Connect with us

Opinion

In 100+/- days we will vote for yesterday’s talk and ignore future’s needs.

Published

10 minute read

At Large” versus “Ward” municipal governance.
In a 100 days or so, on October 16, 2017 there will be a municipal election and the citizens of Red Deer will vote for (1) mayor, (8) city councillors, (7) public school trustees, and (5) separate school trustees.
Red Deer uses the “At Large” system for voting so you have the option of voting for all positions mayor, councillors and school trustees either public or separate. 16 spots or 14 spots respectively.
The last election in 2013 we had 5 people running for mayor, 30 people running for council, 14 people running for public school board and 7 people run for the separate school board, 56 people in total.
How many people can remember all the candidates, anyone? Let us make it easier. How many people can remember , everyone who won, anybody?
The huge advantage of the current “At Large” system falls to and gives advantage to the incumbents (It looks like almost all the incumbents are running) and then to the more wealthier campaigns. The incumbents always have the advantage of name recognition and easier access to the media. Co-incidentally the incumbents had previously voted for and adopted a by-law limiting the number of signs candidates can post on one location.
It takes money to advertise to every household in the city, so naturally you will find that the wealthier candidates more often than not live in the wealthier neighbourhoods.
It is less expensive and easier for the city staff and management to deal with councillors, at large, in bulk than it would be to deal with the ward system and on individual basis. There is I have been told less infighting among councillors, perhaps because they have more in common, under the “at large” system than under the ward system. 7 of 8 current councillors live south of the river and east of Gaetz Avenue.
The advantage of the “Ward” system is that poorer neighbourhoods get equal representation. The citizens are closer to their elected officials and poorer candidates have smaller areas to cover. The city staff will have to refine their method of dealing with councillors in regards to neighbourhood issues.
There are pros and cons to both system, and we had a plebiscite on the issue during the 2013 municipal election. 71% voted to remain with the “At Large” system, feeling that Red Deer is still small enough to stay with this, the current system. The city council incumbents voted to budget $30,000 to inform the electorate of the issue, which was heavily in favor of the current system. They held an open house with a heavy leaning to the current system with just one local person, Larry Pimm, speaking, a popular former councillor, known for and speaking for the “At Large” system.
I believe that by looking at the city today, the current system has systematically and historically failed one third of our city.
One third of our city lives north of the river and they are currently represented by 1 person out of 9 at city hall. Out of 7 indoor ice rinks and 4 aquatic centres in Red Deer, they have 1 north of the river and the latest buildings are being built or planned south of the river. When it comes to school boards, the city has, is building and planning 6 high schools, all on the south side and 5 high schools are “unbelievably” along 30 Avenue.
On the north side of the river we have (1)the Dawe Centre, built in the 70s, and there are no plans to build a new recreation centre, including a swimming pool on the north side.
On the south side we have; (10), the Downtown Recreation Centre, Michener Aquatic Centre, Downtown Arena, Centrium complex, Collicutt Recreation Centre, Pidherney Curling Centre, Kinex Arena, Kinsmen Community Arenas, Red Deer Curling Centre, and the under-construction Gary W. Harris Centre. The city is also talking about replacing the downtown recreation centre with an expanded 50m pool.
Let us get back to voting. In 2013 we had 56 candidates for 21 spots and naturally most incumbents who ran, won. How can anyone know and understand the positions of 56 candidates. Many would like one or 2 newcomers, vote for them and fill the rest with known incumbents. They are sabotaging the chances of newcomers by voting and electing their own opposition.
I have been advocating for 4 wards within city limits. Each ward would have 25% of the population, give or take 5%. 100,000 residents would mean that each ward would have between 23,750 and 26,250 and the boundaries would change with the population growth.
Each ward would elect 2 councillors, perhaps the school boards would adopt the ward system, so the public school board could for example. have 2 trustees from each ward, and the mayor would be elected city wide.
Using the 2013 ballot, you would elect 1 mayor out of 5 candidates, you would elect 2 councillors out of 7 or 8 depending on the ward and the public school voters would elect 2 trustees out of 3 or 4 candidates, again, depending on the ward.
Perhaps under the ward system, with representation at the table, using my previous arguments, the residents living north of the river will actually get a new indoor ice rink, swimming pool and perhaps (dare I dream),their own high school. One can only dream.
The incumbents will say no to the ward system, stating the small size of Red Deer, omitting the fact that most incumbents are relying on their constituency of voters that are spread across the city and their constituency of voters may not be strong enough in only one ward.
Lately, there has been some voices out of city hall, demanding to be recognized as a big city and to be included in the “Big City Charter” and the extra money and power associated with it. Incidentally the cities covered by the big city charter currently use the “ward” system.
Should we hold another plebiscite, asking that our councillors represent their neighbours, should we ask that school board trustees represent the neighbourhood families, should we take the step to recognize that Red Deer is now a big city and not that small town anymore, and prepare for and govern like a big city. I am arguing that our city is big enough but it is actually shrinking, while the city is arguing it is still a small town while demanding recognition as a growing city.
2017 may see a few candidates run against the incumbent mayor but we may see in excess of 30 candidates run for city council and in excess of 20 candidates running for one of the 2 school boards’ trustee positions. Under the current system we will again see governing concentrating their attention in the same areas like downtown or the east hill. We will continue to ignore the needs of residents living in neighbourhoods like those north of the river.
“At Large” is an ideal that fails when reality is involved, the “Ward” system is a flawed ideal that may best represent our reality. What would do you think? It is your home.
Keep in mind that under the “AT Large” voting system the constituency comprising of on-average one-third of our residents, living north of the river decreased by 777, while the constituency comprising on-average two-thirds of our residents living south of the river only decreased by 198, last year.
Is this the proof that we may need the “Ward System”? Just asking for some serious discussion. Thank you.

