Comment 50830

By Fred Street (anonymous) | Posted October 29, 2010 at 09:27:41

@ Andrea: “another column that could be added to those stats is voter turnout (%)”

02 7,730 votes (20.4% of ward pop’n)
03 7,150 votes (17.9% of ward pop’n)
04 8,309 votes (23.3% of ward pop’n)
05 10,473 votes (26.9% of ward pop’n)
01 8,373 votes (27.8% of ward pop’n)
06 12,006 votes (29.5% of ward pop’n)
07 16,002 votes (27.4% of ward pop’n)
09 7,692 votes (28.8% of ward pop’n)
08 14,956 votes (30.9% of ward pop’n)
10 8,671 votes (35.1% of ward pop’n)
11 10,554 votes (40.7% of ward pop’n)
13 8,341 votes (34.6% of ward pop’n)
14 4,259 votes (26.8% of ward pop’n)
15 6,432 votes (25.2% of ward pop’n)
12 10,226 votes (32.9% of ward pop’n)

I can’t seem to find the registered voter counts for 2010, but the comparative density of activated voters within wards is also interesting. It’s hard to imagine that something like that wouldn’t impact the mindset of a community, or reflect its world view – on a per capita basis, for example, places like Stoney Creek and Dundas are arguably about twice as engaged as Ward 3, despite only raking up 14-18% more ballots. That seems to reflect a perceived ownership as much as bricks-and-mortar ownership.

It’s not the first time the urban/suburban poor/affluent divide has been remarked upon, incidentally. CATCH noted that around 22,000 Ward 1-5 voters dropped from the registered rolls in the 2006 election, vis the 2003 rolls:

http://www.hamiltoncatch.org/view_article.php?id=15

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds