something that could be applied elsewhere if Ford wanted to apply his "wards = ridings" idea to other municipalities. Penetanguishene, where I live, which makes up a tiny proportion of the Simcoe North riding, already complies with this, as we only have 7 regular, and at-large, councillors, added to a separately elected Mayor and Deputy Mayor.

In fact, increasing this from 7 to 10 is not unreasonable. Doing so, and applying "Ford's Formula" would mean London goes from 14 to 13 councillors, Ottawa from 23 to 17, Hamilton would be unchanged at 15, and Mississauga would increase from 13 to 16.

Regardless, this is a tangent.

The main thrust of this two fold, first, is to increase the quality of candidates for Mayor, and, secondly, to better align Toronto's council with Toronto's electorate. I've shown the map and how divided things can be. It's quite likely that the 7 folks elected would help bolster the "winner" of the election in terms of ideology, be it left or right.

You may wonder "would this not elect folks like Faith Goldy, James Sears, and Kevin Clarke?" The answer is a solid "No!". Sears and Clarke in particular have run for office before and are not popular enough to win, unless something radically changes.

What would happen, especially in the context of this election, is people who now are facing re-election against another incumbent, would likely run for "mayor" with the intent of getting in on the at-large list.

Folks like Michael Thompson, Norm Kelly, Stephen Holyday, and Michael Ford, would likely run for "mayor", and, win as At-Large councillors, leaving the ward to be won by Glenn de Baeremaeker, Jim Karygiannis, John Campbell, and Vince Crisanti respectively. This could also be a "way out" for councillors on opposite ends of the spectrum - IE those unlikely to make a "deal" that one run at large and one for the ward. Anthony Perruzza is headed for a showdown vs Giorgio Mammoliti, and both of them would have to beat off not insignificant newcomers in the same ward. Both could simply decide to run at-large. Add to these 6 names Jennifer Keesmaat, or, John Tory, whomever does not win the Mayoral election, and you have your 7 at-large councillors.


edited to add: a bonus map I made for a meme, which actually, does an excellent job of showing the new vs old wards

Why Ford's reductions won't last

Before I begin I want to make something clear; a recent poll shows half of Toronto opposes Ford's reductions, while a third supports it. Toronto was never going to reach 60 councillors, the public appetite was never there. Additionally, I am taking the long-term view, looking at how things will be 50 years from now, and not in 2019.

To answer why this won't last, I will simply show you two maps. These are taken from my federal election maps, but, show only Toronto.

This map starts to give you an inkling of some of the possible problems. Toronto maintained 23 seats from 1979 straight through to 1993. However, in 1997 this is reduced to 22. Toronto was still growing, but the rest of Ontario was simply growing faster. As such the number of seats Toronto received, was reduced. This makes little sense when considering Toronto as a separate unit, especially in the context of reducing the members of City Council. Why should Toronto's City Council be impacted by the population growth of Markham or Mississauga?

However that's not the key problem; this is:

While Toronto's boundaries have matched riding boundaries in many elections, this is not a guarantee. Remember that Ontario's electoral boundaries match that of the Federal Government. The Feds are not going to care that Toronto wants self contained ridings.

This would either force Toronto to keep its boundaries frozen; which would mean an imbalance in the size of wards, or, draw new wards. This latter option is much more likely. This leads to the problem of "why 25 wards?" why not 26? or 36? or 66?


There are ways around this; for example, Ontario separating its boundaries from the Feds, but this would cost more money, which is something Ford is not keen to do. Ford could, however, make some sort of argument and agreement with the Feds that would see cities like Toronto and Montreal, have self-contained ridings. The simplest solution, however, for Ford, would be to add to the municipal act, that no municipality can have more than 25 councillors.

This, however, could simply be reversed by a new provincial government.

How Ford did not achieve his own self-set goals.

This will me a somewhat short post.

Doug Ford, in reducing ridings (IE Wards) from 47 to 25 in Toronto, said he was doing so for a simple reason; to get things moving in Toronto politics.

