Tooker Gomberg served on Edmonton city council from 1992 to 1995.
Active in the Bicycle Commuters organizations, recycler and anti-nuclear activist.
Due to the structure of the Edmotno city election, he was never that secure in his post and was not re-elected in 1995, in part due to voting in favour of a development project that impacted Riverdale, his home turf and one of his main bases of support in his ward.
But if Edmonton had used STV and city-wide districting, likely he would have been re-elected in 1995.
========
Tooker Gomber's electoral experience under Block Voting in micro-sized ward:
1992 city broken up into 6 small wards, with two most-popular candidates in each being elected.
no overall fairness,
no guarantee that the 12 most-popular candidates across the city would be elected.
each voter had two votes for the ward vote.
(twice the votes having to be counted due to block voting, compared to single voting)
1992 Ward 4: Tooker 8681 votes
Tooker came in second
(Michael Phair was also elected in this ward)
216,000 voters voted overall in the city.
1/13 of that number is 16,615, so that is the amount that most members would have been elected with if city-wide districting and STV had been in effect.
But Tooker would likely have been elected just the same, if districting was city-wide -- he would have been able to draw on leftists and environmentalist all across the city.
And he would likely have been re-elected in 1995 as well.
1995 Ward 4: Tooker 7000 votes
7000 votes is not much less than previous vote tally, but this time Tooke came in fifth in the ward, far from being re-elected.
Phair was re-elected. Jim Taylor came in first and won a seat.
52,000 votes cast in the ward,
each voter had two votes (perhaps 30,000 voters voted in the ward)
221,000 voters voted overall in the city
1/13 of that number is 17,000, so that is the amount that most members would have been elected with if city-wide districting and STV had been in effect.
====
In 1992 and 1995, Gomberg did not have ability to solicit support from outside his little ward (which covered just 1/6th of the city) and had to try to appeal to the largest group in the ward, in order to be elected.
And once elected, on any particular vote, he could represent only one group in the ward.
Unfortunately he chose to ignore his supporters when he voted to develop the Little brickyard, and 1000 left him, which was enough to deny him re-election.
If he had got as many votes as he had got in 1992, he would have been re-elected in 1995.
Or if he had been able to seek support from bicycle commuters and leftists across the city, he would have been likely been re-elected. They easily made up at least 17,000 voters in Edmonton. and there would have been enough for Michael Phair to be elected as well.
=======
Gomberg's city hall career was sunk by a proposal to develop the old Little brickyard in Riverdale, and, out of principled desire for increased density, Tooker voted in favour of the proposal.
Many Riverdalians, protective of their formerly down-homey cul-de sac neighbourhood, then voted against him, or simply stayed home.
With only one councillor in each ward, there is no good and bad rep., but only one, who then feels he or she has to try to appeal to all.
This means generally going for expensive programs, massive change and disregard for the little issues such as the city's unshovelled sidewalks and still little regard for pedestrian safety.
=======================================================
Comments