Comment 91811

By kevlahan (registered) | Posted September 06, 2013 at 12:43:59 in reply to Comment 91808

I agree that the slate is likely to win, but even the assemblies themselves did some pre-selection: not every single project suggested during the assembly meetings made it onto the assembly's list of proposals.

So the current system has a two-stage rather than single-stage selection process (and each stage is democratic), but the second stage doesn't actually eliminate any proposals from the first round. It just tries to come up with a slate that makes sense for the whole ward since the individual assemblies didn't necessarily take into account what was being proposed by the others.

Another possibility would be to give each assembly a limit on the number of proposals they can submit.

One important clarification: the neighbourhood associations had absolutely no role in either the assemblies or the compromise.

The only role they had was in nominating some members of the planning committee that drew up the by-laws for the whole process. The compromise was agreed by delegates elected by each of the assemblies, which don't necessarily correspond with particular neighbourhoods. There was no input from neighbourhood associations.

I guess I still think it makes sense to have the assembly delegates sit down and try to come up with a list that makes sense for the whole ward after the assemblies have made their separate proposals. For example, some proposals might naturally work well together, some might work at cross-purposes and some assemblies might put forward so many proposals they would dominate the entire ballot.

There is also a danger that a ballot with, say, 100 proposals would just be too complicated and difficult to vote on.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools