Mayor Clark won the election. She beat all of us fair and square. She gained 767 more votes (+5%) than Drew Barnes, who had the second highest support. Only differences under 0.5% can trigger a recount. The result is close, but nowhere close to the threshold for a recount. For context, Mayor Clark won in 2021 by 8512 votes (+43%).

The election results are clear, but political mandates are open to interpretation. I’m suggesting one interpretation.

Does a landslide victory versus a closer result imply a different mandate? Yes it does. For me, the closer the result—the stronger the mandate to compromise with your opponent, in this case Drew.

*2025 Mayoral results. Linnsie was the incumbent.*

This hypothetical example hopefully illustrates my point. What if the result was the closest result possible—a tie? My hobby is looking up how different places settle tie votes after elections. Some places run the election again. Some, like Prince Edward Island, flip a coin. Or a variation—municipal elections in Alberta settle ties by putting two names in a box and drawing one.

This is my favourite type of democratic rule—a 50/50 game of chance to break ties and decide the winner. The spirit of the rule is beautiful. The implication is if a community is perfectly divided—it doesn’t matter who wins.

If the election on October 20 had hinged on drawing one name from a hat our city would be stressed. I suspect Mayor Clark’s and Drew’s supporters would strongly disagree it wouldn’t matter who wins. The only way it wouldn’t matter whose name is drawn is if we knew the winner would act graciously. Since you won just as easily as you could have lost you’d expect the winner to find a middle path between the two competing platforms. Afterall, how would you want to be treated if you lost?

Alternatively, you could take a winner-take-all approach. Whether you won by 8512 or 767 votes or a coin flip—the winner has the same power and privileges. Winners don’t have to be gracious. The thought of settling the election on a 50/50 draw is stressful because winners of close elections, at every level of government, tend to adopt a winner-take-all mentality instead of adopting a middle path.

The closer an election gets the more relaxed we should become, because our leaders should understand the situation calls for finding a middle path. Instead we get more stressed knowing that a handful of votes can cause a dramatic swing in priorities.

If we can’t trust our opponents to act graciously when they win close elections, we react by voting out of fear.

This winner-take-all approach to close elections creates a personal advantage in the short term, but causes long term societal problems. Winners aren’t in power forever. When your opponent finally wins they have no incentive to be gracious. They’ll also play winner-take-all.

What if Drew had won by 767 votes? How would he have governed? That question is hypothetical now and it shouldn’t matter. Someone has to break this cycle and meet in the middle. The foundation of democracy is not the vote, it’s trust. Trust in your opponent and fellow citizens is what makes losing bearable.

We know elections are not a perfect reflection of a community’s political will. We should give election results a margin of error. The judgement of 767 people out of a city of 67,909 is what separated Mayor Clark and Drew. That’s 1%. That’s an evenly divided community.

Leaders must display judgment to know when to compromise. When and how much to compromise will depend on the situation. That’s not always easy to see, but elections provide one indication.

It’s not surprising our community is divided on how to move forward. Making progress in this environment requires sensitivity to this reality.

There’s no question Mayor Clark won. But there are good reasons why Mayor Clark should meaningfully and creatively integrate Drew’s priorities with hers. I suggest Mayor Clark and every winning council member enters this term with a mind open to compromise. I suggest they adopt a middle way.

Political mandates in close elections.

The future of our electric utility.