0
Last gasp polls close at EEU
14 October 2010
If you haven't seen the results of Scoop's last poll on the 2010 municipal election, you should check the results at the East End Underground (link below).
Overall, I think his poll represents a good snapshot of what I've been hearing, and what I saw as the audience reaction at the Chamber all-candidates' meetings. A lot of 'out-with-the-old and in-with-the-new' trends in all three segments. Or perhaps it might be better expressed as 'out with the mayors' supporters' since some of his most ardent followers seem to show poorly in the polls.
Of course, Internet polls are subject to vote plumping (as we saw with one particular candidate in Scoop's previous poll, whose tally went from about 20 to more than 200 overnight!) and may not entirely reflect local sentiments (there is no way to restrict voting to those in Collingwood - votes might come from anywhere, even out of the country). So the results may be skewed by other factors aside from simple choice.
And we have to consider the audience, of both the blogs and the attendance at the meetings. We have several hundred politically aware, active and engaged people online (some from out of town, of course) and about the same number in the audiences. The total voter's list is about 17,000 (16,906 as of Sept. 30, according the the list I got from town hall, and there may be additions since then).
The most number of people actively participating in the recent EEU poll was 227 for mayor. Even assuming that everyone voted only once and that every vote was from someone eligible to vote here, that's only 1.3% of the eligible voters. So even if this is an engaged, vocal group, it's still a very small number and we have to take the results with the proverbial grain of salt.
The best turnout at a municipal election I've seen here was 2006, at 44%. That means more than half the people eligible to vote don't care enough to do so. This was despite the concerted efforts of two special interest groups (VOTE and its cousin, CCRA) to galvanize voters around the current mayor, and their choice of deputy mayor and five councillors (of which only their deputy mayor candidate failed to get a seat).*
Could be worse, I suppose: some Ontario municipalities saw less than 25% turnout last election (the lowest turnout was just over 7% and in general, the higher the population, the lower the turnout. See this AMCTO report). Despite the general anger over the current council, I don't think we'll see as high a turnout in Collingwood this election.**
But in general, I think the EEU's picture is pretty close to the results we'll see on Oct 25, with some shuffling of the order of council seats.
This election I have received numerous calls from voters asking who to choose. I didn't get that a lot last two elections
What I usually try to do with these callers is to identify the issues that concern them. Unsurprisingly, most say the Admiral Collingwood debacle, the curbside patios, a ward system referendum and the debt (debenture) amount. Other issues like in camera meetings, legal expenses, downtown parking and the Contact Centre closing also come up a little less often.
I suggest that these callers look at the voting records of the incumbents (or for newcomers, the comments made in brochures or at the meetings about these issues) and select those whose records or promises most closely match the way the voters would have preferred things to go.
Of course, this is an election, and what people say or promise doesn't always equate with what they've done in the past. I recall at least one incumbent promising to support a referendum on the ward system when that incumbent opposed it and voted against it at the table. I recall one incumbent stating voting to kill the Admiral Collingwood development was a mistake - but voted against it and against several subsequent attempts by others to bring the discussion back to the table after that incumbent helped kill the project. And one incumbent mayoralty candidate spoke about how much public input mattered, yet voted against several requests for public meetings or input during crucial issues.
So look at not only the incumbents' speeches or flyers, but also at their voting records, I tell these callers.
~~~~~
* Although defunct, parts of the CCRA website still can be found online, one page with this notice:
The address (a mail drop) is no longer active. The candidates recommended by CCRA were: Chris Carrier (mayor), Joe Gardhouse (deputy mayor) and for council Sonny Foley, Tim McNabb, Kathy Jeffrey, Norman Sandberg and Mike Edwards. Only Gardhouse failed to get elected (he had been elected councillor, in 2003, but resigned soon afterwards in a fit of pique over a disagreement with the former mayor).
In an earlier newsletter that year, CCRA noted,
I wonder how CCRA members would assess the performance of the chosen candidates - especially their 'sound business sense" - at the end of this term?
In 2008, CCRA wrote a scolding criticism of its chosen candidates in its newsletter to members, saying (emphasis added):
For the earlier post I wrote on the CCRA in which this is referenced, see this link. For the EB story on CCRA's chiding, see this link. Three years ago, the EB noted, "The CCRA membership is now the largest single political voting body in Collingwood. " however, the group seems to have vanished since then.
