Recently on the radio, two women lining up to run in Ward 10 in the October city election were interviewed on running for election to what is now a male-dominated city chamber.
One of them (sorry, I missed her name) decried the "narrow demographics" now represented on city council. She did not specify what she meant - but it seems it would be middle-aged white men, the most common type on council today.
But neither of them called for structural change. A single type of voter can take all the seats across the city under our present system. And a lack of diversity on council is often the result.
It seems when only one person to be elected, it is likely to be a male. When two or more are elected in a district, it is more likely one of them at least will be female. That is one reason why we need multi-member districts.
A more-fair "diversity at the table" would result if Edmonton had fewer wards each electing four or more councillors with each voter only casting one vote each.
Voters would then be much less divided by ward boundaries. They would be less often separated from their preferred candidate. A candidate's anticipated voting block would not be split up and removed from the candidate due to being outside the ward where he or she happens to be running.
As well it would mean that in each new ward covering a third or half of the city the four or so most popular candidates would be elected.
In the last city election, 10 of the most popular 22 candidates were not elected. Ten candidates received more votes than the least-popular elected councillor but were not elected. That is some of the unfairness produced by the way our city is divided into 12 distinct and separate election contests under the city's present ward system.
Or the city could move to at-large elections but again with each voter only casting one vote each. This would immediately produce mixed representation. Each type of voter could elect its fair share of councillors.
Or Edmonton could mix the two. Have some ward councillors and have some elected at-large. Having candidates elected at large, that is across the city as a whole, would produce a different sort of multi-member district. At-large elections would allow a candidate with wide but thin appeal to summon support and be elected. Under a completely-ward election, like we have now, his or her support, a minority in each ward, is often hidden and un-represented, even though it sometimes amounts to a large amount if polled across the city.
The mayor is now elected at-large - and perhaps it is no accident that Mayor Iveson seems less supportive of automobile-commuter issues and highway construction than many of the councillors. He is though immensely popular. It seems that voters of his mindset are the ones not properly represented under the city's existing ward system. They seem to be outside the "narrow demographic" that is currently represented on council. Their votes should count just as much as a voter voting in a ward election for a candidate who has strictly ward interests at heart.
In addition to having fewer wards, Edmonton would be more democratic if it had more councillors. This would help make multi-member districts possible. Calgary has 14 councillors; Winnipeg has 18; Manchester, England has 96 councillors. The extra spending on councillor salaries is made up for by better controls on spending and more satisfaction by voters who don't find their council wasting money on unwanted projects.
With 15 councillors, for example, Edmonton could have two wards electing five each, and five at-large councillors elected across the city. Each voter could cast one vote for a ward candidate and one vote for an at-large candidate, with the five most popular candidate in each district being elected.
Such a system or one similar to it would produce much more representative councils than we have now. Such a system would produce the "diversity at the table" that the city candidate said is missing now.
Thanks for reading.
======================================================
Comments