Follow Author

More from this author

Bruce Dowbiggin

Hyperbole Is Dead. Big Brother Killed Him

Published on

Antietam, Maryland: On Sept 17, 1862, the combined forces of the Union Army (under George McLellan) and the Confederate army (under Robert E. Lee) met on sleepy farmland west of Washington. When the ten hours of vicious fighting was done, there was an appalling 22,717 casualties. It still stands as the most lethal day in American military history.

History records it as a draw, although the Union army stopped an attack by Lee’s 30,000-man army on the U.S. capital. Walking the rolling lands alongside the Potomac River with Matthew Brady’s grisly photographic record in mind a modern visitor would ask how did it come to this slaughter? What issue was so divisive that it led to this?

The issue as seen today was slavery, although the Confederates would say it was states’ rights. From the day the ink dried on the Declaration of Independence the issue of slavery pointed to that day in 1862. Attempts to reconcile the issue of the South’s dependence on slavery produced failed compromises (The Great Compromise of 1787) and the creation of the Republican Party.

It all failed. The reason? For 75 years, the two sides divorced themselves from one another, demonizing and distancing in escalating rhetoric and political corruption. With the election of Abraham Lincoln, an abolition-sympathetic Republican, war was on. Before it ended in 1865 there were 828,000 Union casualties while the South experienced 864,000 casualties. There were almost a million civilians and free slaves left dead as well.

This ominous historical note is relevant today as the two sides in the American and Canadian debate slide inexorably toward a schism. With a presidential election this November and a Canadian federal election likely next year, the sides have given up on policy. Oh, they still make a show of plans for the economy. Or housing. Or the military.

But the real battlefield is the war on information. Who will be censored? Who will write history? As a picture of intolerance it has reached DefCon 4. No better example exists than the hissy-fit from employees of the NBC News department at the attempt to hire Rona McDaniel, former RNC chairwoman as an employee. The sanctimonious stars of NBC and MSNBC news— several of them Obama-era employees or Democratic fundraisers— launched a collective insurrection against the hire, saying McDaniel was a purveyor of lies and disinformation in the service of Beelzebub aka Donald Trump.

Never mind that Racial Maddow and Joyless Reid and Chuckles Todd spent the past eight years carrying water for Hillary Clinton’s demented RussiaGate and Hunter Biden’s laptop hoax. Former Republican Joe Scarborough spoke of the “sacred trust” with viewers as grounds for forcing NBC to fire McDaniel after about 48 hours.

No one is now allowed to pollute the minds of Morning Joe viewers. A narrative is a narrative, and no niece of Mitt Romney is getting in the way of that carefully crafted line as we head to November. Trump World is a cesspool of Nazis and enemies of democracy, and they’re going to play that card.

Viewers of last Sunday’s 60 Minutes saw a more subtle version of demonizing the other. In the fusty Tiffany Network style they introduced  Kate Starbird, a professor at the University of Washington and a leader of a “misinformation research group” created ahead of the 2020 election. Who gave her that title is left to the listeners’ imagination.

Naturally Ms. Starbird did a hit job on Jim Jordan and the GOP. Naturally, 60 Minutes neglected to mention Starboard is a longtime Democrat donor and foot soldier in the 2024 Biden Army. Naturally, the divide was widened further. The effect was achieved. Anyone voting Trump is a dedicated Nazi.

It will only ramp up from here because, with no successes to brag about and Biden’s polls plunging, fear is king. (Adding Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to siphon left-wing votes is another threat.) They know Biden is a millstone in efforts to eradicate Trump. And 40 percent of the U.S. population thinks this is reality, much the way the opposing sides at Antietam saw the devil across the Bloody Ditch and Antietam Bridge.

