Democracy is all about process. The most fundamental democratic process is our electoral system—the way we vote. There are good signs that our municipal electoral system should switch to a ward system.
“What’s our current system?”
1 mayor and 8 councillors make up city council. The mayoral candidate with the most votes wins. Of the councillor candidates the top 8 vote getters get a seat with each of us able to vote for 8 candidates. Seems straightforward enough.
The best argument for this electoral system is that the power of the voter is accurately reflected in city council. You get the most votes you get to be on council.
But there are drawbacks. First, it’s hard to know which councillor to reach when you have a question or concern since they represent the entire city not a particular area. Second, our current system makes entering municipal politics challenging. A newcomer must try to canvass an entire city. It’s expensive and time consuming. Finally, a perhaps underappreciated drawback of our system is the difficulty for the voters in making informed choices.
There are four candidates for mayor. Learning the platforms and character of four candidates is manageable. For councillor there are 19 candidates, but in the past there have been more than 30. Since I’m running I’ve been paying close attention to each candidate, but even I would have difficulty articulating the differences between all the candidates. How do you keep 19 platforms in your head (let alone 30+)? How do you begin to choose which 8 councillors to vote for?
Yes, the high number of candidates gives you lots of choice, but too many choices can actually make decisions harder. It’s called the paradox of choice and it’s illustrated by this example that people love to quote—the jam study.
Some researchers gave away jam samples at a grocery store. First they offered customers six kinds of jam. Then they offered customers 24 kinds of jam. “30 percent of the people who had sampled from the small assortment decided to buy jam, while only 3 percent of those confronted with the two dozen jams purchased a jar.” We like choice, but too much choice overwhelms us and we have trouble making a decision.
But is the problem too much choice or not enough information about each candidate? After all even now a majority of candidates don’t have websites up making us rely on door-to-door canvassing to receive information about their positions or the few minutes each will speak at the debates next week. Thus occasionally we only have the vaguest information to base our decisions on. No wonder we rely on name recognition.
“The Ward System”
Switching to the ward system would solve some problems, but comes with its own drawbacks.
The ward system divides a city into sections. Candidates run to represent a single ward. This makes it easier to know which councillor to turn to for help. It also makes it easier for newcomers to enter politics since you just have to campaign in one area rather an entire city. It also makes it easier for voters. Voters just have to learn about the candidates running to represent their ward.
But there are drawbacks. First, voter power may not be accurately reflected in council. For example each ward will have different levels of voter turnout. Thus you could have results where a candidate loses in Ward 1 with 4,000 votes and a candidate who wins in Ward 2 with 2,000 votes. Those 4,000 voters in Ward 1 might feel that this result is unfair and rightly so.
It might also lead to a narrow focus by councillors, thinking only of the good of their ward rather than the whole city. It might lead to horse trading—I’ll vote for new projects in your ward, if you vote for new projects in my ward. It could help keep councillors accountable by more clearly seeing how they improved their wards, but that may be an unfair measure since sometimes we must look past our own self interest for the good of the city.
This wasn't initially part of my platform (it is part of Myles Mulholland's platform), but I think it’s time for Medicine Hat to switch to the ward system. As the city grows it will become increasingly difficult for candidates to cover a whole city. Imagine a single councillor trying to cover Calgary or Edmonton? That’s not practical. It’s a judgment call when to switch, but eventually we’ll have to do it and we should be clear eyed about the pros and cons of the ward system.
“Voting strategy with our current system”
“I’m going to vote only for you for council. Don’t want to inadvertently put someone one vote ahead of you.”
My aunt sent me this text last week. I chuckled at her thoughtfulness, but I’ve since had a number of conversations where this has come up.
The most important thing in any election is voting. Seems like stating the obvious. What may not be obvious is voting strategy with our electoral system.
There are 8 city councillors for Medicine Hat. The 8 candidates with the most votes get in. Simple enough, but we don’t think like that do we? Naturally, we have favourites and so we approach voting more like a ranked ballot system. Voting for our most preferred candidate, then our second most preferred, and so on down the line. Often voters won’t fill out the whole card, but only vote for their preferred candidates.
The last three elections illustrate my point.
- 2013: 20,107 voters cast 112,093 votes for councillor an average of 5.6 votes.
- 2010: 16,440 voters cast 89,081 votes for councillor an average of 5.4 votes.
- 2007: 18,982 voters cast 110,225 votes for councillor an average of 5.8 votes.
It's impossible to know how many voters are voting for a full slate, just their preferred candidates, or strategically for a single candidate, but if voters were using our electoral system as intended we should see the average votes for councillor per voter closer to 8.
People, like my aunt, are inclined to vote strategically for rational reasons. It’s conceivable that a candidate who is a second choice on a lot of ballots will end up being the top vote getter. And by filling out your ballot with 8 choices you may elect your eighth favourite candidate while inadvertently bumping your most preferred candidate. Thus to be safe it’s better to only vote for your favorite councillor leaving the other 7 spots on your ballot blank.
While this voting strategy makes perfect rational sense it undermines the way our electoral system was designed to work. The strength of our current system is that we can think of council as a whole. Should you vote for a slate of like-minded candidates? Perhaps, they would be able to more easily pass by-laws and make other changes. Should you vote for a balanced council with conservatives and liberals, experience and fresh faces? Perhaps, more diverse viewpoints leads to better discussions, which could lead to better decisions.
In provincial and federal elections we each have a single vote. We pick one candidate. That winner joins all the other winners to form the Legislative Assembly or the House of Commons. We don’t get any say about the makeup of those bodies.
But in Medicine Hat we do. If we vote for just a single candidate on our ballot we’re voting like we’re in a ward system with none of the advantages of the ward system. For the time being we should make the best use of the system we have. So I’m asking you to vote the way our electoral system intended—for a full slate of 8. If you want change only vote for unfamiliar names. If you want a mix of experience and fresh faces do that, but think about what a good make-up for a council would be. Then look for those candidates.
“But if we can’t use our electoral system the way it was intended then we have yet another reason to switch to the ward system.”
Of course if I end up losing by one vote I'll regret writing this column, but democracy is always about the long game.