City council will consider a number of changes to its composition this week, including whether to stick with the current ward system for electing councillors.
Other options allowed under provincial legislation are to elect councillors at-large, meaning they all hail from any area of the city and represent the entire population, or a mix of the ward and at-large systems.
A consultant’s recommendation is to continue using a ward system. That recommendation, among several others, is heading to a special council meeting on Thursday evening. Any changes made wouldn’t come into effect until at least after the next municipal election, set for 2022.
“In principle, ward and at-large election systems each have valid positive and negative attributes ... however, the risks to effective representation for the city’s distinctive neighbourhoods and other communities of interest that an at-large system would bring to a municipality the size of Guelph cannot be overlooked,” states the report from Watson & Associates, which was hired by the city to look at potential changes to council’s composition.
Disadvantages of the at-large system, as noted in the report, include a requirement that candidates campaign throughout the city, potentially making it cost prohibitive to run; potential for “significant communities of interest and points of view” being unrepresented or underrepresented; candidates who appeal to voters in areas of higher voter turnout tend to be elected disproportionately; and the potentially large number of candidates on the ballot can be confusing for voters.
Among the advantages cited by consultants are: voters have a say in electing the entire council, not just the mayor and their ward representatives; electors have a wider array of voting options, not just those running in their ward; residents could approach all of council about concerns or issues rather than their just localized representatives; the prospect of acclamations is reduced because ballots include candidates from the entire city; and the system promotes a city-wide focus for councillors.
“Large and medium-size cities generally employ a ward system because it recognizes that there are real differences in different parts of the city and it is important that each of those areas is represented,” notes the report.
“An at-large election system is most often found in smaller, rural municipalities that do not have significant social or topographical differences within the municipality.”
Advantages of the ward system include: councillors are more “easily accessible” to residents and aware of local issues; “significant communities of interest” are more likely to be represented; it’s less likely “one particular point of view” will dominate council decisions; eliminates potential duplication of work by several councillors; and it “simplifies” the ballot options for voters.
On the flip side of that coin, the ward system can result in: councillors being elected on “minor or parochial issues” and lack perspective of what’s best for the city as a while; ward boundaries may divide communities of interest; restricted choice of candidates to vote for and greater possibility of acclamations; no alternative for residents if elected councillor is not performing effectively; population changes can lead to unequal workloads for councillors; and it may discourage new candidates if an incumbent is “generally popular” or popular with a dominant community of interest.
Mayor Cam Guthrie, the only member of council currently elected at-large and not directly impacted by this week’s decision, believes the ward system is working well for Guelph residents, though he didn’t always feel that way.
While seeking a councillor’s seat during the 2006 election, Guthrie recalls conversations about reverting to the at-large system.
“At that time, I actually thought that moving to an at-large system might be worthwhile. Since that time, I’ve really grown to embrace the ward system a lot more and understand some of the value that it brings to that local representative within a certain territory,” he told GuelphToday.
“I really do think the distribution of different boundaries that are being taken care of, little territories being taken care of by the individual councillors, I would lean toward the ward system.”
Prior to 1990, Guelph elected councillors – then known as aldermen – through the at-large system. It had been that way since 1909, though the number of councillors varied. At one time there were as many as 18.
A public survey – part of the consultation process used by consultants – saw two-thirds of respondents favour sticking with the ward system, with 11.3 per cent preferring the at-large process and 20.6 per cent opting for a mix of the two. Other survey participants were either “not sure” or “don’t know.”
The consultant’s report notes Niagara Falls is the largest Ontario municipality to use the at-large system to elect councillors. With a population of 88,701, as outlined in the 2016 census results, its council consists of eight councillors and a mayor.
How well the at-large system works there is a matter of opinion – Mayor Jim Diodati is a big fan but citizens’ group A Better Niagara plans to make switching to a ward system an election issue in 2022.
“I definitely prefer at-large,” Diodati said. “There’s a lot more big-picture thinking going on.”
Niagara Falls used a ward system prior to the 2004 election.
“If you’ve got a major issue in one ward, you’re always going to get out-voted if the other councillors don’t agree. You’ll never win that on votes,” Diadati said of the ward system. “But when you’re all one ward, you’re all concerned about every issue, not a specific issue to a specific ward. You start thinking as a city instead of as a ward.”
He also feels the at-large and ward systems attract different kinds of candidates.
“You tend to attract a higher-calibre councillor because it’s a bigger area, it’s a little more involved job, typically means more compensation, and you just draw in more business people, more experienced people because they like that bigger visioning,” he said of at-large.
“People are looking at the bigger picture rather than the smaller picture on a regular basis.”
Liz Benneian, one of four directors with A Better Niagara, also feels the systems attract different kinds of candidates, but she sees it in a less positive way.
“To campaign across an entire municipality costs a lot of money and that means that you most likely get candidates who are very well connected in the community, have deep-pocketed friends and who can sustain that over time so that they get elected again and again,” she said of at-large councillors.
“What you don’t get are younger people or diverse candidates, people who are maybe well-known in their particular part of the community but not necessarily well-known at-large.”