The federal Liberals in Canada have been paying attention. With polls that even Biden would faint over, Justin Trudeau is ramping up the disinformation dodge with the same fervour as the MSNBC fainting goats. Skippy has added a little Russian sauce to his equation, claiming that Putin has Conservative leader Pierre Polievre in his control, manipulating the public to abandon Ukraine.

How Ukraine figures in Canada’s national interest isn’t explained, but if Canadians elect the Tories next year Western society will collapse, pace Trudeau. The PM’s lightweight posse is jumping in, too. Deputy PM Chrystia Freeland, who applauds Nazis in Parliament, is predicting a bleak future for the country unless the evil-thinkers to the Right are brought under control.

Hence Bill-63, the Liberal/ NDP diktat to criminalize WrongThink on the internet and what’s left on the traditional media. Not only in the run-up to what may be the Waterloo for Trudeau and NDP fashion model Jagmeet Singh. Freeland’s bill gives faceless bureaucrats the right to criminalize future behaviour as well. Holy Karnak!

There will be many attempts to pretend that permanently silencing the opponent is not the key issue of 2024-2025. Don’t believe them. People who just a few years ago laughed at the images of Mao’s purges in the Cultural Revolution now have succumbed to a new Little Red Book. They praise their heroes Obama and Clinton and demand jail for Trump. Hyperbole is dead. Big Brother killed him.

circa 1970: Chinese Red Guards reading from the little red book of Thoughts of Chairman Mao before starting their day. (Photo by Keystone/Getty Images)

Bruce Dowbiggin @dowbboy is the editor of Not The Public Broadcaster  A two-time winner of the Gemini Award as Canada’s top television sports broadcaster, he’s a regular contributor to Sirius XM Canada Talks Ch. 167. Inexact Science: The Six Most Compelling Draft Years In NHL History, his new book with his son Evan, was voted the seventh-best professional hockey book of all time by bookauthority.org . His 2004 book Money Players was voted sixth best on the same list, and is available via brucedowbigginbooks.ca.

Continue Reading

Frontier Centre for Public Policy

Trudeau ‘finished what his father started’ driving Canada into failing freefall

Published on

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Linda Slobodian

In 2015 Prime Minister Justin Trudeau scorned Canada — a country that afforded him so much, yet to which he had contributed nothing of notable significance. His disdain for those on whose backs Canada was built was clear. History and European national origins had to be blotted out.

Canada was a “post-national” nation with “no core identity,” he arrogantly told the New York Times. The reckless socialist ideology he spat out was an omen of the division, fear and attack on so-called privileged (white) Canadians that hit like a storm. It hovers over us like a choking toxic cloud.

If Trudeau’s vision was a Canada “completely splintered,” with Quebec a nation unto itself “separate and distinct,” English-speaking provinces “fractured into oblivion” and breaking up our “common culture” — then mission accomplished.

“He’s finished what his father started,” said Lt. Col. Dave Redman (ret’d), who served 27 years with the Canadian Armed Forces and headed Alberta’s Emergency Management Agency.

The Trudeau concept of a post-national state is “dangerous and misleading.”

“It implies that democratically elected national governments are no longer relevant.”

Redman explained Canada’s “shifting socio-political landscape” with powerful clarity in Canada 2024: A Confident Resilient Nation or a Fearful Fracture Country? in the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

Canadians know something has gone terribly wrong beyond mounting financial struggles and trampled rights. Our nation’s rife with “apologies and internal divisions,” said Redman.

“Confidence has been turned into fear and shame. Canada has become irrelevant on the world stage.”

Canada’s in a “failing” freefall.

“Why will no one invest economically in Canada? Why are people leaving Canada? Why are people not believing that Canada has a future? Why are our allies ignoring us and holding us in disdain? Because we are a threat to their national security because China can get to them through us.”

Canada’s at a “critical juncture.” Until politicians and Canadians unite with common values and defended borders —necessary for a successful nation — Canada will be “stumbling from one crisis to another.”

Until Canadians hold them to account, politicians will fixate on minor “wedge” issues — such as diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) — to divert attention from critical national concerns they want us to ignore.

Convincing people to feel bad about themselves makes it easier to manipulate guilt and usher in destructive, ideological programs with obscene price tags.

Canada must foster national pride, prioritize national interests and protect national security to secure its future, said Redman.

“A nation is successful when a group of people live in one country with defended borders and share common values, even if they vary in cultures and languages.”

Redman’s six-point framework for national interests includes unity, national security, good governance, protection of rights and freedoms, economic prosperity and growth and personal and community well-being. He offers strategies on how to achieve these critical objectives.

“I believe the current sitting government truly does believe that the World Economic Forum’s concepts and ideals of post-national states is what Canada should be and they have started it.”

