Welcome to the CityVote campaign. We are a non-partisan initiative seeking voting reform at the municipal level in BC. Just prior to the November 2008 civic election, we conducted a survey of the candidates for mayor and city council in Vancouver. The article below outlines our findings.

CityVote Survey of Vancouver Candidates for Mayor and Council - Vancouver Civic Parties and Candidates Weigh in on Electoral Reform

Will We Get The Council We Vote For?

As Vancouver voters go to the polls on Saturday, they might consider whether the council that will be elected will actually be the council they ask for on their ballots.

Our current at-large voting system tends to produce sweeps for one party or the other based on very small differences in the level of popular support for the two dominant slates. Typically, most councilors get elected on approximately 35%-40% of the vote, which means that the other 60+% of the voters end up with little effective representation. In addition, at-large voting tends to under-represent some neighbourhoods and sociocultural groups.

CityVote recently asked all mayoral and council candidates if they agreed that these were problems with our current voting system and, if so, what they plan to do about them if elected.

Voting Values – Differences Between Candidates

Our first question focused on voting values – basically, do candidates agree that elections should produce councils which are broadly representative of the city’s voters in terms of political views, neighbourhoods and sociocultural diversity?

Both COPE and Vision Vancouver strongly agreed that elections should produce broadly representative outcomes and that the flaws in our at-large voting system cause significant problems in civic governance.

The NPA did not submit a response for the party as a whole, but several NPA candidates submitted individual responses. Generally speaking, Peter Ladner, Daljit Sidhu, Leanore Copeland, Korina Houghton and Michael Geller tended to agree that broad representation of all areas of Vancouver and its sociocultural diversity were important goals, but, with the exception of Geller, were less concerned about ensuring that seats were allocated in rough proportion to a party’s popular support. NPA candidates generally did not agree that our current system caused significant problems related to representing the diversity of Vancouver’s neighbourhoods or sociocultural groups. This perspective was perhaps best captured by Houghton and by Copeland, who stated that “It is up to the [parties] to put forward candidates that reflect diversity”. Geller noted that “there may have been an imbalance in the past, but this year, the two slates are so diverse that I expect a fairly diverse representation.”
Several other independent and small party candidates also expressed concern about these issues, most notably Joe Hatoum, Betty Krawczyk, John Boychuk, Bill Ritchie, Ian Gregson, Mike Hansen, Gölök Buday, Bud Oracle and Geri Tramutola.

Moving Forward

Our second question asked how we should move forward to address these problems. The main options we suggested for generating new options were a citizens’ assembly, an independent commission, or a council committee. The main options for deciding amongst the options were a public referendum or a decision by council.
COPE favours a council-led consultation and/or a Mayor’s task force followed by a referendum. Vision would prefer to strike an independent commission (1st choice) or a citizens’ assembly, but would also support a council committee, and would prefer to submit the result to a referendum but believes that council would also be able to make this decision directly. The NPA candidates generally do not believe we need to take action at this time, but there seems to be some support for a council committee. Geller suggested that electoral reform could be looked at after dealing with more urgent issues. Some NPA members believe a referendum would be the most appropriate decision-making step (Ladner, Geller), while others believe other approaches should be explored (Copeland).

Amongst the independent and small party candidates, most prefer a citizens’ assembly or commission followed by a referendum (Emery, Krawczyk, Boychuk, Ritchie, Hansen, Oracle and Maxwell Bur), Gregson, Scott Yee and Tramutola support a council committee plus referendum, while Buday, Caissy and Hatoum believe council should make the final decision.

Virtually all candidates, including Peter Ladner, expressed support for tackling financial reform and committed themselves to renewing the city's request to Victoria to grant the city the power to choose its own voting system, including the power to choose a proportional representation system.

A number of candidates took the time to provide more detailed and thoughtful comments. Special thanks to Hatoum, Krawczyk, Ritchie, Buday, Houghton, Copeland, Geller, Yee, Caissy, Oracle and Tramutola.

Evaluation

Regardless of who is elected on Saturday, there will be support for financial reform and for applying again to Victoria to grant Vancouver the power to choose its own electoral system. All COPE and Vision candidates have expressed support for moving forward with an electoral evaluation and possible reform process if elected, as do many of the independent and small party candidates. The NPA generally perceives fewer problems with the voting system and would likely not initiate any voting reform process in the coming term, though they are supportive of engaging in public discussions aimed at improving civic engagement and public consultation processes.

