Raise the Hammer

Remember when?

raisethehammer.org/article/1218/hamilton_elects_bratina_as_mayor_re-elects_nearly_all_incumbent_councillors

What the hell is it going to take to engage all the voters who stayed home? Why do we continue to re-elect people who are content to let Hamilton idle on in the stopped lane?

Man, I am heavily disappointed today. Even in 2010, my choice for ward councillor was elected. Not this year.

"What the hell is it going to take to engage all the voters who stayed home?"

Please see comment further down the page.

Because unfortunately, too many old farts read the Spec only. RTH needs to go into print.

I volunteered on McHattie's campaign. Spoke to hundreds of people at doors, fairs, and on the phone over the last several months. Most of the older people I spoke to don't consume any local media at all. They didn't even know there was an election, let alone who was running. I wish they read the spec only. They'd be far better informed than they are now.

Maybe we need to revive community newsletters or have community spots at local places where people actually gather, such as malls (if they weren't private property, I suppose).

Some of the many of those old farts have lost their vision entirely so they don't read the Spec either.

Stop calling old people old farts.

Since we're being politically correct, the term is "seniors", not old people. Thank you.

The new mayor is an old fart, too. That's why the other old farts voted for him.

What was the strategy for getting the suburbs to vote for McHattie? Not once did I get a call or a door knocker in my neighbourhood on the mountain. In fact, not a single candidate came to my door. I got several robocalls from the Clark campaign, and a mailer for the incumbent councilor and another for the incumbent trustee. I was extremely disappointed in the apparent lack of interest in getting to know me as a constituent or to know them as a candidate. Maybe that's why only 1 in 3 people gets out to vote.

McHattie covered far more ground than the other two campaigns. He knocked on doors at least a few hours every day from June on as part of his 100 day tour. I personally canvassed with him in Waterdown, Dundas, Ancaster, and Stoney Creek, and canvassed Dundas and Ancaster on my own, and I was only one of countless volunteers.

In addition to door-to-door canvassing, we did extensive phone canvassing as well. Starting in September phone canvassers were calling day and night. I personally made 100's of calls, and I was only one of dozens of phone canvassers. The other two campaigns didn't have this kind of volunteer capacity which is why they resorted to robocalls.

I am very sorry that we didn't make it to your street. It pains me to hear this. We tried so hard, but it's a big city and even a campaign with a big ground game like McHattie's can't begin to cover it all.

Unfortunately, one of the many disappointing lessons of this election is that robocalls are more effective than traditional boots on the ground. Expect to get even less personal contact from political campaigns in the future.

Comment edited by highwater on 2014-10-30 11:59:44

Me me me me me. Self centred much?

Yes, it's all about me. That's exactly why I posted. My example couldn't be indicitive of the city as a whole, right? Shut up.

Quite baffling that we continue to send the same crowd to city hall. I'm certainly pleased to see 60% of voters chose a mayoral candidate in support of LRT, but at the Ward level only Ward 3 seems to have bucked the trend. Now, some incumbents like Merulla, Pearson, Ferguson, Pasuta, Farr etc have done a good job recently. But the wards that were open pretty much just elected clones of the previous councillor.

More townhomes across the countryside and boarded up streets in the central city sits well with voters evidently.

"Quite baffling that we continue to send the same crowd to city hall."

No, not really. That's how municipal (maybe all) politics work. Name recognition is everything, their track record completely secondary. It's more surprising when the electorate bounces an incumbent.

"I'm certainly pleased to see 60% of voters chose a mayoral candidate in support of LRT"

Again, no. LRT was a wedge issue but not the defining issue. Well, here at RTH it was, but not anywhere else.

"More townhomes across the countryside and boarded up streets in the central city sits well with voters evidently."

A bit of flair for the dramatic, no?

Matthew Green is not Bernie Morelli. Arlene VanderBeek is not Russ Powers.

Oh, and Fred Eisenberger is not Bob Bratina.

I strongly supported McHattie, but I can't see this result as anything but a step forward.

And Aidan Johnson is not Mr. Tony, who was a genuine threat.

