Raise the Hammer

I've never liked the idea of slates in municipal elections. While I agree that it makes for more homogeneity, it also ends up with people dividing along party lines, and unwilling to move from the "party position" despite the position of local constituents on the issue, or their own personal position.

Other problems with slates include the fact that our politicians seem incapable of performing as a minority government - as can be seen based on how little minority governments accomplishment, and how much discontent they create. Say what you will but it seems to me that Canadians prefer majority governments. Which is where we get one of the bigger concerns for me.

If you have a majority government in city council you get a situation where the majority engages in groupthink, where they refuse to acknowledge, or simply don't think about, the views of the minority parties. At the same time minorities being treated this way will of course do anything they can to disrupt, stall, delay, the council as a way of expressing their frustration with the majority forcing through their own agenda.

Slates will not help rural areas that were forced into amalgamation feel like they have any more say. If anything it risks creating an even more defined rift between rural and urban councillors since you can now vote for a separatist party (you know it'll happen).

It's sad that we really have to think about bringing in parties or term limits to "solve" our municipal problems. You'd think our councillors would all be interested in at least moving in a common direction. You also think that the people of Hamilton would pay more attention to the dysfunctional nature of municipal politics and decide to give some of the councillors the boot for their ridiculous actions.

I agree something has to be done, but I think we must realize that no system is perfect, and we would want to carefully consider the pros and cons of each proposal. We should also consider the various methods of implementing each proposal before moving ahead.

Unfortunately I think council has an interest in leaving things the way they are now.

I'm against parties in any shape. Things get done quicker, but usually poorly. Best example is anything in the states where they've essentially narrowed every decision down to that of two positions, which often enough are the same or similar enough. Less opinions results in poorer representation. There does need to be a more effective way for councilors to reach agreement on issues, but parties isn't a way I'd want to see it taken care of.

WHat we really need to do is throw out the current wards and redraw them from scratch, basedon population figures. Each councillor should represent a similar number of voters, and the old divisions of previous wards, neighbouhoods and pre-amalgamation townships should be wiped out.

THis would make the representation more fair while at the same time promoting "hamilton" instead of "old hamilton" versus "new hamilton"

While I question term limits in general, one thing is for sure - 25 years is too long. I think having a 2 term limit, with allowable re-run after a term off might have some success.

While I too am not in favour of the current 'party system' for a municipal government, there is something to be said about a 'team' slate of candidates who all speak of similar goals and objectives for the municipality. I am not convinced that the rural areas will be excluded, as there is a dire need for rural inclusion when it comes to matters of Hamilton planning.

Term limits should be set by the voter. The problem is, and I hate to say it, is that the voter is not well educated with municipal matters, and as such only votes with the one they are most familiar. Consider this, as an average voter, which is more important to you... Your concern over matters which effect your immediate surroundings (ie- speeding in your neighbourhood, neighbourhood parks, pot holes on your street, your Councilor attending neighbourhood meetings, et al)? Or, matters which effect the greater City (ie- culture and rec, waste management, waste water management, police services, et al)? Statistically speaking, voters view the first question as being more important than the second question...the proof is in the high rate of incumbents re-elected.

Another consideration could be to form an Executive Team, similar to that of Winnipeg. The other is to push for Community Councils...something which is greatly lacking and needed in this City. We don't need to set Term Limits, we need to engage citizens to allow them the opportunity to hold those elected accountable!

Hey everyone,

Some good points have been raised and its nice to see people are getting involved in a much needed debate.

To address the point about party slates, I simply used the current examples because they would be the easiest to work from. If we look to Vancouver, they have 3 major parties that are (for the most part) unaligned with the existing parties. They also have an elected Green Party which, as far as I know, is mostly separate from the national and provincial party. In Hamilton, we can do the same thing, creating an umbrella left party, for example, that would unite Greens, New Democrats and other unaligned progressives.

As for the ward issue, I could not agree more. I hope council stays true to it's promise of altering the ward boundaries during the 2010-2014 council and finally gives us a little representation by population.

I'm glad that people are addressing this debate and hopefully it will be a major issue in 2010.

-Chris Erl

As usual, two separate things are being conflated. With any talk of "democratic reform", we must recognize that efficiency (defined as rapid procedural rule) and democratic participation exist in tension. The most "efficient" system would be a dictatorship. Real democracy, as opposed to the pseudo-democratic spectacle of elections, takes time. That's why it's realization is bound up in a simultaneous movement for a shortened workweek, living wage (or guaranteed income), and a people-oriented technology. Holistically, I think this is more efficient.

Chris: I don't like political parties. And I'm not sure why they work for municipal progressives, but it tentatively seems to be the case. Are you familiar with the Montreal Citizens' Movement? In the seventies, the MCM ousted a corrupt business-politician alliance (sound familiar?) and brought a broadly left-libertarian political alliance into power. However, while they made some worthwhile reforms, they failed at truly bringing political power to the citizens.

Ultimately, it's not the specific procedures of representation, but representation itself, that's holding democracy back. Real democracy is direct and participatory. As long term goals, let's run on the creation of binding popular assemblies in which all citizens can participate. Instead of career representatives, let's have recallable delegates that merely deliver the votes of the assemblies. Instead of amalgamation, let's demand confederation. Instead of "transparency", let's break down the wall between people and local government altogether.

Some good comments!

In my humble opinion, I would like to see the Ward system scrapped.

I would like 10 councillors elected at large.

I would like a Term limit of two consecutive at a time.

I believe that the Mayor's position should have real power and it have a Veto position that can only be overturned by 2/3 of council.

In this system, kingdoms setup under the Ward system are gone. You have to have real ideas that appeal to the majority of voters.

I believe that position should also be paid better.