General Politics Discussion

[danbrotherston]

Given the amount of time remaining until the next municipal election (October 2026), they'll certainly call a byelection, no?

Well, conversely, that means it was close to the previous municipal election and maybe the results aren't quite as stale yet.

The problem is that the previous municipal election was not ranked ballot. The second place winner is not necessarily the second place choice. It is possible that all of Aislin's voters would have picked the third candidate.

This is another reason ranked choice is better, it can eliminate the need for additional byelections.

[tomh009]

This is another reason ranked choice is better, it can eliminate the need for additional byelections.

Maybe you could eliminate (or at least reduce) those on a municipal level, where you are voting for a person rather than a party. But do you think any of the federal or provincial parties would agree to the seat being given to the second-place candidate when the elected member resigns?

[panamaniac]

This is another reason ranked choice is better, it can eliminate the need for additional byelections.

Maybe you could eliminate (or at least reduce) those on a municipal level, where you are voting for a person rather than a party. But do you think any of the federal or provincial parties would agree to the seat being given to the second-place candidate when the elected member resigns?

Byelections are the only way provincial and federal vacancies are filled.

[danbrotherston]

This is another reason ranked choice is better, it can eliminate the need for additional byelections.

Maybe you could eliminate (or at least reduce) those on a municipal level, where you are voting for a person rather than a party. But do you think any of the federal or provincial parties would agree to the seat being given to the second-place candidate when the elected member resigns?

I think the concept of taking the second place winner makes no sense when there are parties involved and that doesn't change with ranked ballots.

When parties are involved, it makes more sense that the winning party can select a new representative to serve the term, than it would to pick a different party.

But in my opinion, the thing that makes the most sense is to run another election...but seems there is often no appetite for that at a municipal level, unlike at a provincial or federal level.

[kzurell]

Maybe you could eliminate (or at least reduce) those on a municipal level, where you are voting for a person rather than a party. But do you think any of the federal or provincial parties would agree to the seat being given to the second-place candidate when the elected member resigns?

I think the concept of taking the second place winner makes no sense when there are parties involved and that doesn't change with ranked ballots.

When parties are involved, it makes more sense that the winning party can select a new representative to serve the term, than it would to pick a different party.

But in my opinion, the thing that makes the most sense is to run another election...but seems there is often no appetite for that at a municipal level, unlike at a provincial or federal level.

Just a ground check here: parties don't exist, right? They are not constitutional organs. They have no role "selecting" anyone, outside of passing public trusts around among their members.

Parties do exist: they're like dual citizenship, where the holders are tasked to gain and hold power "elsewhere" (i.e., here). We get all paranoid about the influence of China and India that we can police, and say nothing about centuries of entrenched homegrown machinations.


The "second place winner" idea does have merit: they're the "next past the post", no permission from any party required. I do agree the best solution is to run another election, like keeping a seized joint exercised.

[ac3r]

So... wait, did the election already happen? I was just about to ask if anyone thinks The Green Party may win Kitchener centre since the lady has a lot of signs and campaigning. I then found an article saying she won.

If so, it'll be interesting to see how effective both she and the party will be. The Greens are usually a bit irrelevant but they seem to be gaining support across the board now. I suppose people are feeling disaffected with the other two main parties, thus they are hoping The Greens can offer an alternative.

I'm glad to see Queen NIMBY aka Debbie lose.

[danbrotherston]

I think the concept of taking the second place winner makes no sense when there are parties involved and that doesn't change with ranked ballots.

When parties are involved, it makes more sense that the winning party can select a new representative to serve the term, than it would to pick a different party.

But in my opinion, the thing that makes the most sense is to run another election...but seems there is often no appetite for that at a municipal level, unlike at a provincial or federal level.

Just a ground check here: parties don't exist, right? They are not constitutional organs. They have no role "selecting" anyone, outside of passing public trusts around among their members.

Parties do exist: they're like dual citizenship, where the holders are tasked to gain and hold power "elsewhere" (i.e., here). We get all paranoid about the influence of China and India that we can police, and say nothing about centuries of entrenched homegrown machinations.


The "second place winner" idea does have merit: they're the "next past the post", no permission from any party required. I do agree the best solution is to run another election, like keeping a seized joint exercised.

I mean, the whole "parties don't exist" is silly...plenty of things exist that aren't written into the constitution or even the broader set of governing laws, plenty of things IN our government as well. Parties are even written on the ballot.