** I think it will be somewhat lower in part because there are no special interest groups trying to rally voters around their chosen candidates - although from this EEU post it seems several of the former members are still doing their Machiavellian best to sow the seeds of distrust againt those they disfavour. To match last election's turnout, we need more than 7,480 voters to cast their ballots this time. Last election there were around 1,100 potentially-spoiled ballot kits returned. About 400 of those contained a signed voter declaration form that had been placed into the wrong envelope. Those were set aside and counted. The reminder were destroyed as spoiled ballots.
Overall, I think his poll represents a good snapshot of what I've been hearing, and what I saw as the audience reaction at the Chamber all-candidates' meetings. A lot of 'out-with-the-old and in-with-the-new' trends in all three segments. Or perhaps it might be better expressed as 'out with the mayors' supporters' since some of his most ardent followers seem to show poorly in the polls.
Of course, Internet polls are subject to vote plumping (as we saw with one particular candidate in Scoop's previous poll, whose tally went from about 20 to more than 200 overnight!) and may not entirely reflect local sentiments (there is no way to restrict voting to those in Collingwood - votes might come from anywhere, even out of the country). So the results may be skewed by other factors aside from simple choice.
And we have to consider the audience, of both the blogs and the attendance at the meetings. We have several hundred politically aware, active and engaged people online (some from out of town, of course) and about the same number in the audiences. The total voter's list is about 17,000 (16,906 as of Sept. 30, according the the list I got from town hall, and there may be additions since then).
The most number of people actively participating in the recent EEU poll was 227 for mayor. Even assuming that everyone voted only once and that every vote was from someone eligible to vote here, that's only 1.3% of the eligible voters. So even if this is an engaged, vocal group, it's still a very small number and we have to take the results with the proverbial grain of salt.
The best turnout at a municipal election I've seen here was 2006, at 44%. That means more than half the people eligible to vote don't care enough to do so. This was despite the concerted efforts of two special interest groups (VOTE and its cousin, CCRA) to galvanize voters around the current mayor, and their choice of deputy mayor and five councillors (of which only their deputy mayor candidate failed to get a seat).*
Could be worse, I suppose: some Ontario municipalities saw less than 25% turnout last election (the lowest turnout was just over 7% and in general, the higher the population, the lower the turnout. See this AMCTO report). Despite the general anger over the current council, I don't think we'll see as high a turnout in Collingwood this election.**
But in general, I think the EEU's picture is pretty close to the results we'll see on Oct 25, with some shuffling of the order of council seats.
This election I have received numerous calls from voters asking who to choose. I didn't get that a lot last two elections
What I usually try to do with these callers is to identify the issues that concern them. Unsurprisingly, most say the Admiral Collingwood debacle, the curbside patios, a ward system referendum and the debt (debenture) amount. Other issues like in camera meetings, legal expenses, downtown parking and the Contact Centre closing also come up a little less often.
I suggest that these callers look at the voting records of the incumbents (or for newcomers, the comments made in brochures or at the meetings about these issues) and select those whose records or promises most closely match the way the voters would have preferred things to go.
Of course, this is an election, and what people say or promise doesn't always equate with what they've done in the past. I recall at least one incumbent promising to support a referendum on the ward system when that incumbent opposed it and voted against it at the table. I recall one incumbent stating voting to kill the Admiral Collingwood development was a mistake - but voted against it and against several subsequent attempts by others to bring the discussion back to the table after that incumbent helped kill the project. And one incumbent mayoralty candidate spoke about how much public input mattered, yet voted against several requests for public meetings or input during crucial issues.
So look at not only the incumbents' speeches or flyers, but also at their voting records, I tell these callers.
~~~~~
* Although defunct, parts of the CCRA website still can be found online, one page with this notice:
Quote
CCRA WILL BE RECOMMENDING CANDIDATES:
CCRA will be recommending candidates for consideration through their mailings to all condo owners. If you'd like to receive CCRA's news emails send your email address to ... or, mail it to Collingwood Condominium Ratepayers Association Suite #520, 115 First St. Collingwood, L9Y 4W3. Send email addresses for each owner and eligible voter.
CCRA will be recommending candidates for consideration through their mailings to all condo owners. If you'd like to receive CCRA's news emails send your email address to ... or, mail it to Collingwood Condominium Ratepayers Association Suite #520, 115 First St. Collingwood, L9Y 4W3. Send email addresses for each owner and eligible voter.