I want to present to you a map, a little projection I made of the 47 seat council, and where it could well be after this election:

Note that these are not "party" colours. Blue are those who are liable to be Ford supporters, while Red indicates supporters of John Tory, and Orange, the supporters of Jennifer Keesmaat.

These "supporter" lines are always going to be quite fuzzy and soft. Minnan-Wong, for example, is an ally of Tory, but is also an ally of Ford. Which should he be marked down as? I decided Ford.

Regardless, the jist of this map is the division between the three, and the fact that no one "side" wins the election.

On that note I want to move on to the projection using the 25 riding wards:

As you can see, many Ford allies go down to defeat against other Ford allies, as do Tory and Keesmaat allies. And again, the city is split, with no one side "winning" the election.

Reducing the number of councillors does not solve this, the one problem Ford says he wants to solve.


Lastly, I actually do want to comment on this change. I will simply say this:

This municipal election season began on May 1st, with the opening of nominations. It ends in October.

This is similar to, but not identical to, when the writs of elections are dropped. Lets compare this to the recent Provincial election, where the writs were dropped on May 9th, and the election was on June 7th.

Imagine if you will, that the Federal Government had the power to change ridings in Ontario. Now imagine it decides to do in between May 9th and June 7th.

Because municipal election periods are overly long in Ontario, we get a skewed view of time. We can see, however, that what has happened is that Ford changed the rules in the middle of what what municipally is the "writ period".


Had these changes been made on April 30th, I'd have no problem with them.

That being said, they've been made, and however unethical, Ontario has no provincial constitution prohibiting it. As such it's done, and I will be moving forward assuming a 25 member council will be elected in October.

Thoughts on today's municipal chaos

I'm not going to comment on Ford's reduction of Toronto's city council. I think anyone who follows me knows exactly how I feel; that the proper procedure should always be followed. Saying any more is simply a waste of space.

I will comment on the chaos of today.

Patrick Brown has filed to run for Mayor of Brampton. It's very unlikely he can win, but anything can happen. What happens will depend quite a bit on how mad people are at him. He could take a quarter of the vote quite easily, but if people view his move as selfish, he could finish third, fourth, or worse.

Stephen Del Duca has not yet done anything; I keep checking the Vaughan election website, and his name is not appearing; but it is interesting to note only a single person so far is running for Mayor of Vaughan, and a two-person race would certainly get him some attention. It should be noted that none of the other websites have been updated for the latest information I'm bringing you in this post, so Del Duca may not be running, or, may have slipped under the radar in this chaos; my money is on not running.

In Toronto two new Mayoral candidates have caught attention. Faith Goldy, the racist euro-canadian nationalist who is famous for appearances on rebel media is running for Mayor. Of more significance is Jennifer Keesmaat. She was the chief planner of Toronto for quite some time, and has announced today she is running for Mayor. She, apparently, is running on a platform of Toronto being its own Province.

Keesmaat's problem is her appeal is limited. She's a part and parcel "twitter progressive", but "twitter progressives" only go so far. Some have tried to compare her to Valerie Plante, but I do not see it, as Plante had both grassroot support and a history of competent political leadership. Keesmaat, however, is much more similar to Jane Pitfield. She is not a Naheed Nenshi or a Melanie Joly, and I have strong doubts that she can go far, especially with such a radical platform.

A Tory victory of 10 to 20 points is much more realistic.

Very quick reminder to be mindful of the media

Today, as many of you know, Doug Ford announced changes to the coming municipal elections.

Chairman elections in 4 regions; Peel, York, Muskoka, and Niagara, have been cancelled. Additionally, Toronto is moving to 25 councillors by the decision of the provincial government.

In the press conference which just ended, there were many questions about the council election, which impacts the slightly under 3 million people in Toronto, but not a single question about the chair elections, which impact slightly over 3 million people in the impacted regions.

Be mindful that the media may not be asking the questions that are in your best interest. Toronto is a much sexier topic that Muskoka. Be aware of that when reading stories and be aware that more people are being impacted outside Toronto than inside of it.