I don't believe "second place winner" has any merit in a political system like the Canadian federal or provincial system which has parties. People...largely...vote for (or against) parties (or party leaders) not the individuals (no matter what they tell themselves...).

In the Canadian system where we are usually in practice choosing between all of 3 options, choosing the second place option, IMO would be subverting the will of the people.

Take the hypothetical, the winning candidate who is no longer available, never existed, and the party selected a different candidate in the original election. I believe the chances are very high that the new hypothetical person would have been still have been elected, rather than a different party being elected.

Hence, the "second place winner" is necessarily less representative of the democratic will than the party selecting a new MP.

(Of course, there is no mechanism for that in our federal government, nor I believe for the second place candidate to be selected, I'm pretty sure the ONLY option is to run a byelection which we both agree, is the preferred option. So both options are equally incompatible with our constitution.)

But even in a non-party system like the region's local government, I find it dubious at best to select the second place winner, but less dubious if we had a ranked ballot where you can at least evaluate who those voters would have voted for.

[jeffster]

Looking forward to what's next for Ward 10.

Stephanie Stretch finished just behind Aislinn last October with third place way off. Are we close enough to the vote that Barry would offer the vacant spot to Stephanie? I would be fine with that, I have voter fatigue. If she turns it down I would go to an election.

Maybe Barry just goes straight for an election, who knows. If we go to an election and Stephanie doesn't run my early favourite would be Brooklin, if she throws her hat in the ring. Maybe Simon Guthrie takes aim too.

Clancy - 1765
Stretch - 1650
Davis - 513

Not a fan for Brooklin. She made some fairly strong but untrue comments, over of Reddit ((EDIT, it was Twitter)), which I called her out on. In her post, she was attacking city staff and council for not doing enough to prevent a certain incident from happening. (It was the case where a Waterloo woman apparently made racist remarks to a person of a different ethnic, at the Drive Test facility). I pointed out the incident had nothing to do with Kitchener, if for any reason the parties involved were not from Kitchener, nor was the facility run by the city. I pointed out that city staff and council does a lot more than just about every city - especially considering all of our community services that cost us hundred of millions.

She did admit that she didn't know any of the details of this event, but there lies the problem. Calling other people out for things they didn't do, nor have any control over, is simply wrong.

[danbrotherston]

Looking forward to what's next for Ward 10.

Stephanie Stretch finished just behind Aislinn last October with third place way off. Are we close enough to the vote that Barry would offer the vacant spot to Stephanie? I would be fine with that, I have voter fatigue. If she turns it down I would go to an election.

Maybe Barry just goes straight for an election, who knows. If we go to an election and Stephanie doesn't run my early favourite would be Brooklin, if she throws her hat in the ring. Maybe Simon Guthrie takes aim too.

Clancy - 1765
Stretch - 1650
Davis - 513

Not a fan for Brooklin. She made some fairly strong but untrue comments, over of Reddit, which I called her out on. In her post, she was attacking city staff and council for not doing enough to prevent a certain incident from happening. (It was the case where a Waterloo woman apparently made racist remarks to a person of a different ethnic, at the Drive Test facility). I pointed out the incident had nothing to do with Kitchener, if for any reason the parties involved were not from Kitchener, nor was the facility run by the city. I pointed out that city staff and council does a lot more than just about every city - especially considering all of our community services that cost us hundred of millions.

She did admit that she didn't know any of the details of this event, but there lies the problem. Calling other people out for things they didn't do, nor have any control over, is simply wrong.

I dunno...there are significantly greater problems with the city than someone who is too quick to judge an event one time. (Like, our resident NIMBY or other neoconservative folks.)

But obviously many people do prioritise someone being a civil establishment supporting person over any kind of radical viewpoints...but I think the byelection has shown that such attitudes are becoming more and more toxic...the status is not quo...

[kzurell]

I mean, the whole "parties don't exist" is silly...plenty of things exist that aren't written into the constitution or even the broader set of governing laws, plenty of things IN our government as well. Parties are even written on the ballot.

I don't believe "second place winner" has any merit in a political system like the Canadian federal or provincial system which has parties. People...largely...vote for (or against) parties (or party leaders) not the individuals (no matter what they tell themselves...).