We hope this survey analysis helps you as you consider how to vote on Saturday. Please visit see below for more detailed comments from some of the respondents.

Detailed Comments (Selected):

Peter Ladner (NPA): I believe voters are still tired of debating this issue when there are so many other burning issues in our city. I would rather work on financial/disclosure reform.

Vision: Vision Vancouver is committed to campaign finance reform and setting up a citizen engagement office.

Leanore Copeland (NPA): I strongly believe that councillors, as with all effective board members, have an obligation to represent the entire city. While we may live in a neighbourhood, it is our responsibility to understand the issues, the consult with the community and to represent the entire city when advocating for the city with senior levels of government. It is up to the organizations to put forward candidates that reflect diversity - like NPA has done so effectively in this election campaign.

An at-large system does encourage excellence in governance, in allowing the council to concentrate on doing the business of the city. Councilors each advocating for a nieghbourhood add a political element to meetings that discourage the best decisions for all. This does not preclude approaching issues with a thorough understanding of the issues and full, consultative decision making practices in place.

With major economic issues, homelessness and Olympic benefits to be exploited for the betterment of the city as a whole, the fewest resources, both human and financial, should be allocated to this at this time. However, if broadly-gauged public response reveals this to be a true priority, a further, feasible step should be considered with several options considered.

A referendum is divisive and very costly. City council is perhaps too close to the issue. There are other methods that could be considered.

I will evaluate the state of our system overall using a consultative decision making - including citizen engagement in matters before public hearings. In addition, such important new tools as the 311 system will greatly assist in providing citizen input and therefore responsive management.

Michael Geller (NPA): There may have been an imbalance in the past, but this year, the two slates are so diverse that I expect a fairly diverse representation, which does reflect the socio-economic profile of the city. (If anything, there could be a shortfall in 'westside' representation'!

Notwithstanding my responses so far, please don't assume that I am opposed to electoral reform! I am!

While we have had sweeps, and may have another this year, the last election produced a fairly balanced council, albeit one where one party held a balance of power. but just barely!

WHILE I STRONGLY FAVOUR ELECTORAL REFORM, I CANNOT RECOMMEND SPENDING A LOT OF TIME OR MONEY ON THIS IN THE NEXT THREE YEARS. I WILL BE INTERESTED IN SEEING THE RESULT OF THE PROVINCIAL STV DISCUSSIONS AND VOTE, AND ULTIMATELY WANT TO SEE A CHANGE, BUT THERE ARE TOO MANY OTHER PRESSING ISSUES, LIKE HOMELESSNESS, CRIME AND SAFETY, AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING AT THIS TIME. and I stress THIS time.
Again, I would not likely pursue this matter in the first couple of years, but depending on how things go, and the results of this election, could be persuaded to consider this matter in the third year.

I just learned that I am one of only two Vancouver candidates in support of the STV system. I will continue to speak out on the need for a better electoral system. However, I am especially committed to work with neighbourhood associations and special interest groups to try and improve our PUBLIC HEARING and consultation processes. They are not working at the moment.

Korina Houghton (NPA): Ideally, ethnic and gender diversity should be reflected on elected boards, but this is not something that should be legislated. Please note that the NPA has a very diverse set of candidates both ethnically and in gender (50% are women). What we need to work on is getting more registered voters out to vote.

It is up to party's in the at-large system to recruit good candidates, regardless of where you live or your cultural makeup. Smart, dedicated individuals who care about the city make the difference.

Again, regarding diversity, it is up to the parties, and to their advantage, to recruit good and qualified candidates from throughout the city.

COPE: Council should implement the Berger Commission recommendations. COPE will support limiting spending on campaigns. COPE also supports full citizen engagement.

Geri Tramutola: what I believe is that voters should have a local candidate that intimately understands the issues in their neighbourhood.

I believe strongly that we need either a ward system, or a combination ward and at-large system.

I believe one of the worst results of the at-large system is that there are major areas of the city that are not represented on council, and the fact that residents of a particular area of the city do not have a specific councillor that they can go to when they wish to discuss an issue.