“I believe the current government of Canada is intentionally walking each of those six national interests away from Canada in a way that will allow Canada to become part of a broken world.”

It’s up to Canadians to decide what direction we head in.

“The reason I wrote this paper was to make people think about our country in a 20-to-25-year vision. And not let the current government which loves to use divisive, tactical issues to destroy the larger picture conversation. And in doing so, destroy our economy, destroy our unity, destroy our national security by focussing on tactical issues,” said Redman.

A vision for Canada involves citizens who are optimistic about the future, have self-respect to follow through on their ideas, and courage to stand up for their culture and ideals, he said.

Trudeau and his band of self-serving renegades unleashed an ideological curse on Canada.

But we let them.

Then COVID-19 demonstrated how quickly rights and freedoms “can be trampled on, eviscerated and dismissed.”

For a glorious moment in time Freedom Convoy truckers rejuvenated Canadian pride, united Canadians and emboldened us to fight for freedom. Peaceful protesters who waved the Canadian flag were punished.

Yet the silence is deafening as people who despise Canada’s core identity — yes, Trudeau, we have one — hijack our nation and our children’s future.

Redman points to “diaspora marching routinely in the streets of our cities supporting illegal terrorist organizations demanding the death of both citizens here and abroad.”

They wave flags but never the Maple Leaf. They support other countries “but do not march for Canada.”

“Unity is the core value for a country. A cultural unity is based on common shared ethics, values and beliefs. People wishing to become citizens of a country must understand these principles of belief and join the country because they wish for the same to be the foundation of their daily lives.”

“Many who come to a country, not wishing to join the cultural unity of that country, are enemies, intentional or otherwise, who work to erode or destroy this unity.”

Immigration is part of national security.

“You’re pouring people into our country who do not share our ethics and values. And you’re doing it intentionally. That will destroy unity and while it’s destroying unity it will destroy economic prosperity and growth.”

“Our police and courts take no action or in fact support these illegal acts.”

“Our current federal government, many of our provincial territorial governments and our municipal governments stand silently by, or in some cases support the destruction of our values, laws and national interests.”
Redman said the question is, what do Canadians want Canada to be? Will we stand up and root out infectious ideology? Is it too late?

“My paper is about how to overcome what’s happened. It’s happened, we can’t change that. But it’s how to get politicians and Canadians to change how they think about our country. And to have a process to put in place, a vision for our country and have elected officials explain what they see the vision to be. Canadians can make a choice between visions.”

Citizens, academia, public and private sector organizations, unions, religious and non-religious groups need to get involved to break down national interests into “clear and attainable objectives.”

Politicians must explain what unity and democracy means to them. That’s not happening.

Many Canadians are pinning hopes on Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre forming the next federal government.

“My line to Poilievre is I understand his tactical four bullet plan you know that inflation’s up, the cost of living’s up, that housing’s bad and people need more money in their pocket.”

“I get it. He’s beating that drum over and over. But we’ve got a year before the election, he needs to start talking about his vision for Canada.”

Canada was once internationally respected, trusted and consulted. Now we are pitied by shocked outsiders witnessing woke ideology and crushed free speech forced upon us.

“We’ve been taught to be ashamed of our history instead of proud of it, or even to learn from it.”

“We have completely shattered democratic institutions. Our election system is in question. Our legislatures are in turmoil, our courts, our schools, our medical system. The mainstream media is completely partisan. Our economy is broken. People can’t meet bills at the end of the month and we’re ignored and shunned by our allies.”

Redman addressed good governance, offering guidelines on how to “strengthen and preserve the democratic way of life in Canada.”

“Good governance to me means defence of democracy, where in other countries it can mean absolute control of a totalitarian government.”

Redman’s suggestions to stop Canada from being completely “shattered” include a 100% immigration policy review; halting funding to universities that are “domestic threats” and removing Marxists professors; establishing a monitored election process; and ending government-funded media.

Agencies that counter external threats must be “equipped to work individually and cooperatively, with each other and our allies.”

Stop foreign aid that counters our interests and national security.

“While Canadians are challenged to put food on the table and to have a house, they watch as the federal government sends hundreds of millions of dollars to international organizations and specific countries that do not share our democratic aims or our national interests.”

There must be “a wall of people hitting” politicians telling them to listen or face defeat.

“In 25 years will Canada be a democracy? Or will it become a country led by an authoritarian government that uses fear and threats to remove imaginary risks from the daily lives of Canadians who have lost their self-respect and courage?”

Look at what eight years did.

First published here.

Linda Slobodian is the Senior Manitoba Columnist for the Western Standard based out of Winnipeg. She has been an investigative columnist for the Calgary Herald, Calgary Sun, Edmonton Sun, and Alberta Report.

Continue Reading

Trending

X