I'm still gutted to be losing McHattie's voice on council, but apart from that, not a bad outcome at all.

agreed on Matthew and Fred. I was a massive Fred supporter last time. Would have been again had it not been for Brian's run.
From what I've heard and read, Arlene is the female version of Russ and Conley is the old/new version of Clark. (Conley was on Stoney Creek council waaaaaay back in the day).

Other than Green and Fred, this council is identical to the last one. But you're right, those are 2 huge steps forward, especially at the mayoral level.

Arlene's platform is fairly progressive other than being lukewarm-to-skeptical on LRT. Although to some extent that night just be preaching to the crowd in Dundas. I think she will be a step up from Russ Powers, if not a dramatic one.

Also worth noting considering the tremendous power of incumbents: Bratina and Powers endorsed Clark. Clark lost even with the current mayor firmly behind him, and Clark placed 3rd in Dundas. McHattie only won 3 wards: 1,2 and Dundas. So Powers' endorsement was completely ignored as well. Both of these developments are a very positive.

Same old, same old. Don't expect much change.

If we abandon politics in the form it's exercised--voting every four years, no term recalls, &c.--as you seem to suggest, what's left but being the change you want to see?

I am curious to know the results based on eligible voters not just actual turnout. I would be surprised if any candidate surpassed 20%.

I believe it's the electoral system and ward boundaries since amalgamation. As long as we have our wards divided up as they are, we will continue to send our strongly supported incumbent councilors to city hall at the expense of the city as a whole. They've figured that out a long time ago, and pander to their tiny little enclaves. So when people are pissed at the neglected and dysfunctional city, it's the mayor that takes the blame and replaced at election time.

I'd like to see the wards scrapped and a move to an at large system. Currently each counselor is only interested in appeasing his/her ward and getting re-elected, rather than the common good of the entire city.

I disagree Cripsy, A big city needs local representation primarily to look after issues at a local level that may get ignored in an at large system. A perfect example of this was a traffic issue we had up in Ward 15 where due to the way Waterdown is being developed a wider single car residential street was being used as if were an 80km/h primary road. Our councillor took the lead in addressing the issue and we've seen tangible traffic calming measures implemented.

I have zero confidence that an at large system would address local need within wards.

There is an issue where voters who do decide to engage do so with limited interest or knowledge in the issues and who they are voting for besides the name. While some incumbents do deserve their re-election, I do not think if you really got down to it, all of them deserved to come back.

Unfortunately I think it will take something drastic and awful to happen in our city before the general populace stands up and takes notice.

The other concern is that our local media is severely lacking. We're one of the largest cities in Canada and our local paper is completely useless, our CBC presence is limited and the only real television station in the Market is more concerned with their simulcasting than they are in any real local engagement. You have to work very hard to get the information you require to be an educated voter and most people are not willing to do that.

That is an inspiring story about how your Ward Councillor was able to get traffic calming measures implemented. I live in Ward 3, which is crisscrossed with streets used as 80 km/h primary roads, right through the middle of residential neighborhoods and streetwall commerce. When our new Councillor, the indomitable Matthew Green, moves to calm them, I hope you will write your Councillor and tell her you expect her to support him. Because, without support of concerned citizens like you, I have zero confidence that the ward system will not continue to sacrifice inner city neighborhoods to the pleasure and convenience of residents in the outer wards. Right now, in our wards, the ward system is PREVENTING us from addressing local needs within our wards.

Comment edited by j.servus on 2014-10-28 10:28:09

exactly right. We've been asking for speed humps for years on Florence, Peter, Napier etc.... our councillor has worked hard to get staff to include our area for traffic calming, but still no humps after 2+ years. I have family on a Mountain residential street off Upper James that also suffers from the same cut-through traffic as our hood. They had ONE community meeting this summer to present a request for speed humps, and they were approved the next month.

Ditto for Upper Stoney Creek, I think on Highland Rd. Ancaster has seen massive traffic calming on Rousseau and Wilson in their downtown. Yet, all these same councillors oppose measures on MY residential street and others in the lower city when we request them. I would vote for de-amalgamation tomorrow if given a legit chance. And not a structure that goes back to the regional days where the inner city was subsidizing the suburbs. A true deamalgamation where the suburbs can go it alone, and we keep all of our industrial and commercial tax base in the old city.

