Should We Reform Our Nomination Process?
In the London Free Press article published earlier last week written by Pat Maloney, titled “Do you know these people?” Pat discusses how we have 2 front-runner candidates for Mayor, 2 well intentioned challengers, and 10 others who are just sort of… interesting.
When I first began to seriously think about running for City Councillor, I wanted to make sure I was as prepared as I could possibly be. In doing so, I found that the only conditions to run for Council were to be a resident of London, be 18 years or older, and pay the nominal fee. The same goes for Mayor, just with a higher fee.
This immediately struck me as odd as when I ran to be a Councillor at UWO, you needed a minimum number of signatures from people (only 5) in your faculty (the people you would be representing) as part of your nomination. So at an institution where I could have the opportunity to represent approximately 6000 people, I needed at least some percentage of the population to nominate me to show that I was a legitimate candidate.
Moving to a much larger scale, a municipal election presents the opportunity for a ward Councillor in London to represent close to 20,000 residents and the Mayor tasked with guiding a city of upwards of 350,000 individuals. Yet at this much larger stage with much more at stake, we have absolutely no nomination by peer process.
Without this process we leave the race open to many candidates who are running, largely, just to run. While on one hand, this is a case of pure democracy in action, it can be troublesome for potential up and coming serious candidates; they often get overshadowed by the sometimes, odd nature and ideas of the so-called ‘fringe’ candidates. For people that are looking for other options for mayor other than the front-runners, this very much muddies the water for them.
Another issue is the potential to erode the credibility of our race for mayor, or any other position for that matter. Londoners already seem to have low levels of confidence in our municipal government, and a race that sets up with so many ‘fringe’ candidates does not serve to reverse this trend. I look forward to going to the mayoral debates in the coming weeks and hearing the candidates opinions. But with the floor open to 14 candidates, how much time are we really going to get to hear from candidates that have more rational reasoned and well thought out positions for running the city?
Getting around these issues certainly presents a dilemma, because we do not want to discourage involvement in the political process. Indeed at the core of our democracy is the principle that all have equal political rights, and one could argue that a multitude of candidates demonstrates engagement. Furthermore, it is really up to the voters to decide which candidates are best suited, so the matter of ‘fringe candidates’ might be resolved at the ballot box anyway.
But a healthy democracy also rests on the proper dissemination of information and ideas, and the extent to which ‘also-rans’ distract from the core issues of our election, can be detrimental to our democratic process. Changing the process however could be tricky, as it is provincially legislated. If we look to other provinces in Canada, it would seem as though Ontario is not quite up to date with its nomination process:
Quebec – anyone running for municipal office must get signatures to be nominated. In a City with 100,000 plus people, a candidate for Mayor must get 200 signatures and a Candidate for Councillor needs 25. (Guide for Potential Candidates in Municipal Elections – Quebec)
Manitoba – Councilor candidates must get nomination papers signed by at least 25 people in the ward, or 1 percent of the voters of the ward (whichever is less), with the same requirements for Mayor. (from Manitoba candidates online guidebook)
Alberta – “You must have at least 5 signatures of electors eligible to vote in that election. A city with a population over 10,000 may by bylaw, require that up to 100 signatures are required.” (Section 27, Local Authorities Election Act-Alberta.)
Saskatchewan – Minimum of 5 signatures are required for cities with a population under 10,000 and a minimum of 25 signatures for cities with a population greater than 10,000. (From Sask Nomination form I and J)
British Columbia – “In order to become a candidate for any local government office you must be nominated by two people who are qualified to vote in the jurisdiction where you are seeking election.” (British Columbia Candidates guide)
New Brunswick – “the signatures of at least ten (10) nominators, who are all qualified voters living in the municipality or rural community, and ward if applicable, of the candidate.” (Elections NB website – Municipal Candidate Information section)
These six examples demonstrate that a majority of provinces require candidates running for municipal office to be nominated by their peers. If Ontario were to follow suit, the province would be both updating as well as aiding our democratic process. Experience in other provinces shows that the threshold for nomination can be set at a level that does not limit the democratic process, but at the same time forces candidates to give more thoughtful consideration to running.
Part of the problem is that this city (for the most part) sleeps through most of the election year and doesn’t really start to wake up to it until Labour Day. It’s reflective of the lack of appreciation that too many people have for our democracy. I don’t disagree that there needs to be reform, but that includes most people’s attitudes about what their responsibility is.
Never thought about it but I definetly agree. There was at one point over 50 candidates running for Toronto Mayor!
Requiring people to get over 200 signatures is not a hard requirement if you are running for mayor. The majority of the candidates would probably be able to get the signatures but it would seperate real candidates from those that just want their names on the ballot.