What is the role of the local councillor? Where is the power of the voter?
Edmonton elects their councillors in wards so we say there is local representation on city council. But how does the ward councillor have any power in a city council where all the other councillors are elected to represent other wards?
The mayor is elected by voters across the city, so he is, at least, theoretically responsible for the city as a whole, to care more about overall needs than local concerns. But he is only one vote on council.
And the mayor is just one person. How can he -- in one person -- represent the diversity of opinion of voters across the city?
How can a councillor elected as the only representative of a ward covering one-twelfth of the city represent the diversity of opinion in the ward?
What can a voter do if these city officials do not represent them?
These and other questions seem like merely head-in-the-cloud arcane matters until a resident of the city is faced with a critical change in his or her neighbourhood.
Say a safe-injection site is planned for your street. Local residents and business people right on that block would be worried about a dramatic and downward change in the atmosphere on the block. Although admitting that drug use is prevalent, overdoses should be prevented, and safe-injection sites are beneficial in that regard, many residents object to the proposed site on the block where they work or live.
How does the local councillor stand on the issue? As a member of the city council overseeing the needs of the city at large, he may support the project. But as a ward representative, he might be expected to echo the views of local merchants who fear their business or personal safety may be threatened by the project.
And even if he objects, his local objections, like those of the merchants, may be over-ridden. Why? Because he is just a minority on the council. The other councillors are not accountable to voters outside their wards.
And say the local councillor does not make a stand, refusing to be drawn into what he may see as a no-win situation. Upset neighbours in the "target" area have little recourse - they can punish him by not voting for him next time.
Would that have an effect? Seems not, if we look at the last city election. Most of the councillors were elected with a small fraction of votes cast in their ward. One was elected with just 5000 votes, which seems a lot until she says she hopes to represent each of the 85,000 residents in her ward. The expectations put on her are not less than that put any other councillor – they each have about that many in their ward.
If a councillor only needs to get 25 percent of the vote to be re-elected, he or she is not likely to be very accountable to a small disgruntled group.
Furthermore, our voting system is so loose and easy that, even if the councillor gets the same number of votes or more, he may not be re-elected. The NDP received more votes in 2019 when it lost than it got in 2015 when it took majority government. It got fewer seats in 2019 than 2015, despite its increased popularity. True story.
And the same loose-ness exists in city elections. In 2021 we did not elect the 12 most popular candidates across the city. Five candidates got more than 4700 votes but were not elected. Bev Esslinger received 4400 votes but was not elected. Anne Stevenson received 4034 votes and was elected.
They ran in different wards so were not competing. But the fact remains Bev was more popular among city voters but did not get a seat.
Why were they not competing? Because the city is divided into 12 arbitrary divisions (wards). These wards mean nothing on the ground. They only exist for city elections. Provincial elections divide the city into 20 districts; federal elections divide the city into eight ridings. All very arbitrary. Each elects just one member and that member is expected to represent all the residents in the district. Perhaps Bev might have been elected if she had run in Anne’s ward, we can’t know.
But let’s say we divide the city into two halves, each half electing six councillors. And we use a fair voting system where each voter can cast just one vote. Waste votes could be avoided by using transferable votes, as used in elections in Ireland and in cities in Scotland. Each substantial group in each half would have representation. Both Bev and Anne could be elected. Each councillor would be elected with about the same number of votes. If a councillor did not do their job, did not represent their supporters, she would not be re-elected.
But also if she did as good a job, she would be re-elected. It often happens that a defender of the little people - the old, the sick, workers and farmers - will get elected and then in the next election take more votes but still lose his or her seat as the powers-that-be join together against her. A fair voting system that allows multiple representatives and ensures that to be elected a candidate must prove deep support, rewards good representation in a way that no hit-or-miss First Past The Post system can.
Getting back to the safe-injection site issue, if a district had several councillors, if a local councillor stood aside and did not stand up for the interests of the little people, another councilor representing the same district may take the matter up and say there is a real need but such a facility at the proposed location is not the way to go.
But now local residents have just one local representative. If he does not do anything, no one is on city council with specific responsibility to represent their views.
When there is local objection to a proposed land use, there are sometimes calls of NIMBY "Not In My Back Yard."
There are at least two ways to look at that.
I don't see city council putting a safe-injection site next to city hall or next to the mayor's own residence or the personal residences of councillors? So you could also describe most city council decisions as NIMBY - as well. Just depends which side of the table you are on.
Definitely there are general needs that over-ride local concerns. But if the city acts in a high-handed way, it under-cuts confidence. Why should a person pay perhaps a million dollars for a building when the resale value of the property - or the ability to find renters - might be collapsed due to fears aroused by "freight-train" decisions by city hall?
Perhaps the local councillor should have the power to stop a project where local objection exists. But of course each ward - being one-twelfth of the city - contains diversity of opinion. On any possible issue, there are at least two sides to the question, and people holding both views are to be found in each possible part of the city.
So there is no easy solution such as a local veto.