Again, we could create a combination ward/at-large mix of councillors to balance the under-representation and 'parochialism' issue. I also feel very strongly that there is a need for independent voices on a city council, and that the predominance of a party voting system is not beneficial on a municipal level.

I believe that any forward movement on this issue will need involvement from individuals from the both the public and civic government. Assigning a committee should accomplish this.

This is a very difficult question, because if the "No Change" side of the referendum question happens to have a lot of financial backing, they will be able to sway a large portion of the voting public. In addition, traditionally, voter turnout for civic elections is abysmally low, and actually does not represent even close to the half of the populace. And if the City Council of the day is dominated by a party whose stance is to continue the status quo, there is that chance that it will influence their decision. Both options are problematic, so I don't favour one over the other.

This issue is of GREAT importance to me. I feel exactly the same way about our provincial and federal voting system. Without proper representation, we do not have a democratic electoral system, and until it is amended, I will not cease to work for change.

I will raise the issue within both council chambers and the media. I will undertake the necessary research to understand what steps need to be taken to initiate the process. I do believe that it is a priority for our city. Finance reform is also a major part of making our city more democratic, as well as the need for full donation disclosure. There must be limits on donations to parties or candidates. And I do take the issue of citizen engagement seriously, as well. There are many hard-working advocacy groups in this city that deserve to be listened to and consulted. I believe they have a solid role to play in improving our city and ensuring all of our citizens needs are looked after.

Bud Oracle: I have been strongly engaged in the different perspectives o human politics: http://www.orato.com/node/12983 the present systems don't reflect the value of good leadership that we seek.

I am for going to a libertarian society and allowing the citizenry to rule and strengthen/develop itself without interference from the state. Generally, the form of government was established when different ideas ruled society. These things, too, need to evolve as we see everywhere in nature, through natural selection. Any tendency towards stagnancy will be dangerous to the healthy progress of our society

Scott Yee: Is it the West Sides fault that the East Side doesn't give a shit to vote? If the Eastsiders would get off their lazy ass and vote, the results would be different. Council isn't about where you live, your sex & the colour of your skin, it's about representation, period! Whether it be a white man, or a black women, as long as they listen to the people of Vancouver, it doesn't matter! You guys (Fair Vote BC & Canada) are trying to implement a sexist/racist/where you live system.

1) Everyone gets 1 vote for mayor, and 10 votes for city councillor. Those who have the majority of votes, gets elected. I like to call that a democracy! 2) I do want a preferential ballot for the mayor city councillor races. But the preferential ballot counting system would have to change when electing more than 1 candidate. Give voters 10-1st choice votes, 10-2nd choice, 10-3rd choice votes, etc. 3) Put on the ballot non-of-the-above, so the voters can choose non of the above if they do not like any of the candidates running, or don't feel that informed. 4) Have a Community Ward Member system where ward members will represent local issues to city hall, they will have no voting powers. Every general election community ward members will be elected to represent their ward to city hall. (It would be a volunteer position) 5) I believe that the voters should have the right to recall their politicians. To recall the mayor or city councillor it has to be 1 year after taking office, and if there's less than 1 year before the next election, and the mayor or councillor is recalled, then there will not be a by-election but instead either council will appoint someone, or the seat will remain vacant. If someone wants to recall the mayor or a city councillor, they will have to go down to city hall and sign the recall petition, and pay a non-refundable $25 dollars. Only people who voted in the last municipal election can recall, and only if 50% plus 1 sign the recall petition can there be a by-election. And if the mayor, or a city councillor is recalled, they can not run in that by-election, and will be banned from running for city hall again, and the loss of all benefits.

Toronto has a ward system. It's funny though, because 1) You get ward bosses, yet on the other hand, because you have ward bosses, they don't really care about the other parts of the city, so the elected ward boss really can't do much to stop the other ward bosses from doing stuff they ward boss doesn't like. Example: One part of the city was getting snow & ice removal for their sidewalks. The ward boss wanted to keep that program for the ward, but the rest of the bosses wanted to cut that program, and so it was. So you see, unless your willing to give ward bosses special local powers over certain things, why bother? And in Toronto, ward councillors are referred as ward bosses.