In the Canadian system where we are usually in practice choosing between all of 3 options, choosing the second place option, IMO would be subverting the will of the people.

Take the hypothetical, the winning candidate who is no longer available, never existed, and the party selected a different candidate in the original election. I believe the chances are very high that the new hypothetical person would have been still have been elected, rather than a different party being elected.

Hence, the "second place winner" is necessarily less representative of the democratic will than the party selecting a new MP.

(Of course, there is no mechanism for that in our federal government, nor I believe for the second place candidate to be selected, I'm pretty sure the ONLY option is to run a byelection which we both agree, is the preferred option. So both options are equally incompatible with our constitution.)

But even in a non-party system like the region's local government, I find it dubious at best to select the second place winner, but less dubious if we had a ranked ballot where you can at least evaluate who those voters would have voted for.

If parties are meritorious, write them into the constitution. Then we'd each have a country of citizenship, a province and municipality of residence, and a party of, what, propriety? principle? peccadillo?

Until that's done, party names on the ballot are private capture of public authority. Until voters are _obliged_ to vote for parties (say, with a mixed system with party-captured seats, ugh), they're really accomplices, and the ambiguity gives cover for many sins. And that's what I tell myself...

I only prefer a byelection just to keep people voting, if we're too cheap to do it there's nothing wrong with a second choice. I realize I was somewhat conflating "second on the ranked ballot" and "second on the FPTP ballot" (if only in my own mind), but the latter is still vastly preferable to "second in the party conference": they had their shot, better luck next time. To allow parties to select a replacement, we'd first need to _remove_ the candidate names from ballots, which could be done, see above. The options are not equally incompatible.

The reason I jumped into this part of the thread is that party politics is one of the "high-fructose corn syrups" of civilization: over-refined and low value, dangerous to our health in nearly any quantity, but habit-forming. We've escaped it municipally, but treating it casually leaves us at risk. I don't have a good remedy for our dependency on it elsewhere, but I believe it's possible, and important.

[danbrotherston]

I mean, the whole "parties don't exist" is silly...plenty of things exist that aren't written into the constitution or even the broader set of governing laws, plenty of things IN our government as well. Parties are even written on the ballot.

I don't believe "second place winner" has any merit in a political system like the Canadian federal or provincial system which has parties. People...largely...vote for (or against) parties (or party leaders) not the individuals (no matter what they tell themselves...).

In the Canadian system where we are usually in practice choosing between all of 3 options, choosing the second place option, IMO would be subverting the will of the people.

Take the hypothetical, the winning candidate who is no longer available, never existed, and the party selected a different candidate in the original election. I believe the chances are very high that the new hypothetical person would have been still have been elected, rather than a different party being elected.

Hence, the "second place winner" is necessarily less representative of the democratic will than the party selecting a new MP.

(Of course, there is no mechanism for that in our federal government, nor I believe for the second place candidate to be selected, I'm pretty sure the ONLY option is to run a byelection which we both agree, is the preferred option. So both options are equally incompatible with our constitution.)

But even in a non-party system like the region's local government, I find it dubious at best to select the second place winner, but less dubious if we had a ranked ballot where you can at least evaluate who those voters would have voted for.

If parties are meritorious, write them into the constitution. Then we'd each have a country of citizenship, a province and municipality of residence, and a party of, what, propriety? principle? peccadillo?

Until that's done, party names on the ballot are private capture of public authority. Until voters are _obliged_ to vote for parties (say, with a mixed system with party-captured seats, ugh), they're really accomplices, and the ambiguity gives cover for many sins. And that's what I tell myself...

I only prefer a byelection just to keep people voting, if we're too cheap to do it there's nothing wrong with a second choice. I realize I was somewhat conflating "second on the ranked ballot" and "second on the FPTP ballot" (if only in my own mind), but the latter is still vastly preferable to "second in the party conference": they had their shot, better luck next time. To allow parties to select a replacement, we'd first need to _remove_ the candidate names from ballots, which could be done, see above. The options are not equally incompatible.

The reason I jumped into this part of the thread is that party politics is one of the "high-fructose corn syrups" of civilization: over-refined and low value, dangerous to our health in nearly any quantity, but habit-forming. We've escaped it municipally, but treating it casually leaves us at risk. I don't have a good remedy for our dependency on it elsewhere, but I believe it's possible, and important.

