News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.6K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.4K     0 

How many non-incumbent winners will there be on council?

  • Total voters
    22
  • Poll closed .
WislaHD said:
And?

I am fine if it occurs in 2022 as per the judge's ruling. The province can do what it wants if it follows the proper procedures, and there is nothing we can do about it.

But this is now a fight for municipal rights, precedent setting in Canadian democracy, and as of today, upholding peace, order and good government.
Click to expand...
The thing is according to the ruling conclusion on line [82] it says that increasing the size of a ward is violation of section 2(b) of the charter. Logically this statement would be true in any year. Honestly this alone in my opinion is grounds for an appeal since it basically states that any increase in size of a ward and an argument could be made that the current boundires do not provide effective representation which could invalidate both federal and provincial elections.
 
innsertnamehere said:
essentially the difference is that the 25 ward model is based off of 2011 census data, while the 47 ward model is based off of 2016 data. They were both relatively fair with minor differences in their time, but the 25 ward model is 5 years "older", meaning that high growth areas have had an additional 5 years to become disproportionately overpopulated.

Remember that the existing ward boundaries were equally fair when implemented in 1998 - over 20 years population changes made them very disproportionate, to downtown's disadvantage. By selecting the 25 ward model, you get a 5 year head start on that disproportionate mis-representation.
Click to expand...
I think the 47 Ward model was based on the 2026 census. It assumed a whole bunch of intensification in certain areas. Federal and Provincial tradition (and likely municipal) has always been to focus on current population, because the future may change.
There is no doubt that the 25 ward model is the fairest, with the more impartial Election Canada setting the boundaries and not municipal politicians.
 
BurlOak said:
I think the 47 Ward model was based on the 2026 census. It assumed a whole bunch of intensification in certain areas. Federal and Provincial tradition (and likely municipal) has always been to focus on current population, because the future may change.
There is no doubt that the 25 ward model is the fairest, with the more impartial Election Canada setting the boundaries and not municipal politicians.
Click to expand...

"2026 census". Wow!! When did you get your TARDIS, Master?
 
I hope there is some kind of grounds to keep this drama going. This is exactly the kind of near irrelevant issue that I want our Provincial government to get bogged down in.

Not withstanding Clause for minor tinkering in the Toronto Municipal election? What a joke!
 
blixtex said:
Plus, IMO, the Judge's verdict logic doesn't really hold. It almost sounds like talking points with personal bias, so overuling a type of judge like this is fine by me.
Click to expand...

What?

I couldn't read what you wrote through all the bullshit excusing a man-child of his unconstitutional leanings and his autocratic governing style used to settle personal man-child vendettas.

I'm sorry, was it something important I missed?
 
BurlOak said:
I think the 47 Ward model was based on the 2026 census. It assumed a whole bunch of intensification in certain areas. Federal and Provincial tradition (and likely municipal) has always been to focus on current population, because the future may change.
There is no doubt that the 25 ward model is the fairest, with the more impartial Election Canada setting the boundaries and not municipal politicians.
Click to expand...

I strongly believe in being respectful to other posters, even those I disagree with; but you are sorely testing my patience.

You approve of a model based on the 2011 census, because that's solid data; but disapprove of the 'assumptions' in the 2026 (yah, you meant 2016) census?

Really?

You know the point of a census is so that we don't assume anything, we actually count the people.

That's as true in 2016, as it was in 2011.

***

Further, City Council did not decide the boundaries, they approved them.

A consulting team produced a variety of models w/various impacts and trade-offs and recommended the model they felt was closest to adhering to democratic ideals.

That team did extensive research, and consulted the public thoroughly.

The recommendation was approved by Council and upheld at the OMB and by the Courts.

Implying that councillors were busy w/crayons is really ridiculous.
 
Northern Light said:
I strongly believe in being respectful to other posters, even those I disagree with; but you are sorely testing my patience.

You approve of a model based on the 2011 census, because that's solid data; but disapprove of the 'assumptions' in the 2026 (yah, you meant 2016) census?

Really?

You know the point of a census is so that we don't assume anything, we actually count the people.

That's as true in 2016, as it was in 2011.

***

Further, City Council did not decide the boundaries, they approved them.

A consulting team produced a variety of models w/various impacts and trade-offs and recommended the model they felt was closest to adhering to democratic ideals.

That team did extensive research, and consulted the public thoroughly.

The recommendation was approved by Council and upheld at the OMB and by the Courts.

Implying that councillors were busy w/crayons is really ridiculous.
Click to expand...
No, I meant 2026. I have read at least 1 other poster in the last few pages confirm that the 47 Ward boundaries were based on expected populations of Wards well into the future.

Based on 2016 census, the 25 Ward boundaries have about +/-15% variation from small to big (93k to 127k, avg. 110k).
Just to make my like harder, the City report on 47 Wards uses 2018 population data, here the variation is =/-29% (38k to 69k, avg 54k).

These boundaries are updated in 2024, so any mention of 2026 is not relevant since the boundaries will be different by then.
 
@BurlOak .....hi, I know you can see this.....again, do you live in Toronto?

...or are you like that joker in Sault Ste Marie who was on Radio 1 this afternoon telling the province about how a city as small as his has 10 councillors but that a city the size of Toronto should by his logic be fine with 25 because Sault Ste Marie has only 10?

Do you live in Toronto?

Am I typing in German?
Cyrillic?
Don't know the answer?
 
Northern Light said:
I strongly believe in being respectful to other posters, even those I disagree with; but you are sorely testing my patience.

You approve of a model based on the 2011 census, because that's solid data; but disapprove of the 'assumptions' in the 2026 (yah, you meant 2016) census?

Really?

You know the point of a census is so that we don't assume anything, we actually count the people.

That's as true in 2016, as it was in 2011.

***

Further, City Council did not decide the boundaries, they approved them.

A consulting team produced a variety of models w/various impacts and trade-offs and recommended the model they felt was closest to adhering to democratic ideals.

That team did extensive research, and consulted the public thoroughly.

The recommendation was approved by Council and upheld at the OMB and by the Courts.

Implying that councillors were busy w/crayons is really ridiculous.
Click to expand...


I do not see any evidence saying more councillors means a better city though? A city like Detriot has a ton of councillors while other cities have less per capita...

I think the quality of the councillors that matters the most I think?

I think that is the most pressing problem at city hall to me, then the number of them that ar required.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top