Already had a so called independent commission, and citizens assembly doesn't mean any good ideas will come from it. From all the input sent to Berger, council should look over it again, and put on the ballot, 3-5 different electoral systems to be voted on for the next municipal election. Also, go on CKNW and seek people's input on those 3-5 systems. A preferential ballot would be used to elect the electoral system. Current, MPP, ward, whatever!

Either during the next municipal election, or if the province or feds would agree to it, have people in Vancouver vote on it, during the next provincial or federal election, depending on what comes first. The next provincial is in May, and the new council will take office on Dec. 6th. So if council was to act fast, put the most 3-5 popular chocies on the ballot, after seeking public input on those choices, it could be ready for the porvincial election.

I have already written about a new electoral system, so here is my Campaign Finance Reform idea. Donations are nothing more than legal bribes. You do not donate money to a candidate who will not do something you want. Whether it be on taxes, health care, what nut, you give money to a candidate who will do something you want. (Same as your vote) That's why one day I want to go to a 100% publicly funded system. All candidates would get the same amount of money, and would have a city official as their financial agent. Meaning, the candidate would have to go through the city appointed FA to get the money, and keep track of the spending. But this is in it's early stages, years away from being implemented. So until then, ban all corporate, union, third party donations, and limit how much can be given to a mayoral/council candidate for office. An individual can only donate to one candidate for mayor & city council. (So you can't try and buy all candidates) The most an individual can donate to a candidate for mayor is $10,000 dollars, and $5,000 dollars for city councillor. The most a mayoral candidate can raise is $500,000 dollars, and $250,000 dollars for a city council candidate. Or go by $1 dollar per pop. If 1 millon people live in Vancouver, then you get to spend $1 million dollars, or something like that.

Gölök Z Buday: I support a Ward system with auto-matic recounts when the top two have 5% split. Also borrough advocates. A enumeration system: Add All free persons, incl. bound by service, excluding indians not taxed, 3/5s of all other. Also support a Advocate seated as speaker and vote collector to city hall and the Mayor in Boroughs. We need an a ballot access to all legal nominators in the city want to do it with no test to be on the ballot with equal time in debates and press and all additional time to anyone being a campaign payment.

I will support a ward system. I will support a Mayor having to win a majority of Wards rather than a popular vote as well. Unrestrcted ballot access to law abiding citizens of the city. Finance reform only allowing individuals who can vote for you to donate to you and a ban on slate advertising of Candidates (not party for itself with no mention of party). An individual system without a tyranny of a majority would be grand. I want debates to be 4 all inclusive to Mayors and 2 all inclusive to council candidate potential caucus heads (not Mayoral) and independents before first voting day. Ballot boxes on wheels for the sick and no early voting and no mail in ballot. An end to a secret ballot so no one can doubt the results unless they count a problem with an ability to do so. Maybe a Candidate Transferable Vote to endorse another candidate after election count in a caucus to decide a 50+1 winner. Keep the bubble ballot but only conntected to a server when it gets carried to a counter and gives a copy of your ballot back to you as a reciept. With programming to corruption that and being able to see your vote and all others how they are counted in public is the only way to ensure it was counted right and will be. Try auditing it with a secret ballot, you can't, I want spoiled ballot to count against all candidate %s and a write-in option. Term limits. 4, 2 year, for council and 2, 4 year, for mayor and consecutive only. Enumeration reform: Adding All free persons, incl. bound by service, excluding indians not taxed, 3/5s of all other. No tyranny of one, and I want raise hell on this, reverse the recent election bylaws would be grand and municipal US style constitution that works if enforced. No crown courts and courts for the people would be nice and outrage against any Candidate being made to vow to the queen, they should vow to the constitution governing the state. No majority tyranny or tyranny of one. There is a lot to do. But I have got to fight for as much as I can.

Mike Hansen: First we must deal with the 'poorest postal code in Canada'. Then We will seek reform. We have to many politicans dreaming about their future and not concerning themselves with the problems at hand. Fuck electoral reform if the HOMELESS are still HOMELESS! Get your priorities straight!!!!

Bill Ritchie: The "at-large" system has fed the party system as it tends to favour the westside voters -- as statistics show a higher voter turnout there. But I also believe it is important for candidates to encourage the east side voters to make the important effort and vote!