I mean, it’s clear you dislike the concept of parties. But have you any examples of democratic national governments of countries (not micro states) that don’t have parties?

Shortcuts like parties make the governments work. We get away without it at a municipal level because it is small.

I too would prefer a world where every citizen care enough to educate themselves on the issues and on every candidate. And every candidate was able to reach every citizen in their riding. But we don’t get to choose what world we live in. So we are stuck in this world where parties allow candidates to effectively brand themselves so voters can more easily align their vote to their issues. But where power is still sufficiently diluted with a large group of representatives. I don’t see a realistic alternative.

[plam]

I mean, it’s clear you dislike the concept of parties. But have you any examples of democratic national governments of countries (not micro states) that don’t have parties?

Shortcuts like parties make the governments work. We get away without it at a municipal level because it is small.

Indeed, Montreal and Vancouver have parties. Maybe Toronto should too, but it keeps on getting messed around with by the province.

Federal parties have been funded proportionally to their vote share, though not anymore. So they have been acknowledged in legislation.

I was reading about the history of non-confidence votes and it was pointed out that NZ governments were a lot less stable before there were parties. You just don't know when you are going to lose a confidence vote if you don't have parties. US parties are also much more fractious.

[danbrotherston]

I mean, it’s clear you dislike the concept of parties. But have you any examples of democratic national governments of countries (not micro states) that don’t have parties?

Shortcuts like parties make the governments work. We get away without it at a municipal level because it is small.

Indeed, Montreal and Vancouver have parties. Maybe Toronto should too, but it keeps on getting messed around with by the province.

Federal parties have been funded proportionally to their vote share, though not anymore. So they have been acknowledged in legislation.

I was reading about the history of non-confidence votes and it was pointed out that NZ governments were a lot less stable before there were parties. You just don't know when you are going to lose a confidence vote if you don't have parties. US parties are also much more fractious.

Indeed...a two party system is clearly worse than a more than two party system...(Canada, in alignment with our singular national identity, works to be ever so slightly better than the US in this regard by having 3 main parties)...but having no parties is effectively having 338 parties after the election which is...difficult to manage. Ironic given that a common complaint about European governments is that having 5-10 parties is "too unstable"...(although I've come to believe that that viewpoint is actually "I don't like democracy because working towards consensus with people is hard and it's easier/more effective to just elect a dictator")

[jeffster]

Not a fan for Brooklin. She made some fairly strong but untrue comments, over of Reddit, which I called her out on. In her post, she was attacking city staff and council for not doing enough to prevent a certain incident from happening. (It was the case where a Waterloo woman apparently made racist remarks to a person of a different ethnic, at the Drive Test facility). I pointed out the incident had nothing to do with Kitchener, if for any reason the parties involved were not from Kitchener, nor was the facility run by the city. I pointed out that city staff and council does a lot more than just about every city - especially considering all of our community services that cost us hundred of millions.

She did admit that she didn't know any of the details of this event, but there lies the problem. Calling other people out for things they didn't do, nor have any control over, is simply wrong.

I dunno...there are significantly greater problems with the city than someone who is too quick to judge an event one time. (Like, our resident NIMBY or other neoconservative folks.)

But obviously many people do prioritise someone being a civil establishment supporting person over any kind of radical viewpoints...but I think the byelection has shown that such attitudes are becoming more and more toxic...the status is not quo...

I need to edit my original content. It was Twitter (now X) that she had her complaints. Not that it changes anything.

My point with Brooklin though is, that we need level headed people working (staff and council) at city hall. We already have a crazy anti-housing crusader with Chapman, who got whipped pretty bad in the bi-election. It was the NDP's to lose, and they lost. We don't need someone who's going to drag the city down every time something crappy happens in the city, and goes around and blames city staff and council. She's useless, really.

I had the conversations with Brooklin over on Reddit, but she wasn't really answering peoples questions, at least not the tough ones. This was when she was trying to be the candidate for Kitchener-Centre NDP.

[Chris]

From the Record and last night's council meeting. As I predicted they will offer the seat to Stephanie if she still has interest. I'm okay with this due to how close they finished in the election. That and I'm tired of voting, a break would be nice.

ETA: I see Simon Guthrie spoke at the meeting. I'd guess he would run in a by-election if given the option. I guess at this point it's up to Stephanie now.


Kitchener looks to appoint runner-up to fill Ward vacancy

https://archive.ph/nORvC10