The address (a mail drop) is no longer active. The candidates recommended by CCRA were: Chris Carrier (mayor), Joe Gardhouse (deputy mayor) and for council Sonny Foley, Tim McNabb, Kathy Jeffrey, Norman Sandberg and Mike Edwards. Only Gardhouse failed to get elected (he had been elected councillor, in 2003, but resigned soon afterwards in a fit of pique over a disagreement with the former mayor).
In an earlier newsletter that year, CCRA noted,
Quote
If we vote strategically as a body of like-minded voters, we can add support to good honest candidates, with sound business sense, integrity, and elect a council which operates with responsibility, transparency, with strong moral ethics, and who will help condominiums get a fair break.
I wonder how CCRA members would assess the performance of the chosen candidates - especially their 'sound business sense" - at the end of this term?
In 2008, CCRA wrote a scolding criticism of its chosen candidates in its newsletter to members, saying (emphasis added):
Quote
Before the Nov. 2006 municipal election CCRA thoroughly investigated and or interviewed all of the candidates to determine their position with regard to condo owner's unfair taxation. CCRA then put its full support behind those candidates who committed (if elected) to discuss fairer taxation for condo owners both at the municipal level as well as supporting CCRA at the Provincial level.
CCRA then put its full support behind those candidates who committed (if elected) to discuss fairer taxation for condo owners both at the municipal level as well as supporting CCRA at the Provincial level.
Its common knowledge that most of the council voted to power, including the mayor, was a result of the CCRA's hard work on their behalf. The mayor specifically promised absolutely to address our issues and rectify the abuses. In the 16 months since their election none of them have made any effort towards our cause nor even had the common courtesy to respond to our correspondence requesting their help.
CCRA then put its full support behind those candidates who committed (if elected) to discuss fairer taxation for condo owners both at the municipal level as well as supporting CCRA at the Provincial level.
Its common knowledge that most of the council voted to power, including the mayor, was a result of the CCRA's hard work on their behalf. The mayor specifically promised absolutely to address our issues and rectify the abuses. In the 16 months since their election none of them have made any effort towards our cause nor even had the common courtesy to respond to our correspondence requesting their help.
For the earlier post I wrote on the CCRA in which this is referenced, see this link. For the EB story on CCRA's chiding, see this link. Three years ago, the EB noted, "The CCRA membership is now the largest single political voting body in Collingwood. " however, the group seems to have vanished since then.
** I think it will be somewhat lower in part because there are no special interest groups trying to rally voters around their chosen candidates - although from this EEU post it seems several of the former members are still doing their Machiavellian best to sow the seeds of distrust againt those they disfavour. To match last election's turnout, we need more than 7,480 voters to cast their ballots this time. Last election there were around 1,100 potentially-spoiled ballot kits returned. About 400 of those contained a signed voter declaration form that had been placed into the wrong envelope. Those were set aside and counted. The reminder were destroyed as spoiled ballots.
Interesting that you hear lots of questions about a ward system (or rather the lack of a ward system). I always thought this should be a bigger issue than it appeared to be. Glad I'm not the only one. I think what annoyed me most was that most councillors didn't even understand the conflict of interest inherent in their position. Really, they are the last people that should be deciding the mechanisms by which they get elected! (Honorable mention to Sonny Foley, who favoured a referendum on the issue; the correct answer!). In the end, self interest won the day and councillors voted for an electoral system that had worked for them personally before and is therefore most likely to work for them again. The priority should be public service, but I wonder if - in the case of a few members of council - the $17K (is it?) compensation has become all too important? In many countries, councillors are expected to perform on an expenses only basis (something to think about).
As for the condo owners, you say.."I wonder how CCRA members would assess the performance of the chosen candidates - especially their 'sound business sense" - at the end of this term?"
The answer is that most of them have no clue. How else can we describe a body of individuals (sheep) that allowed themselves to be told how to vote by strangers. Didn't any of them make up their own minds? The statistics indicate that few did. The Admiral did a good piece on this - back in the day - that clearly showed the uniformity of their voting pattern. Each of the endorsed councillors got many hundreds of votes in Condowood (Ward 7) but their totals were almost the same (to within about ten or fifteen votes). That either indicates fraud (unlikely) or a moronic inability for people to think for themselves (more likely). Oh well, they didn't get their 'fairer' taxation, but they'll have to play their part in paying off the town's newly aquired debts.