If elected, will table the option of a "riding" system to be looked into with citizen input. I would push for a MONTHLY open house with a minimum of 4 coucil members and a senior staffer from each major department present; and I would overhaul the "autocratic" real estate department and hold it accountable for failing to utilize its resources in the past few years to alleviate social and general spending as well as offering tax relief.

Betty Krawczyk: That there is a movement in Vancouver by the press and other media along with many community organizations who hold political forums to put forward only the two candidates they think most likely to win, thereby heavily influencing the vote.

Money drives the political process in Vancouver. Both the NPA and Vision are heavily funded by developers and corporations and while the process is supposed to be open to any party, it is not. We dont want money from developers and corporations, but we should be able to speak. Instead we are locked out of most of the debates.

The East Side has no representation that speaks for them. The hopeful mayors go to the East Side, have some kind of a rally and then go home. Council for the East Side? I don't even know who they are they are so invisable.

Our neighbourhoods are so enormously different, with widly different needs, that having individual concillors represent the whole city is impossible and ieven f possible, would wind up representing only the more affluent parts of the city.

If we could get a truely independent commission on electoral reform that would be great.

City council should not decide. This decision should be left up to the voters.

I think the proportional representational system is the only way to fix the problem of fairness in the voting system.

We already know that the proportional representational system strikes a cord with the public. But of course, this needs to be varified by inviting citizen engagement and finding the money for financing the reform by making this a priority.

Joe Hatoum: For the number of people in the partys, there are a lot of issues not being addressed and it makes me wonder what all that combined brain power potential is being used for. I hear a lot of speculation and noise about east side drug problems or homelessness, and I'm not hearing or seeing many creative solutions for one, and second, there are WAY more things to be focused on than just these two issues. Although they are important, all issues are important, and many critical things are being overlooked as 2010 and the future approaches. Health and sanity of youth, public sanitation, and waste water treatment are other critical issues hardly if at all mentioned by the party candidates & members. So what are they really good for? Just like these parties have been around for so long, so have the issues, and I'm not seeing the level of progress over the years which I expect and believe my birth place deserves, and which I believe we humans are capable of.

As long as peoples concerns and issues are being heard and properly addressed, there shouldn't be much else to worry about. Our municipal government is dominated by special interests which do not reflect the interests of the people, and that is the biggest imbalance of representation because the general will of the people, & longterm interest for us as a human race is being overlooked and ignored.

As Vancouver is an entire city, all area's should be plotted and issues cataloged into a list were it can be looked through and progress be made in all areas; with wide focus over the city as a whole and not tunnel vision.
I'm sure we are creative enough to devise a new system which does not contain the presumed flaws of these old (out dated) conventional systems.

Canadians are fairly intelligent and I'm impressed with the level of comprehension I've heard from people, in person and over the radio with callers in. I don't feel there would be anything negative about having a citizens assembly, although it may upset special interests among the mainstream party's.

I feel it's in our best interest to not drag petty decisions on for longer than it would take to try new things out and change back if NEEDED. We won't know weather a new system will work until we try it and let it continually evolve over time until we have a new system that it is efficient and satisfying for the long run.

In 2005 while running for mayor I proposed a system of interactive democracy, or as Pedro Mora phrased it, perpetual democracy. Still on my website from last election it says: "I will give citizens the power to decide what happens in their communities and city. Citizens are free to submit issues and topics of concern which will be addressed and prioritized at weekly discussions. By doing this, I think there is a potential to eliminate all the problems in our city." .. and now in 2008 I'm staying true to my words. Unless there is a reason why citizens should be ignored throughout the elected term, I think everyone would be happier.

Audrey Jane Laferriere: We should not have parties at the municipal level.

Marc Emery: I believe the city should be 12 wards with two councillors from each. Then you get a more neighbourhood representation, but the Mayor gets a citywide mandate. It would allow independents and ethnic groups and alternate parties a better chance to be on council.

Who is CityVote?

CityVote is an initiative run by Antony Hodgson and Stephen Broscoe. We are both directors of Fair Voting BC, though CityVote is an independent initiative. For more information, please contact Antony Hodgson at antony.hodgson [ at ] gmail.com