How are you being prevented? My Councillor took the data collected from concerned Ward residents, created a meeting so that other people in the area could add their two cents, did all the mailings about the meeting from her office, advertised it on her social media platforms and through the local free paper and then chaired the meeting. She then took all the data and got a few simple solutions in place to try to impact it (some plastic poles near the park to make the road feel 'smaller' and another 4-Way stop sign). From start to finish this was an entirely community generated process where impacted locals liaised with our councillor who did what was in her powers within the scope of the budget (so no larger capital projects like a street light or concrete medians) to address the issue as best as she could. And I'm sure in 6 months I'll have another letter from her office about another meeting following up with those people impacted to see what if any progress has been made and if at that point it needs to be escalated into the city wide process that controls these things.

I am pretty positive Matthew Green did not need to be involved in the measures that were taken nor would Judi Partridge need to be involved in Ward 3. And if Matthew Green is not addressing the issues that are important to your Ward in a matter that satisfies you, then by all means next time elect somebody who will.

I like the fact my Councillor lives in my Ward and her life is impacted by the same things that impact my life. She is active in our community and has a good understanding of what is working and what isn't. I do not agree with all her positions (namely transit where she is myopic) but the point is she represents us because she is us, the same way I would hope all councillors represent their Wards.

The Ward system acts as a buffer to protect the interest of citizens whose best interests are not always represented by the mayor's office or the inner city. You can look at me with contempt for that statement or judge me based on where I choose to raise my family but ultimately I deserve, just live every resident of this city to have somebody looking out for me.

This isn't to say I do not see the bigger picture and understand that the key to a strong healthy Hamilton lies in our lower city, but that should not come at the expense of completely abandoning my own neighborhoods to at large councillors who have no connection or obligation to the voters in their area.

I think we agree on a lot here. One of the reasons we really love Matthew Green is that he not only lives in this ward and operates his business in this ward, he is also very present in the ward. He is at all the community events, neighborhood association meetings, etc. And we're very hopeful that he can be an effective advocate for the poorest and most neglected Ward in Hamilton.

The process you describe is a good process, and it works well if the Councillors in the other wards don't interfere. But what happens down here is that the other Councillors do interfere. For example, if we want to convert Wentworth to two-way--because it is frankly ridiculous to have three lanes one direction for less than one lane worth of traffic, and meanwhile it creates all kinds of bad side effects like cut-through traffic on residential streets, etc.--someone like Lloyd Ferguson says, "Hey, we all drive down there, this affects my constituents as much as yours. And anyway, why are we spending a lot of money to convert this street, which works perfectly well for Ancaster drivers, when we're struggling to pave roads and sidewalks?" And that's the end of that.

Wentworth was approved for two-way conversion in 2001. How's that for forward thinking!

Do you know how many streets in wards 1-3 were approved for conversion to two-way over a decade ago and have yet to be converted.

Strange isn't it?

And I would say that is the problem. A traffic issue in Ward 15 or 14 or.....anywhere "outside" of the city is an issue solely for that ward. Local solution developed and implemented. Voila. Everyone is happy. "Their" roads are now the way they want them to be.

Few people from outside the ward really care or have concern since they don't drive through there very often if at all.

Now make the traffic issue central. Say Wards 1 or 2. Local solution allowed? Not a chance. Just ask the Concillors from say Wards 8 or 12. Those roads belong to everybody.

"Unfortunately I think it will take something drastic and awful to happen in our city before the general populace stands up and takes notice."

Uh...with all due respect...no.

In fact, precisely the opposite.

It will take something concerted and well thought out, something requiring some vision and patience and an enormous amount of effort...although not the energies that 'something awful and drastic' would require.

Just because the solution is not readily apparent to the average resident, or, more pointedly, to the frequenters of RTH, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, but merely that mass blinkers have been in place since forever.

An explanation of to what I'm referring is available to RTH; all that's required is contact from the Editor.