So it comes to politics, a weighing of pros and cons, of the greatest good to the greatest number, with hopefully no great harm to any, and no harm at all to most.
But we may well ask - is our present city council, elected in the way that it is, the best instrument to determine that outcome?
The successful candidates received only 99,000 votes of the 227,000 votes cast. More votes were cast for unsuccessful candidates than for the ones who were elected.
Was the present city council the choice of Edmonton voters? In no way was that proven. It could be that if votes could have been transferred and concentrated on just the most popular two in each district, to see who has a majority, the same winners might have been elected. But such was not done, and it is a falsity to say that a majority of voters in the ward chose the councillor, in most of the cases.
And even then, with only one winner in each ward, the diversity of opinion in the ward would not be represented.
There is no way a single person can represent all the voters in his or her ward. Having several councillors representing a district could allow that kind of fine-grained representation.
Having several councillors representing a district, if accompanied by fair voting, would also mean that a majority of voters would see their votes used to actually elect someone. Whereas with single-member wards and First Past The Post voting, we see nine of the city's 12 councillors elected with less than half the votes in their wards.
But with multi-member wards and proportional representation through simple Single Transferable Voting, we would see about 80 percent or more of the votes used to actually elect someone.
Why stop at 6-seat wards? Why not elect our councillors at-large in one city-wide district?
Many cities elect their councils that way. In fact, every city in Alberta except Calgary and Edmonton elects their councillors without the use of wards to divide the city.
Whether elected in single-member wards or at-large, councillors sit in one chamber, discussing issues that have local effects, perhaps on this family but not on that one, on that section of the city but not the others. A ward councillor votes on things outside his or her ward.
So perhaps councillors should be elected at large in one city-wide district. This would theoretically give councillors regard only for overall city needs. But actually their re-election depends on votes from individual voters so they would work to serve the interests of enough voters to be re-elected. Which is really all we can ask for.
Currently when a councillor is elected with the votes from as few as 6 percent of the residents of the ward (5000 votes in a 85,000-resident ward), there is little accountability.
Could at-large elections be any worse?
Do our ward councillors have power?
It seems not.
When councillors debated continued city support for Scona Pool, the local councillor was not even on the committee (from what I understand). No fault of his - he obviously could not be everywhere -- he is only one person.
So where was local input? Not present.
If councillors were elected at-large, we could have diverse representation - if the voting system was set up to be fair. One-twelfth of the vote – say 19,000 votes – would be enough to be elected in Edmonton.
If each voter has just one vote and twelve members are elected in a single contest, a diversity of opinion could be represented in city hall. Every councillor would have his or her supporters and would work to reflect that viewpoint.
At-large with proportional representation would ensure minority representation - as well as majority representation - in a way that districts or at-large elections that use a simple plurality election system cannot. Ethnic or racial groups would each get their due share of sets - if voters voted along those lines. Or voters in a particular area could vote for a local candidate and that person would be elected if the local district has the numbers. It is not an impossible task to rouse up 19,000 votes in a section of the city, if your ideas are good.
Some claim that city-wide at-large voting means campaigns would be expensive. But that is looking at instances where block voting is used, where all candidates are in a dogfight for sheer plurality. But if fair voting was used, a candidate would need to campaign for votes just among one-twelfth of the city voters. If you can get those votes, there is nothing the other 11/12ths of the city could do to stop your success.
If at-large voting is too ambitious, half-city districts would mean that you would be elected if you got one-sixth or so of the votes cast in a half of the city, still only 19,000 votes.
What happens in city hall would still be a fight for priorities, a weighing of different claims for attention. But under fair voting, in multi-member wards or at-large, the best people as measured by votes cast would be elected.
Such larger district-ing means that voters would not be barred from voting for friends or neighbours due to intervening district boundaries. Each voter would have a choice of all - or half - of the candidates in the running, instead of just the few running in the ward.
And the elected councillor would be elected by supporters, to be the representative of that self-chosen group. If the councillor did not do a good job, re-election would not be a given. (Under our present system, a councillor is said to represent all the residents in a ward, even if most of the voters did not choose that councillor. Literally, most of the voters did not hire the councillor - they voted for someone else to do the job. So what do the residents have to do to fire him?)
After the election, with several - or 12 - councillors elected to serve, a resident would be able to rely on several elected councillors to represent his or her views, not just one who may or may not be up to the job.
Flexibility, dependability, fairness - things that our present voting system does not give us - would be secured through fair voting in half-city districts or at-large elections.
Would it make a difference in how councillors perform their duties? I believe it would.
=============================================
Shorter version of the above article is below.
This shorter version was published in the Millwoods Mosaic monthly, Feb 2023.
Does Your Ward Councillor Work For You?
(alternative title:
How Does the Edmonton City Council Work?)
By Tom Monto
Edmonton elects its councillors in wards so we say there is local representation on city council. But what is the role of the local councillor?
Does the ward councillor have any power in a city council where all the other councillors are elected to represent other wards?