The issue isn't that the solution is not readily apparent to the average resident, its that the average resident isn't even tuned in period. It requires something drastic (usually negative) to get voters engaged at all beyond a brief glance. We are an even smaller subsection of a small subsection of people who are engaged in politics. Heck, my sister votes against her interests all the time based on political TV ads...if she bothers to vote at all.

It requires something drastic (usually negative)

There seems to be some evidence of that ... Toronto's voter turnout was 60%, absolutely smashing records since amalgamation. Look at how drastic (politically in this case) the situation had to get before people woke up and realized their vote was very important. Everywhere else voter turnout was weak and in many cases declined.

People are generally apathetic, if not plain ignorant of issues. Positive change requires door to door engagement. Neighbourhood leaders, talking to eachother. Turn off the television and radio as they don't have the people's interests at heart.

I don't know how much you've explored RTH but you should visit this page

Vaguely reminiscent of the 2003 election, which saw two incumbents unseated, two new councillors appointed through open races and a new mayor.

Bittersweet memory, too, since that contest might have given us a Mayor Christopherson as well as the McHattie/Horwath one-two punch.

If the above were true, we'd be in way worse shape than we are today. The last thing Hamilton needs is a gang of NDP'ers running the show.

Somebody sent this around to Hamilton & Toronto media today--Question, how many of the people standing outside the funeral home in Hamilton the last several days, and at the Armoury for 'freedom', and for the young corporal who was murdered--well there's lots of murders by bad people in Canada every year, what about them--how many of them went out for 'freedom' and actual-ly voted yesterday in the city election?
Or too busy, or talking to TV people?

This 'question' isn't as unkind as it might look.

People have the right to not exercise their right to vote, of course. It is a shame more people in the area didn't turn out to vote but that is their decision, we live in a democracy.

The most qualified person to lead by any measure, McHattie without a doubt, did not win. Clearly the system doesn't work.

jason, is that you?

Your boy lost fair and square. Get over yourself.

Mr. McHattie can't blame lack of money or lack of organization for his loss. He can only blame his policies and his track record which didn't sell city-wide. It is dangerous to blame the voters as he did election night, when the problem is the candidate.

Democracy is more about marketing than the qualities of those who aspire to be leaders. Otherwise, McHattie would have, should have won hands down. It's a damn shame.

C'mon Larry. Surely you can win with grace. Brian ran a dynamite campaign. Simply didn't have the name recognition. He was pure class the entire campaign. You guys ran a smart campaign and won. Feel free to congratulate the other guy with some class.

By the way, Brian's track record is something that folks should be pleading for in their neighbourhoods city-wide. Ward 1 is booming and is ground zero for young, educated migrants flocking from other cities. Down in your hood, business is apparently so weak, people can't even justify popping a quarter into a parking meter.

Good old Larry, just can't resist can you buddy?

Brad, you've got to take the high road (or highway, or whatever other road plan you have) and not stoop to that level. It's unbecoming, even for you.

Love it Lar, keep it coming.

No one came to see me either. No literature in my mailbox either. Didn't take it personally. Thankfully that interwebby thing came in handy.

Was able to find out all I needed to know and voted.

Suck it up princess.

I didn't take it personally either. But let's remember: it's not my job to go and do all the legwork. If they want my vote, they have to earn it. It shouldn't be expected that I will just vote for them and do all the heavy lifting to read their campaign material for them. Just talking with someone, informally while at the door or out on the street would be nice.

I was raised in Dundas. Every election I recall at least one candidate or at least someone from their campaign coming to our door. I've lived in downtown Hamilton and now up on the west mountain and have yet to see someone out knocking on doors. The only time I've met someone actually campaigning was when I was walking with my wife on Herkimer and was met by Matt Jelly, who was out campaigning, back in the fall of 2010.

Get the electorate engaged! Don't focus on the "safe" neighbourhoods where you know you've already got the vote. Go get the rest of the city involved and maybe they'll surprise you and get out to vote.

Who is zjones talking to? Voices in his head?

Apparently the Spec's main reporter didn't bother reading the pre-election poll questions about LRT. No surprise, of course:

http://www.thespec.com/opinion-story/503...