The mayor is elected by voters across the city, so he is, at least, theoretically responsible for the city as a whole. But he is only one vote on council.
What can a voter do if these city officials do not represent him?
These and other questions seem like merely theoretical matters until a resident of the city is faced with a critical change in his or her neighbourhood.
Say a safe-injection site is planned for your street. Local residents and business people right on that block are worried about a dramatic and downward change in the atmosphere on the block and on local property values. Although admitting that safe-injection sites are beneficial in preventing overdoses, many object to putting such a facility on the block where they work or live.
How does the local councillor stand on the issue? As a member of the city council overseeing the needs of the city, he may support the project. But as a ward representative, he is expected to echo the views of voters in his ward who fear possible impacts on their business or personal safety.
Even if he objects, his objections may be disregarded. He is just a minority on the council, and the other councillors are not at all accountable to voters outside their own wards.
Say the local councillor does not make a stand, refusing to be drawn into what he may see as a no-win situation. Upset voters can try to punish him by not voting for him next time.
Would that have an effect? Seems not, if we look at the last city election. Most of the councillors were elected with a small fraction of votes cast in their ward. One was elected with just 5000 votes, which seems a lot until you learn that 85,000 people live in her ward. If a councillor was elected with only 25 percent of the vote, he or she is not likely to be worried about a small group of upset voters when he or she goes for re-election.
Furthermore, our voting system is so loose and easy that a councillor getting the same number of votes may not be re-elected. And if he gets fewer votes, he may still be elected.
In 2021 we did not elect to council the 12 candidates who were the most popular across the city. For instance, Anne Stevenson received 4034 votes and was elected. Bev Esslinger received 4400 votes but was not elected. They were not actually in competition with each other. The city is divided into 12 wards, and they ran in different wards. Perhaps Bev might have been elected if she had run in Anne’s ward, we can’t know. But still the fact is Bev was more popular and was not elected.
But let’s say we divide the city into only two halves, each half electing six councillors. And we use a fair voting system where each voter casts just one vote. Wasted votes could be avoided by using transferable votes, as used in elections in Ireland and in cities in Scotland. Every substantial group in each half of the city would have representation. A candidate getting a set number of votes would be certain of election. A fair voting system electing multiple representatives rewards good representation in a way that no First Past The Post system can. Both Bev and Anne could be elected.
Getting back to the safe-injection site issue, if a district had several councillors, if a local councillor stood aside and did not stand up for his constituents, another councillor representing the same district may take the matter up. He or she may say there is a real need but the proposed location is not the way to go.
But now each ward has just one local representative. If he does not do anything, no one is on city council with specific responsibility to represent the views of ward residents.
The final decision will be decided by politics, a weighing of pros and cons, of the greatest good to the greatest number.
But is our city council the best instrument to determine that outcome?
The successful candidates received only 99,000 votes of the 227,000 votes cast. More votes were cast for unsuccessful candidates than for the people who were elected.
It could be that if votes could have been transferred, the same winners might have been elected. But such was not proven. With single-member wards and First Past The Post voting, we see nine of the city's 12 councillors were elected with less than half the votes in their wards.
Having several councillors representing a district, if accompanied by fair voting, would mean about 80 percent of the votes would be used to actually elect someone.
Why stop at 6-seat wards? Why not elect our councillors at-large in one city-wide district?
Almost every city in Alberta elects their councillors without the use of wards dividing the city. Only Edmonton and Calgary use wards. Whether elected in single-member wards or at-large, councillors are able to vote on issues concerning all parts of the city.
So perhaps councillors should be elected at large in one city-wide district. This would theoretically give councillors regard only for overall city needs. But re-election would depend on support from individual voters so they would work to serve their interests. That is really all we can ask for.
Currently when a councillor is elected with the votes from as few as six percent of the residents of the ward (5000 votes in a 85,000-resident ward), there is little accountability. Would at-large elections be any worse?
Do our ward councillors give us special local representation? It seems not.
When councillors debated continued city support for Scona Pool, the local councillor was not even on the committee (from what I understand). No fault of his - he obviously cannot be everywhere -- he is only one person. But where was local input? Not present.
If councillors were elected at-large and if the voting system was set up to be fair, one-twelfth of the vote – say 19,000 votes – would be enough to be elected. If half-city districts were used, one-sixth or so of the votes cast in half of the city would be enough to be elected, still 19,000 votes. Every councillor would have his or her 19,000 supporters and would work to reflect the views of that group. It is not an impossible task to rouse up 19,000 votes in just a part of the city. So campaigns would be no more expensive than at present.
What happens in city hall would still be a fight for priorities, a weighing of different claims. But under fair voting, in multi-member wards or at-large, the best people as measured by votes cast would be elected.
After the election, a resident would be able to rely on several elected councillors to represent his or her views, not just one who may or may not be up to the job.
Flexibility, dependability, fairness - things that our present voting system does not give us - could be secured through fair voting in half-city districts or at-large elections.
Would it make a difference in how Edmonton city councillors perform their duties? I believe it would.
=============================================
Comments